(Addressed issues moved to talk page)Neelix (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Support. Looks good. I have copyedited the article for the remaining grammatical errors. - Neelix (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
(the addressed comments may be worth moving to the talk page, for readability) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Neelix (talk·contribs), for the Support! As to minor formatting issues on this FAC, I agree with Crisco 1492 (talk·contribs) it makes sense to move addressed comments to the talk page, or at the very least, strikeout the text of the addressed points. — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
"the book begins by" -> "the book starts by" to avoid the b b b
"portion" is marked; consider the unmarked "part"?
MOS says you don't have to square-bracket the lower case when embedding a quotation within a WP sentence: "if there is ...", rather than the bumpy "[i]f there is ...". Unless there's some particular point in indicating that it's the start of a sentence rather than the start of a clause within a sentence ... I can't see it.
Less ambiguous if "to suppress criticism and freedom of speech by citizens" were switched to "to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens", but there may be a reason for not doing that.
"Richard H. Fallon in Harvard Magazine", but "Jeffrey Rosen writing for The New York Times".
Any way of avoiding the rep here? "Jeremy Waldron reviewed the work for The New York Review of Books" ... I can't think of one at the moment.
"to which he devoted a chapter"—ref to his book or "this criticism? Also, was it "criticism in his book" or elsewhere?
This is a very long lead into a quotation: "The title of the book derives from an admonition by Justice Holmes in his dissenting opinion in the 1929 case of United States v. Schwimmer that the First Amendment is particularly necessary amidst eras in U.S. history in which there is a risk of suppression of speech and dissent due to increased fear and upheaval:" Perhaps period after "Schwimmer" and "In this opinion, he ..."? "Amidst" is rather old-fashioned.
Nice to see one of our main experts in the US Supreme Court preparing a nom. Tony(talk) 08:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Response to comments by Tony1
Changed "begins by" to "starts by"
Copyedited this sentence a bit.
Removed the square-bracket the lower case when embedding a quotation within a WP sentence, per MOS.
"to suppress criticism and freedom of speech by citizens" now switched to "to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens".
Changed to "Jeffrey Rosen in The New York Times".
Changed from "reviewed" to "commented", to avoid rep.
Added a comma to this sentence to make this clearer.
Broke this sentence up in two, per suggestion.
Removed word, "amidst", per recommendation, above.
Last two paragraphs of the lede might be worth merging.
Any information on the actual writing of the book? I note that Neelix suggested the writer section be pulled, but if the writer had discussed how he wrote the book in the media, or had previously published work on freedom of speech, this would be relevant information.
walks the reader - non formal
the government led by President John Adams - Perhaps the federal government, under President John Adams, ...
President/president - when used as a general noun and not an honourific this should be a miniscule p
Per above comments by Neelix (talk·contribs), I already removed the entire "Author" subsection. That is now gone. To then add it back would therefore unfortunately conflict with that prior recommendation by Neelix (talk·contribs). However, there is some information on the motivations of the author in the Themes section. There really wasn't a whole lot of commentary on this in secondary sources, other than what the author already said in the book itself. Therefore, that info is already contained in the Contents section.