Talk:David J. Brewer/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MaxnaCarta (talk · contribs) 06:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion points
Lead
 * Issue to address: In the second sentence of lead, you describe Brewer as a "very" conservative justice. "Very" is a qualifier, and I recommend removing this. Open to your response.
 * Response from EW: Reworked.
 * Addressed?: ✅


 * Issue to address: Love that you use the Oxford comma!
 * Response from EW: NA
 * Addressed?: NA

Supreme Court (1890-1910)
 * Issue to address: "Brewer has been described as an extremely conservative justice" - by whom? I checked the source for this. Across 11 pages I do not see this specific qualifier used. In fact, the source states "No justice in the history of the Supreme Court has taken a more liberal hand in the affects that affect the nation at large, nor has more freely exercised the right of comment on matters of human welfare". First thought - wow - was the author of this piece aware of Ginsberg? Ha. Anyway, obviously he was conservative, but we should have a pinpoint source or quote for this claim I feel. Text-source integrity could be improved by using a specific page, rather than a long range for claims.
 * Response from EW: In this citation style (which is an uncommon one—apologies for the confusion), the page number is cited with Template:Rp. So for this sentence, we have Brewer has often been described as an extremely conservative justice.[18]:45, meaning that the claim is found on page 45 of source number 18. That page says "The Kansan...has been depicted as the embodiment of extreme judicial conservatism...", which I think that supports the "described as an extremely conservative justice" claim. The sentence is also followed by a quote from Paul, which gives the reader an example of someone arguing that he's extremely conservative. Let me know if there's something else I should do here. (PS – if you're curious regarding that "more liberal hand" line, "liberal" here means loose/unrestrained: the sentence is saying that he commented freely on things "that affect the nation at large" (something I mention in the "extrajudicial activities" section), not that he actually adhered to a left-of-center judicial philosophy.)
 * Addressed?: ✅

Source checking
 * Like most of his colleagues on the Fuller Court, Brewer rarely sided with African-Americans in civil rights cases - hmmm. Checks out but only because I went and did a look-see at the Fuller Court and it's decisions. Not entirely sure this source really backs this claim, but willing to let it slide because this is a GA review not FA, also because the statement is true and unlikely to be challenged.
 * I took this from the footnote on pg. 321: "with the exception of Harlan and Day, Brewer's contemporaries exhibited little sympathy for [claims by African-Americans]". I guess the source doesn't explicitly say that these were Fuller Court justices, so I've just trimmed it to "Like most of his colleagues, Brewer rarely sided..." ✅


 * According to the historian Linda Przybyszewski, Brewer was "probably the most widely read jurist in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century" due to what Justice Holmes characterized as his "itch for public speaking" - Checks out
 * "History has not been kind to David Brewer, comments Fiss" - checks out. Though, with Fiss also stating "Today he is largely forgotten" his credibility is somewhat reduced given that he is soon to be a Good Article, (and knowing you, an FA not long after) SMirC-chuckle.svg.
 * Ha! I don't think I'm going to send this one to FAC anytime soon (I only just finished up my most recent one), but perhaps someday... ✅

@ please see above. Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, ! Responses above; let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing. Regarding your comment below on incorporating more conservative perspectives: it's always tricky to strike the right balance on these sorts of things, but the article does cite and quote from a number of scholars who approach things from a fairly conservative/revisionist/pro-Brewer angle, for instance Brodhead, Hylton, Semonche, and Ely. Are there any particular sections that you think would benefit from a stronger emphasis on these folks' ideas? Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - Critiquing your work is the ultimate exercise in adding unnecessary ornamentation to something beautiful in its own right. I do not think it necessarily needs further commentary from an opposing perspective, or frankly anything else. This is as close to perfect as an article can get really, perfection being naturally unattainable. It is just an idea for the future, whether it has merit is up to you! This is clearly an outstanding work and after further perusal following your changes it is my honour to confirm I consider this GA status and it will shortly be promoted. It feels rather odd assessing your work, because I actually look up to you and the work you do and attempt to emulate your style in my own articles, hoping to one day get them assessed myself. I have nominated Dietrich v the Queen, it will likely have many more points to action than yours did. Also, I am seeing you around some particular areas lately that make me suspect you may be nominating yourself for the bit soon, if I am wrong then you should do so and if I am right, best of luck for when you do. Will be waiting to give you my support with interest. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)