(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
The word "supposedly" in the first sentence of "The Path to the Supreme Court" has no explanation until the second next section, in "Trial of Kagama" and footnote 7. This should be explained sooner, ideally before the term "supposedly" is used.
First sentence of "Arguments" has a faulty parallel construction, resulting in confusing wording (you can't omit the verb in the second clause if the construction isn't actually parallel). Same sentence, there either needs to be an article before Solictor General, or no comma afterward.
There's a missing word(s) or other typo in the second sentence of "The Supreme Court's Decision".
"Reservation" is sometimes capitalized when used apart from a proper name; I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. At the very least, it needs to be consistent, which it isn't presently.
Footnotes 2 and 3 should use a consistent sentence structure.
Consistency within subsection headings, see "discussion" below.
Pass
(b) (MoS)
Lead section: Add at least a short sentence describing the modern criticism of the ruling. Is the citation at the end necessary?
Layout: "Further reading" goes after footnotes and references, see WP:ORDER.
The subsection "Consequences of the decision" has no references, and some of those statements are clearly contentious. I've added {{cn}} tags on the worst offenders.
Beyond that, I see no OR issues.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
(b) (focused)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
The picture of Crow Dog is a bit too big, as he was not even part of the case (although an important part of the context).
Are there any pictures of Kagama, Iyouse, or Jenks available?
Bonus points: MOS:HEAD states that section headings should be in sentence case, not title case, and this applies to subsections as well. I'd suggest using sentence case for all of the subsection headings, but this is not required to pass the GA review. —Darkwind (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They *do* need to be self-consistent within the article, however. Some of the subsections are in sentence case, some are in title case. Pick one and stick with it. —Darkwind (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1.(a), bullet 1, added sentence to preceding section ("The crime") stating that the indictment alleged it occurred on the rez, when it was north of the rez.
1.(a), bullet 2, fixed.
1.(a), bullet 3, fixed.
1.(a), bullet 4, fixed, reservation is now lower-case except in name of the rez itself.
1.(a), bullet 5, changed fn3 to the structure of fn2. If I am misunderstanding what you are getting at, let me know, but I basically made fn3 into a full sentence.
1.(b), bullet 1, removed cite, added sentence on modern criticism.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass