Talk:Sherman Minton

FA concerns
It was suggested here that this FA could use a check for source-text integrity, so I'm going to do that below. Will finish the rest of this later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've finished the table, which uses a more-or-less random sample of about 10% of the references. (If anyone wants to check my work, Gugin and Radcliff are both available for free via the Internet Archive.) Now, it's possible that the ones I looked at were outliers, but it does seem that there are some pretty big source-text integrity issues here, including really serious problems like misattributed quotes and factual mistakes. As it stands, I don't think I'd be comfortable keeping this as an FA unless a) all the above issues were fixed and b) someone was willing to check every single reference for similar problems. I'm going to list the article at WP:FARGIVEN; it may be taken to featured article review if there's no improvement in the next few weeks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

.. Please do a better job. You guys are not even being honest in your review of the sources on these articles... &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That link says "'This committee doesn't intend to permit you to use this as a forum to air your Republican views,' Schwellenbach of Washington said", which contradicts the claim that "Minton beat his gavel and yelled, 'This committee...'". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This review is totally mistaken.. Are you sure you actually have the source book? &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This makes me sad.. :( I guess go ahead and FAR it. I don't have time to update this article or go through all these citation. But I will say I strongly object and cannot believe the article nearly this deviated from the sources. Clearly the FA review process must have been seriously broken to have promoted these articles I wrote... I hope you will take steps to hold the reviewers accountable... I trust you will either clean it up or demote it as appropriate... &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk &#124; Contribs) 22:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, lots of the things I marked above probably are in the source somewhere—they just aren't on the particular page that was cited. I don't really fault you or the reviewers for that: a lot of it has more to do with changing expectations for FAs than anything else, I think. And I certainly don't want to give the impression that I don't appreciate all the work you did on this article: as someone who's written a couple of Supreme Court FAs myself, I definitely know how much work goes into them, and I'm grateful for all the improvements you were able to make. It's just that citation requirements have become a lot stricter in the past decade or so, and unfortunately that means that articles like this one need some work to bring back up to standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)