The Notes section is a bit inconsistent. I see some full sentences, some fragments, some ending with punctuation, some without, etc. I suggest writing them all as complete sentences ending with punctuation.
"in south-central South Dakota on its border with Nebraska." Perhaps a more concise way to describe the location would be "near modern-day CITY, South Dakota."
There is not a modern-day city in the area. The current reservation is almost 2,000 square miles (5,000 sq km) in size, and at the time of the murder covered about 5 times that amount of area. The nearest cities are Yankton, SD, approximately 200 miles to the east, and Rapid City, SD, approximately 200 miles to the west. GregJackPBoomer!20:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This treaty provided that "If bad men among the Indians..."" Although this quotation does serve to highlight how much the English language has changed over the centuries, I am of the opinion that a modern-day paraphrasing would be more helpful to the lay reader.
Better, but the new language seems to assume that the reader already knows what "Indian Agent" refers to. I had never encountered the phrase before. --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the United States passed a law in 1877 (19 Stat. 176) ... This started the Black Hills War" How exactly is it possible for a law passed in 1877 to start a war in 1876?
One question that is not explicitly answered in the Background section: Was the Black Hills War still ongoing when the crime was committed, or had it already finished?
"It was believed that the killing occurred that day as the result of the two men meeting" Some ambiguity here. This could either be interpreted as Spotted Tail meeting and killing the crippled guy (a death which Crow Dog later avenged), or as Crow Dog meeting and killing Spotted Tail.
Spotted Tail did not kill the crippled guy, he had killed another warrior, Big Mouth, some time earlier. Fixed the paragraph by showing Crow Dog and Spotted Tail meeting. GregJackPBoomer!21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"by Crow Dog making a restitution payment..." Payment to whom?
So he divvied up $600 among the family, 8 horses, and... a blanket? What would the blanket do with its share of the money? I'm kidding, of course, but word order does matter. I've tweaked it a bit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Crow Dog was represented by A. J. Plowman" Any background info available for this guy? Even something as simple as "Crow Dog was represented by A. J. Plowman, a white lawyer from North Dakota" would work. It just seems weird to introduce a name without giving the reader any idea who the person is.
"despite the fact that there were Indian witnesses that stated ... that Spotted Tail had a bad temper" Err, how exactly is this relevant? I don't think the victim having had a bad temper has ever been considered mitigating or exculpatory evidence.
Would you mind transcribing the relevant part of the source here? I'm curious to see if we can find a way to rephrase this that makes it seem more relevant without losing the original meaning of the text. --Cryptic C62 · Talk19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Plowman recalled a number of Brules who had earlier testified to Spotted Tail's violent character. Brave Bull remembered that Chasing Hawk, an eyewitness, had said to him: 'Old man, I am going to tell you something. Spotted Tail had a pistol and I know it well, and if Crow Dog had not been quick Spotted Tail would have killed Crow Dog.' Brave Bull further noted that Spotted Tail's reputation was '...not good. I never knew any good of him.'" Harring, Crow Dog's Case, p. 123. GregJackPBoomer!18:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! Here's how I would tweak the phrase in question: "despite testimonies from Indian witnesses stating that Spotted Tail had killed a rival once before, that Spotted Tail drew a pistol on Crow Dog, and that Spotted Tail's intention was to kill Crow Dog..." These claims, presented in this order, make it much clearer why the trial was viewed as a sham. Do you agree? --Cryptic C62 · Talk23:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The first statute prohibited murder on federal land, the second statute applied the first statute to reservations, and the last had specific exceptions to prosecution. Matthews felt that this last section..." Which statutes? The last section of what? Surely the U.S. legal code was a bit more specific in its nomenclature than "the law dealing with Indians".
The footnotes are helpful, but the phrase "the law dealing with Indians" still strikes me as being overly vague. Were these federal statutes or state? What section and title of the legal code did they appear in? The lay reader might not find these things to be very interesting, but the expert audience might want to know. --Cryptic C62 · Talk19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see "habeas corpus" italicized sometimes, and sometimes not. It should be consist throughout the article, and I believe the best choice would be to italicize throughout.
"Shocked by the Supreme Court's decision, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act in response" And what exactly is the MCA? The sentences that follow this one do not clarify the matter.
The explanation, "The Major Crimes Act placed seven serious felony offenses (with amendments over the years, it is now fifteen) under the jurisdiction of the federal government.", doesn't mention Indian tribes, lands, or individuals. As such, the significance and relevance of this new law are not clear. --Cryptic C62 · Talk00:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
