Talk:Hugo Black/GA1

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

Overall, this article looks great - compellingly written, easy to understand, well-referenced and it seems to be quite comprehensive; kudos to everyone who helped get it that way. I do have some notes on what I consider weaknesses; I think at least some of these should be resolved before this can be classified as a good article:


 * The timing of the KKK-membership revelations is unclear - if other senators, and Newsweek, criticized Black for it immediately upon his nomination, how could the public not have found out about it until later? Were these criticisms made in secret?


 * Perhaps the image of Black that's an official Supreme Court portrait should be indicated as such?


 * For some reason, the "Civil rights" section looks to me more awkward and unclear than the rest of the article. Some issues with it:
 * For the Korematsu case, it makes it sound like Frank Murphy was part of the 1984 decision, which probably isn't right.
 * Surely Black wasn't against marching in a legal manner per se? I'd have to guess that what he was against was any kind of illegal "civil disobedience", though this section doesn't make that clear one way or another.
 * Also, the statement at the end that Black "believed that the courts should be responsible for alleviating social wrongs" seems to contradict everything else in the article; at the very least, it should be explained better.


 * Information-wise, I think the only thing generally missing from this article is a greater context for Black's philosophy of strict constructionism/textualism. Namely:
 * is there any indication of what influenced Black's judicial philosophy?
 * there's no reference for the statement that "Black's philosophy of judging has been influential on justices as diverse as Earl Warren and Antonin Scalia."
 * some sample of outside opinion on Black's jurisprudence would be nice. The article says that it "has been the subject of voluminous academic commentary", but there's no example of that in the article. Perhaps the "Quotes about Black" section could be expanded, or a new section could be created listing some examples of commentary about Black.

I should note again, though, that these are all fairly minor quibbles compared to the article's overall quality. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Response
OK, I believe I have addressed your concerns. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, the changes look good; I accepted it as a good article. I still think more could be added on views about Black from academics, journalists, fellow judges etc.; and, I didn't mention this before, but the article could also benefit from something about Black's personal life, such as his hobbies, philanthropic activities, etc. But I believe the article already passes the criteria: it's well-written, well-referenced, and fairly comprehensive. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)