The third sentence, starting with "This study...", seems a bit out of place in a lead section. Wikipedia's lead sections seem to rarely refer to single studies, but try to give a general overview of a topic. Consider changing the wording or making more general, introductory claims.
The lead section needs more citations backing up its claims.
The added content in the "History ..." and "Federal government efforts" sections could be better reflected and summarized in the lead section.
The tone of some parts of the article verge on the edge between neutral and evaluative. It's crucial to fairly and accurately depict the violence and miseries that this topic covers, but for a encylopedia it matters that this is done with a neutral, non-judgmental tone. For example in the first sentence of the lead section, I'd consider rewording it slightly and aiming for a more neutral introduction.
Some of the past content which was deleted seemed appropriate to the article, such as the sentence on the FBI investigating and then deciding whether a case should be handled by tribal laws. It seems the article would benefit from keeping some of this content.
I'm unsure how relevant the specifics of the story of Pocahontas is to the history section and it might be worth considering making a more general claim along the lines of "Native American women have faced a long history of violence [...], as seen in early cases of Pocahontas [reference] or the case of ___ [reference]."
I'd personally call the paragraph "Statistics and data" just "Statistics", but that's up to a choice of style.
The section "Federal government efforts" could probably be more concisely worded.
The end of the article has the template instruction box remaining which should be removed.
The end of the article has the template outline remaining.
For the added content, there are too few citations in general. The added sentences in the first paragraphs need justification and a source. Similarly, most sentences, claims, and paragraphs in the section "Federal government efforts" need citations and sourcing.
The link for citation 1 is broken.
Citation number 1 is not the actual source for the claim. The linked article links to a summary which again cites the proper source under citation 14.
Citation 2 and 3 are the same, both should refer just to citation 2.
Citation 5's description only describes the general website ("Teachinghistory.org") but should rather describe the specific linked article ("Teaching History: American Indian Women" or similar).
Almost none of of the original article's citations seem to be remaining in the reworked version. This might be fine, but it's worth double-checking that none of them are helpful secondary sources or support important content in the article.
