# Talk:Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

I almost took this on as reviewer for a good article.   It looks like an interesting and encyclopedic topic and article.     What I saw immediately is immense reliance on primary sources.  This looks like it would be too big of a job to fix in the middle of a GA review and so I avoided the situation of probably being forced to fail an article by not taking it on for review.  Also, while there is no policy requirement for on-line references, the fact that nearly all of the references are off line (and with very abbreviated descriptions which I think that only legal experts could understand) would make it a near-impossible task to discern to what extent the material is supported by sources.  If you'd like me to take it on despite the above (in which case it might require much work to pass) please drop me a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to do so.  I hope that my comments are useful.   Looks like much good work has been done on this article.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I had deleted the above comment because I decided that it had a risk of influencing potential reviewers, and I did not want to do so.  Subsequiently someone de-nominated it because the main author and nominator is retired. After that I restored my comment for future reference. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 04:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I will start soon. Thanks, Yash! 04:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yash!, please feel free to contact me if there is anything that needs to be improved/corrected/fixed as you complete this GA review. The nominator recently retired, so they likely won't be available to make corrections during the GA review process. I am familiar with this case, and I am well versed in this subject area, so please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
It is okay to use common links such as Native American in the lead. So, please link "Native American".
"This case" -> "The case"
Remove "finally".
✅ - I edited the lead according to your suggestions, and I also edited the first sentence to clarify the Court's holding. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be changed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


### Background
Remove the main article template as it is used wrongly (the article is linked in the first sentence and we are talking about the background and not the region).
Unlink "Administrative subdivision".
Unlink "Navjo Nation" the second time it appears (in "Navjo tribe").
"The entire Navajo Nation" -> "The Navajo Nation".
Need a period after "enrolled members".
Why is "T" inside "[[]]" ("[T]he")?
✅ - I modified this section according to your suggestions. However, I did not change the Manuelito quotation (beginning with the letter "T" in brackets). I don't have access to this offline source, but I presume the first letter was placed in brackets because it is not capitalized in the source material. If you begin a sentence with a quotation, and the first word of the quoted material does not begin with a capital letter, you should use brackets to change the source material so that you can begin the sentence with a capital letter (see MOS:QUOTE). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Legislative background
Remove the main article template.
Use some better term than "shortfalls".
✅ - I changed the "main article" template to a "see also" template; I think it is useful to keep the "see also" link because the IDEAA provides additional information about a topic that is summarized in this subsection. However, I left the word "shortfall" in the article because it is a term of art in the law that is used to describe a situation when legislative appropriations fail to cover all actual expenses (see the explanation at this article). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Procedural  history
Link "State of New Mexico", only if 'State of New Mexico' refers to something other than 'New Mexico'.
✅ - I added a Wikilink to New Mexico. There was also a territory that preceded the state (see New Mexico Territory), so I think the link is helpful. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### District court on remand
"The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Chapter appealed." - ref?
✅ - I added a citation to the 2011 10th Circuit case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Circuit court, 2d appeal
What does "2d" in this sub-section mean?
"The court then noted that when" -> "The court noted that when".
✅ - I changed the "2d" notation to "second" (2d is sometimes used as a shorthand abbreviation for the word "second"). I also fixed changed "the court noted ..." per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


### Supreme Court
Link "Supreme Court of the United States".
✅ - I added the link per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Ramah Chapter
"Carter G. Phillips. Phillips" -> "Carter G. Phillips. He".
Shouldn't it be "complete" instead of "completed", in "...United States to perform a service and completed its obligations...".
✅ - For your first suggestion, I changed the language to say: "The Ramah Navajo Chapter was represented by Carter G. Phillips, who argued that  ...." As for your second suggestion, the word "completed" is correct here because it is referring to the fact that the Chapter already completed its obligations under the contract. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Amicus curiae
No references in this section.
✅ - I added a citation to the SCOTUSblog case summary, which has a complete list of amicus briefs filed in this case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Opinion of the Court
Shouldn't "court" be "Court"? It is "Court" in the lead.
"Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Kagan joined Sotomayor's opinion." - ref?
✅ - I changed word "court" (lowercase "C") to "Court" (capital "C"). I also added a citation to the last sentence, per your request. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


#### Dissent
"He would have reversed the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court. Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito." - ref?
✅ - I added a citation to the opinion, per your request. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


### Subsequent developments
What's the current status? I mean, were they payed? If yes, when? If no, why not?
✅ - I updated the section to include information about a 2015 settlement. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


### References
{{BBstyle}} can be added.
Although some editors use this template, I prefer to not use it because it displaces the column width of the references. If you feel strongly, I can add the template. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This will be it for now. I will have another go at the article once these issues have been addressed. Sorry for the delay. Yash! 10:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if there is more work that needs to be done. Thanks again for reviewing this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)