Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherman Minton/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:50, 18 May 2010 [1].

Sherman Minton

edit

Sherman Minton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a really interesting article I bet anyone would enjoy reading! (If this sounds disingenuous its because it is. I am begging for a review) Minton was a US Supreme Court Justice and a Senator, he is idolized to a degree in Southern Indiana. He is also ranked among the WORST justices on the Supreme court, and had a few interesting quirks. If you want to learn something interesting about the New Deal, or something interesting about the Supreme Court, this article is for you!

Also it is thoroughly researched, GA reviewed, Peer reviewed, and reviewed by a lawyer during its last candidacy here. I look forward to any reviews and will work to quickly resolve any issues which may arise. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Still no dab links and dead external links. Ucucha 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I cannot eat a Wikipedia article, but I can read and try to improve one. :)

  • "He replied to Republican attacks in the speech and claimed while the constitution should be upheld, it could not be eaten by the starving masses, therefore the needs of the masses were more important than the need to uphold the constitution." feels comma splicey. Semicolon after "masses"?
  • Check that aren't any more refs that have double periods, more than one "date" attribute in their tags, etc.
  • Date formats look good. I'd prefer just Month Day, Year throughout (even the accessdates) for consistency with the text, publish dates, and U.S. theme, but otherwise ok.

--an odd name 19:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these. [2] Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Month Day, Year (in full) as opposed to MM-DD-YYYY, but no biggie (I changed it). Thanks! --an odd name 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bust_of_Sherman_Minton_in_the_Rotunda_of_the_Indiana_Statehouse.jpg This is a derived work of a derived 3D art work, have you a reference that the original artwork is PD? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original work is not public domain, however it is owned by the state of Indiana. Under Indiana Code 5-14-3, the work can be freely copied unless the state submits in writing a notice that we may not to use it. I added a more appropriate template to the image page. If you still object I can remove the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tag again—retained copyright implies that it is not in public domain. However, I'm very concerned about the "unless the state submits in writing a notice that we may not to use it" part—if this is the case, that implies a revocable license, which would not be suitable for Commons. Thus, it would require non-free use, and need to be moved here to meet the relevant criteria. --an odd name 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could look the law up for exact verbage, but its my understanding that the state can send notice only if it is being used in a way that is grossly offensive or materially harms the states. I don't think either of these cases apply here, and that is the only reason the state does not make a full copyright release. I don't have a problem moving it over to the wikipedia or removing it from the article - I can find other useful images for the same section. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll give it another look, but it may be several days until I can get to it. I reviewed it for the first FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not get to it until Tuesday or Wednesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Thursday where I am !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • What is the reason for the redlinks in refs 109 and 142?
  • Page number formats should be consistent throughout: see refs 149, 154, 155

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are because I suspect that at some point there will be articles for those topics as is the case for all the other SCOTUS citations; WP:SCOTUS is in the process of creating articles for all the supreme court decisions, but haven't gotten to them yet. I removed the one for the 7th circuit case. I can remove them if you think it is appropriate. I've added the missing "p." s to the other citations. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Yes it is an interesting article. I have some prose and clarity questions.

  • Lead:
ascention ...? I got flak for using " ascension to the throne" (the reviewer said only Jesus ascends) in the War of the Bavarian Succession. Although I have no problem with the use of ascension here, at least can we spell it right?
Changed to "suceeded" —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
he was fiercely partisan and championed President Franklin D. Roosevelt's unsuccessful court packing plans in the Senate and became one of his top allies in the Senate through his partisan investigations of... how about he championed, because use use partisan later in the sentence....?
fixed, only using "partisan" once now —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minton also became a close friend of fellow senator Harry Truman, and was speculated to be on the short-list for several of Roosevelt's choices for Supreme Court Justices. These two parts of the sentence don't go together. Roosevelt didn't like Truman much.
Agreed. I've separated them. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to be re/elected These usages are awkward. Would you consider rewording these?
Reworded. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He served on the Supreme Court for seven years where he advocated judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism. ... well, yes, Aren't these terms implied opposites? If one supports restraint, wouldn't one necessarily oppose activism? .... From XXXX to XXXX he served on the Supreme Court, where he advocated judicial restraint in such decisions as....
True, I've pared that back. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initially a regular supporter of the majority opinions, he became a regular dissenter after the makeup of the court was altered due to the deaths and replacements of three of his fellow jurists. .... This could be clearer. After the shift in the composition of the Bench with the appointments of X and Y, Minton became a regular dissenting voice in Court decisions.
Fixed, I think. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His poor health forced his retirement in 1956...?
Changed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historians also note the stark contrast between his partisan liberal positions in the Senate, but his unusual shift to conservative judicial positions on the court. This is awkward. Perhaps "but" should be "and" Or.... Historians also note the start contrast between the partisan Senator and the conservative jurist.
Better now, I think. Check it out: "Historians also note the unusual stark contrast between his role as a partisan liberal Senator and his role as a conservative jurist." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His shift in position is attributed to the disdain he held for the court when it ruled unconstitutional New Deal legislation during his time in the Senate.... unconstitutional could probably come after New Deal legislation... But I also don't understand how this is an explanation of the shift.
I am not sure how to summarize this easily. When he was a senator, he railed against the court for ruling legislation unconstitutional, saying they didn't have the authority, etc, to do what they did. At that time though the legislation being challenged and ruled unconstitutional was liberal\socialist oriented. But when he was on the court, Congress had became much more conservative and was instead passing more conservative\capitalist oriented legislation. So, even though he personally disliked the legislation (because it was not his own position) he felt he had to uphold it because of his opinion that the court could not overrule the will Congress. So in that way, he was very conservative in his legal opinions, but liberal in his politics. Essentially he was in the school of original intent thinking, which was good for him when liberals were running Congress, bu backfired on him when he became a justice because of the change in the makeup of Congress. If that makes any sense..! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minton's legacy on the court lays in his attempts to keep peace on the court during a time when it riven by feuds between the other justices and his influence on the constitutionality of government loyalty tests. "Lays?" I'm confused about this sentence. Minton's legacy as a Supreme Court justice ... and what about his legacy as a Senator?
I don't know so much that he had a legacy as a Senator, really. There was nothing particularly noteworthy he did that succeeded. He was a freshman senator, the bills he authored were never passed, and his two big pushes (the media investigations and spearheading the court packing plan) never worked out. I've fixed the sentence though, I think. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Historians attribute his shift in position to the relationship between the New Deal senators, of which he was one, and the conservative court, which ruled much of the New Deal legislation as unconstitutional. By the time Minton became a justice, the positions were reversed: the Senate had become more conservative and the Court more liberal. As a Supreme Court Justice, Minton frequently played the role of peace-maker and consensus builder during a period when the Court was riven with feuds. He was also influential in the Court's position on government loyalty tests.
I've integrated this, I worry that the lead is getting a bit cumbersome though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few questions. Very interesting article. I'll post more later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you review! I look forward to more. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is improved, and I've tweaked a couple of verbs in the lead. I'll wait until you deal with the rest of Malleus' comments, before I post anything more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead is getting cumbersome. I've made some direct suggestions on it. Feel free to revert. I've removed some of the non-notable stuff, and consolidated some stuff. See if that works better for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support/pending resolution of issues raised by Tony1 and Steve (below). The lead is much better now, and although there are few minor glitches within the text itself, I'm sure those will be ironed out with the resolution of the issues below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is obviously pretty comprehensive, and it's generally pretty good. It ends pretty strongly I think, but there are a few rough edges before Minton's political career gets underway. No show-stoppers that I can see, but here are a few examples:
    • "He took an officers training course at Fort Benjamin Harrison in hope of earning a commission, but was not among those awarded." Awarded just doesn't seem like the right word here. You get awarded with something, in this case a commission I guess.
    • Some parts are very choppy; he did this ... he did that ... then he did the other, as in the last paragraph of the Education section: "He continued debating at Yale and won the Wayland Club prize for extemporaneous public speaking. He earned a masters degree from Yale in 1916. While at Yale Law School he helped to organize the university’s legal aid society. He received a post graduate degree."
      • I tried to fix this instance. I will read it over again and try to fix anymore I notice. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Roosevelt's death and Vice President Truman's ascention to the Presidency ...". I've never seen the word "ascention", at least never spelt like that and in that context.
    • "Sherman Minton was born on October 20, 1890 to John Evan and Emma Livers Minton in a four-room home ...". I'm struggling to see the relevance of the number of rooms his home had.
      • Removed, its one of the phrases here when I started. In the US, the size of a house is often used as a symbol of social status, especially in older times. In those days, log cabin or one room represented the lowliest, while a four-bedroom would indicate a middleclass home. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was the third of the family's five children and was nicknamed Shay because of his younger brother's inability to properly pronounce his name." It looks like we're talking about the younger brother's inability to properly pronounce his own name, not Sherman's.
    • "The death was an emotional blow to Minton, who thereafter refused to attend church and was known to speak against God ...". What's the significance of "known to" here?
      • There is a little controversy over Minton's status as a "catholic" justice. Many people list him as catholic, but in reality he was agnostic at best. His wife drug him to mass after he retied from the court. This sentence helps establish his break with religion. I removed that part of the sentance though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... Minton's father remarried to Sarah Montague on December 3, 1901". Remarried to seems rather idiosyncratic phrasing.
      • That is common phrasing in the US for widowers and divorcees, but I removed the "re". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As Minton grew older, he continued getting into trouble with the neighborhood." Can you get into trouble with a neighborhood, as opposed to in one?
    • "... he took a job as a Swift Company salesman in the Fort Worth area to continue saving money". Continue saving money? Didn't he take the job to earn money?
      • Well, he earned the money so he could save it and return to school. Changed it to "...to earn money for college." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As commissioner, Minton successfully imposed regulations that cut the total of all state telephone bills by $525,000". He wasn't cutting the total, he was reducing the bills.

Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am going to read through again and try to tighten up and fix and rough spots. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm not able to do a full review today, but I did get through the first half of the article after lunch. The overall quality of this article is good, but I do have several concerns so far, listed below:
  • "Sherman Minton was born on October 20, 1890 to John Evan and Emma Livers Minton in home in Georgetown Indiana.[1]"
There should be a comma between the city and the state.
Fixed, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of the serial comma varies in this article. It should be standardized, one way or the other. Compare "There he participated in the football, baseball and track teams." with "Minton and his unit served on the front at Verdun, Soissons, and in Belgium."
Fixed this instance, I didn't notice any others. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Minton grew older, he was frequently into trouble with the people in his neighborhood."
Either "in trouble" or "got into trouble".
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minton stated on several occasions his personal preference to affirm to the lower courts."
I suggest recasting to "affirm the decisions of the lower courts."
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court's most notable decisions with the longest impact were in the cases of Sunkist v. Sunkist and Kellogg’s v. General Mills, making it possible for different companies to use the same brand and product name as long as they produced dissimilar products.[101]"
Confusing; while Sunkist and Sunkist might have made dissimilar products, Kellogg's and General Mills make similar products.
In Sunkist v Sunkist, one was a bread brand, while the other was a fruit brand, they got to keep their names. Kellogs and General Mills each sold a oatmeal cereal, one called "Oaties", the other "Wheat Oaties"; General Mills was forced to change the name because the products and names were top similar. So one case was in regards to a "brand name", and the other in regards to a "product name". Kellogs v General Mills came first, and won forcing the stoppage of GM's use of "Wheat Oaties", which was a new precedent. Other companies then wanted to block their competitors and launched similar suits. So in Sunkist v Sunkist, the court then had to set a new precedent to limit their first precedent, resulting in case law allowing names to be same, so long as products were dissimilar. I will think how I can summarize that better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the case of United States v. Knauer, the government was denying the wife of a United States Citizen entry into the country because of her possible ties to Nazism."
Should "Citizen" be capitalized here?
Probably not, fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a much criticized majority opinion which Minton co-authored with Judge Major, he stated that the "alien did not have any legal right—his status was a political decision to be made by officials in government."[109]"
Wasn't the alien a woman?
I noticed that when adding the quote. I believe he was generalizing at this point in the opinion. I've changed the to [her], for better flow. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minton is the only native of Indiana to be appointed to the court."
This sentence comes right in the middle of the prose discussing his Supreme Court nomination, long before his actual appointment. It seems odd here, and might work better near "As of 2010, Minton remains the last member of Congress, sitting or former, to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.[129]"
Moved —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you review! I look forward to more comments. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After loosing his reelection campaign..."
Typo alert.
Fixed! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to biographer William Radcliff, the majority opinion authored by Minton in the 1953 case Barrows v. Jackson, was his most skillfully written opinion."
The second comma in this sentence should be nuked.
Fixed, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At times, their ideological disagreements escalated to personal disagreements, leading justices to refused to speak with each other."
Should be 'refuse'.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" consists of mostly fully-cited bibliographies, with a couple of exceptions. What is the ISBN for Barnes, Catherine A. (1978) Men of the Supreme Court: Profiles of the Justices, pp. 111–113.? What volume or supplement is Minton in, in the Dictionary of American Biography?
ISBN added. Volume added too. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images:
File:Sherman Minton's official United States Supreme Court photograph.jpg Public domain, as a US government work.
File:1920 Sherman Minton Democratic Primary campaign poster.jpg Public domain; work published before 1923.
File:Shermanminton.jpg Public domain, as a US government work.
File:Harry S Truman, bw half-length photo portrait, facing front, 1945-crop.jpg Public domain; US government work.
File:Warren Supreme Court.jpg Public domain; US government work.
File:Bust of Sherman Minton in the Rotunda of the Indiana Statehouse.jpg Charles, does the State of Indiana maintain an official website which states Indiana Code 5-14-3? You could link to the code's webpage itself in the template, making it easier to verify the license.
In regards to the final image, here is the law [3]. You have to read it carefully, it defines a public record as "any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics." By that definition, this bust, which is owned by the Department of Administration which oversees the Indiana Statehouse, is a public record. Therefore, "Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency", which "includes transcribing by handwriting, photocopying, xerography, duplicating machine, duplicating electronically stored data onto a disk, tape, drum, or any other medium of electronic data storage, and reproducing by any other means." It also says, "A public agency may not deny or interfere with the exercise of the right [to copy]." - That said, I can see where there are possible conflicts with the public domain requirements of the commons, and I don't have any problem removing that image from this article, I have other equally useful ones I could replace it with which are more clearly public domain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to remove the image; in fact, please don't. A simple link to the law in the licensing text like this is certainly sufficient. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing. I've tweaked the lead. There are yet more issues there to deal with. Probably the jump-the-gun problem isn't as bad in the body of the article, but an independent audit is required. Shouldn't be too long a job, but it must be someone new to the text.

  1. Why is "United States Senate" linked twice in the first two sentences, once by pipe?
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've fixed a few little irritants in the lead.
  2. "An advocate of judicial restraint, initially, Minton was a regular supporter of the majority opinions; after a shift in the composition of the Bench, he became a regular dissenter." But you haven't told us that the Bench was already characterised by judicial restraint. Cart before horse.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Does MoS say to capitalise Judge? Why not Jurist, then? I think at least when there's no name adjacent, you don't capitalise.
I don't know of an MOS guideline on this. I would say capitalize "Justice", but not judge or jurist. Literature typically capitalizes when referring to the Supreme Court, but not lower courts. MOS does say to capitalize when using the term as part of a title before a proper name. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Legal historians rank Minton among the Supreme Court's worst Justices, primarily because he almost uniformly ruled in favor of the government." Also jumps the gun ... so those legal historians were angled towards an anti-government-is-good-stance? We'd like to know first. "always" better than "uniformly". And it was the federal government, yes?
  2. He ruled in favor of government at all levels; the groundbreaking loyalty test case was in favor a state government, for example. The historians, according to Gugin, angle in favor of judicial activism and against judicial restraint. I've changed to "order over freedom", to quote one of my sources. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ah, now we find out in passing that he was "conservative" as a jurist. Meaning "right wing"? I'm getting confused between judicial restraint, anti-government, and rightwing politics: they can co-exist in almost any permutation in one judge, depending on the sociopolitical context and their personal attitudes. This needs to be made clear and easy for the readers by announcing what he was known as, first, rather than in passing like this.
Minton was very.. complex. He was liberal in politics and very partisan in that regard. However he was one of the strongest proponents of judicial restrain to ever be on the court. When he was on the court, Congress was relatively conservative and as a result he ended up supporting decisions that favored conservative legislation and government power - but he actually disagreed with the laws personally. This is explain in more detail in the article - he was liberal in politics, but conservative in judicial philosophy. One can't really look at the court in political terms. In the context of the court, conservative means original intent, judicial restraint, liberal means living document and judicial activism. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Minton worked to pay his high school expenses"—sounds like his school charged fees: is that right? Tony (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that may be my fault, Tony. The lead was getting cumbersome, and losing focus on the notability-ness of the subject and I was trying to help consolidate some of the text. It wasn't uncommon, I think, for high schools to charge fees at that point--even up to WWII. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He did have to pay some of his school expenses, but it was more aimed at the fact that he was on his own at the time, his family was living in Texas, and he was totally supporting himself and paying his own way in life. I've reworded this better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's within touching distance on 1a. I've been applying a light brush section-by-section whenever I've found a few minutes spare during the day, but the article is a lot longer than I realised, and I'll struggle to get through it all in the next couple of days. I'll keep plugging away, but it could really use someone with an uninterrupted hour or two to spare. Anyway, here's some stuff I couldn't resolve while copy-editing:
    • "His father and younger siblings soon joined him after the two brothers' income was able to cover their expenses."—I can't get my head around what this means. They moved to Texas after Minton and his older brother were able to afford to pay their moving expenses? They joined the brothers at the meat packing plant? They just moved to Texas in general? Ambiguous.
    • "autumn"—do you have the month, for our southern-hemisphere readers? (I thought I remembered your being asked this above, but I can't see it now.)
    • "His opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Arthur R. Robinson, accused Minton of playing Santa Claus by trying to give everyone presents"—the Santa Claus / presents bit might be better off with a direct quotation, as the wording here feels too informal.
      • The source does not give a full quote, I can put "Santa Clause" and "presents" in quotes though, quoting the source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Minton soon backtracked and explained his position again."—doesn't seem to make sense. He both recanted and reaffirmed his "You Cannot Eat the Constitution" stance?
  • More as and when I get a chance. Otherwise, nice work again. Best, Steve T • C 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He stopped using the phrase, but held to the principle espoused. I've tried to clear that up. Thank you for your efforts to improve the prose, I appreciate it! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've struck those points above (though I have fresh ones below!) Steve T • C 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment from Steve T • C I'm quite happy with most of the prose now. I'm not saying the others won't be able to pick nits—they undoubtedly will!—but there shouldn't be anything major to overcome and I'll take another look myself before the end. I have a few more issues that were unresolvable during copy-editing, some prose-related, some content:
    • "Legal historians rank Minton among the Supreme Court's worst Justices, primarily because he almost always ruled in favor of order over freedom."—harsh words indeed, especially for such a prominent position at the head of a paragraph in the lead. I don't think this adequately summarises the "Death and legacy" section, which presents a far more balanced view, even if few of his positions had long term impact.
      • I've expanded on that just a bit and reordered things. I've balanced "worst justice" with a more sympathetic view. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Democratic Senator Edward R. Burke ... [accused] him of damaging the Democrat's cause, which led Minton to leave the Lobby Investigation Committee."—is this a misplaced apostrophe? The Democrat's (i.e. Minton's) cause, or Democrats' cause (that of the party)?
    • Two sections are named "Nomination and confirmation", which leads to navigation issues.
    • I wonder if everything from "Minton informed Eisenhower ..." in the "Regular dissenter" section would be more appropriate in "Retirement". Just a suggestion.
    • If I've a criticism about the article as a whole (rather than these resolvable nitpicks), it's that it is to a certain extent missing the man behind the career. It comes as a genuine surprise to read in "Regular dissenter", for example, that Minton was "gregarious, backslapping [and] popular among his colleagues". It's the first time we've come across this kind of description of Minton; we're only finding out about the personal this late in the article? (And as an aside, this looks especially odd after we're told that Minton did not enjoy his later time on the Court, and that he found himself with little support in many of his opinions.) I suppose it's unavoidable if this is all the sources cover about the man, but it is a shame.
      • The sources I have go into a little more information on his personal life than in is the article. He was essentially a friend to friends, and an enemy to his enemies; he had many of both. I have tried to include interesting events to explain this somewhat, explaining his extreme partisanship, his troubled youth, disdain for religion, close friendships with likeminded people like Truman and Earl Major, but complete dislike for people like Eisenhower and Hugo Black. The sources I have though are wrote by people who did not know him personally and their works are based mostly off his writings and personal letters, so their summations are largely caricatures rather than detailed personality descriptions. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's all the weather. Best, Steve T • C 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sherman_Minton/archive2&oldid=1078806577"