Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Wiley Rutledge/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiley Rutledge

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to FAC in the not-so-distant future and would appreciate any and all feedback, whether on prose quality, readability, sourcing, MOS issues, or anything else. Pinging Kavyansh.Singh, who was kind enough to offer to take a look. Many thanks in advance for all comments, large or small. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Feel free to skip suggestions you do not find useful:

  • Link liberal in the lead, for non-experts
    • Done.
  • "by voice vote" — "by a voice vote"
    • I changed this one, but then I changed it back because the Ngrams actually suggest that "by voice vote" is quite a bit more common. I don't have a firm opinion either way.
  • "Rutledge voted to void the war-crimes conviction" — our article does not hyphenate 'War crime'.
    • De-hyphenated.
  • What is '52 Stat. 584', and do we need that in the infobox?
    • It's the law that created the judgeship. This was in the article before I got there, although it seems to be pretty standard. I can change this if you feel strongly about it.
  • "for Roscoe Pound's" — 's should be outside the link
    • Fixed. I don't think this happens anywhere else in the article, but let me know if you see something I've missed.
  • "unsuccessful "court-packing" plan," — either both quotes inside the link or none, I think.
    • Done.
  • "The full Senate speedily confirmed him" — what does 'full senate' mean?
  • "But the White House was uncomfortable" — I'd avoid this wording, and instead specify President Roosevelt.
    • Very well.
  • I'd change 'In the words of' to 'According to' at multiple places in the article, which I feel is less wordy.
    • I've replaced most of them.
  • "the President told his nominee" — Per MOS:JOBTITLE, I'd lowercase 'p'
    • This falls under the "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" exception, I think.
  • " of honor, and of integrity....These times" — should be a three-dotted ellipsis with a non-breaking space ({{Nbsp}}) before it and a normal space after it. Same at many other instances.
    • Done, throughout. (I was always taught to use four dots at the end of a sentence – three for the ellipsis plus one for the period – but the MOS evidently disagrees.)
  • I think that the Langer quote is long enough to deserve a blockquote
    • I think it's a bit too long, actually, so I've just shortened it. (A tidbit for you: later in life, Langer, whom our article calls "one of the most colorful characters in North Dakota history", was so frustrated that no one from his home state had been appointed to the Court that he simply decided to oppose all nominees until a North Dakotan was nominated. He continued the fight until his death, though he wasn't successful: to this day, not a single Supreme Court justice has called North Dakota home.)
  • Can we do something about the contrast of File:Berryman_Supreme_Court_cartoon_(6_Oct._1946).png? Just a suggestion for FAC.
  • "He regularly sided with the Court's liberal bloc, which included Justices Black, Douglas, and Murphy" — We were told this in the first para of Supreme Court section.
    • I've restructured this paragraph.
  • 'CIO' is never repeated in the article; do we need to define the acronym?
    • Acronym removed.
  • " to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'"" — Suggesting to use {{' "}}
    • Done.
  • The following quotes, I think, can be easily paraphrased in Wikipedia's voice:
    • In Canon's words, he "believed passionately in the liberty of the individual"
    • the scholar Robert J. Sickles characterized him as "one of the most liberal justices ever to sit on the Court"
      • Both done. I've probably been using more quotations than I should in this article, so let me know if you see any others that would be better off paraphrased.

To continue from "Wartime cases"; a first-rate article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much: that's all very helpful. I look forward to the rest of your comments! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who commanded Imperial Japanese Army" — I think we are missing the definite article, as used by our article.
    • Reworded.
  • "during the Second World War." — I think that the standard American English usage would be "World War II"; British English would be "Second World War". Same in the lead.
    • Sure; changed.
  • "influence, however, cannot be gainsaid....The Court has" — ellipsis
    • Fixed.
  • "the detention of 110,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry — including 70,000 native-born American citizens" — you surely mean "the detention of approximately 110,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry — including approximate 70,000 native-born American citizens"
    • Done.
  • "after Pearl Harbor," — "after the attack on Pearl Harbor,"
    • Done
  • "His focus on the law's rationality mirrored the strategy pursued by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender." — The reader would be benefited from specifying that Ginsburg herself served on the court.
    • I've added "future Supreme Court justice" since this was several decades before her appointment.
  • I think the $3.5 million fine value would greatly benefit from {{Inflation}}.
    • Done, I think.
  • "He was universally regarded as a" — I'd replace 'universally' with 'widely'
    • My source says "by all accounts", which I think is closer to "universally", though I can change it if you disagree.
  • "Rutledge's funeral service, which was conducted by A. Powell Davies, was held at All Souls' Unitarian Church on September 14." — modification specified.
    • Fixed.
  • "as of 2008, his physical remains are held at" — Why is this 14-year-old information important today? And it is sourced to a 1983 source??
    • Oops: good catch. I had meant to cite the revised 2008 version of this article but inadvertently cited the original. (That's what happens when I get lazy and copy the citation from another of my articles.) Fixed now. The 2008 source is the most recent one I have for this statement, although I have no reason to believe that anything's changed. I think that information about where someone is buried is appropriate for a biographical article, although I'm glad to remove it if you think that's best.
  • "a similar 1993 assessment found that he had fallen to thirty-fifth place" — both of these conducted by the same organization?
    • They were both conducted by Roy M. Mersky and Albert P. Blaustein. I can mention that if you think it's relevant.
  • Some of the "Further reading" books are cited in the text.
    • Since the references section contains all the sources a reader would need, I think I'll just remove the further reading section altogether, which is what I did for Melville Fuller (on the advice of several reviewers). Let me know if you disagree.

It is a pleasure to read this well researched and well written article on a truly remarkable person! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words and the helpful feedback. Do let me know if you see anything else that might need to be changed. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Few more nitpicks:

  • A caption for the lead image would be nice.
    • After I get a few copyright details ironed out, I think I'm going to replace that image with a different one, so I'll add a caption at that point.
  • We have 'BA' in the infobox, and 'A. B.' in the prose
    • Changed to A. B., per the source
  • "during the Second World War" — should be 'World War II'
    • Oops; missed that one. Done now.
  • We have thrice mentioned in the lead that he was liberal; too many times in my opinion.
    • Rewritten.
  • "Rutledge died in 1949, having suffered a massive stroke" — Where in prose is it mentioned that the stroke was 'massive'?
    • It was originally in the body but was removed; I've added it back.
  • "significantly more conservative Sherman Minton to replace him. He had served on the Supreme Court for" — I think it should be specified that 'he' means 'Rutledge' here, not 'Minton'.
    • Rewritten.
  • "native of western Tennessee" is mentioned twice.
    • Fixed. (I'm not really sure how I managed to write exactly the same thing in two consecutive sentences...)
  • We have a mixture of 'Rutledge Sr.', 'Rutledge', and 'Wiley Sr.'
    • "Rutledge Sr." changed to "Wiley Sr." since MOS:SAMESURNAME seems to favor "forename suffix" order. I've left "the elder Rutledge" since I think that's clear enough.
  • "influenced Rutledge's own view of the law" — I'd remove 'own'
    • Done.
  • "for the President's unsuccessful "court-packing" plan, " — Our article has even 'plan' inside the quotes
    • Fixed.
  • "by adding justices to it" — does "by increasing the number of justices" sound better?
    • Sure.
  • "In a matter of days" — I'd remove this
    • Done.
  • It appears that the "See also" section is bit too long and less related with Rutledge.
    • I've trimmed it a bit to resemble the "See also" section in Sherman Minton, also an FA. I can remove a couple more items if you'd like.

That is all on another read. I did not find much to pick in the Supreme Court section, probably because I am not an expert in that field. Otherwise looking good. If you wish to read about a rather less-known woman, who otherwise has a great achievement, this PR is in need of reviewers. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything should be taken care of; many thanks for all your feedback. I'll try to pay Ms. Abbott a visit—maybe sometime next week? Ping me if I forget. Thanks again for all the time you've spent looking at Rutledge: I really do appreciate it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

You were kind enough to ask me to look in at this peer review, and it has been a pleasure to do so. I enjoyed making Justice Rutledge's acquaintance, and it is not for a foreigner to comment on the moral difference between him and the current lot of justices in the US Supreme Court, so I shan't. Be that as it may, here are my few suggestions, all on the prose. I know too little to comment on the content.

  • Lead
  • "the Roosevelt administration's now-infamous decision" – decidedly WP:EDITORIAL I'd say.
  • "Rutledge died in 1949 … after only six years' service on the Supreme Court" – the "only" also seems a touch editorial.
    • Both removed.
  • Early life and education
  • "He took a major" – presumably an American term; it means nothing to a non-American and could do with explaining if you're going to mention it.
    • Changed to "studied", which should be clearer.
  • "he thus moved to Bloomington" – "thus"? Perhaps "therefore", but I don't think you need either.
    • Reworded, sans "thus".
  • Career
  • "Associate Professor of Law at his alma mater" – being an elderly, not to say antique, Englishman, I am given to capitalising job titles like this, but the Wikipedia manual of style thinks otherwise, and would have you call him "associate professor of law".
    • Done.
  • "A Supreme Court whose decisions stymied his agenda" – I'm not wild about "stymied": a bit slangy, perhaps? Something such as "frustrated" or "thwarted" might be more encyclopaedic in tone. (My usual additional objection to "stymied" – that it is not only slangy but also out of date – doesn't apply in this case, as the stymie was not dropped from the rules of golf until after Rutledge's death.)
    • Changed to "thwarted".
  • Supreme Court (1943–1949)
  • "Rutledge served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1943 until his death in 1949 – a period of only six years" – I still don't think we need the "only", and I'm not persuaded that your readers need to be told that 1943 to 1949 is six years.
    • "a period of only six years" removed.
  • "Rutledge voted in favor of individuals who brought suit against the government at a higher rate than any of his colleagues" – I don't suppose anyone will mistake your meaning, but it still might be as well to eliminate the ambiguity here, on the lines of "Rutledge voted more often in favor of individuals who brought suit against the government than any of his colleagues" or "Rutledge voted more often than any of his colleagues in favor of individuals who brought suit against the government".
    • Very well; done
  • Japanese internment
  • We could do with a date in the opening sentence for the administration's order to detain these people.
    • Added.

And those are all the quibbles and carps I can come up with. This seems to me a fine article, certainly of FA quality, and if you take it to FAC please ping me and I'll gladly look in. - Tim riley talk 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these very helpful comments, all of which I have endeavored to implement. Do let me know if you notice any other issues, and thanks again for taking a look: I really do appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Wiley_Rutledge/archive1&oldid=1095923067"