Talk:Sherman Minton/GA1

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

I very much enjoyed reviewing this article, which I found to be well-written, well-sourced and very complete in terms of covering the broad aspects of the subject, of which I knew very little before reading your work. Most of my comments below are minor and I'm sure can be addressed quickly. Offline sources are accepted in good faith. Please address them line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Family and background
 * "Sherman Minton was born...in a four room home on Indiana State Road 64 in Georgetown, Floyd County, Indiana." Was Minton actually born in this home, or was that just where he and his family lived during his childhood?
 * My two sources both say he was born in the home. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...his father took him to a number of political events..." I don't like the phrase "a number of", which strikes me as imprecise and sloppy. I'd rather see it changed to "several" or "many", but you know better than I do which is appropriate...
 * Reworded. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The situation led to the impoverishment of the family who had to rely on the limited produce of their small farm for income. The situation was exacerbated after his mother developed breast cancer in 1899." I think these two sentences could be phrased better. At the very least, both sentences shouldn't start with "The situation..." Could you take a crack at rewording these a bit?
 * Reworded. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Minton's father advertised in the newspaper for a new wife and remarried to Sarah Montague on December 3, 1901." I reworded this a bit, please look at my change to make sure it's factually accurate.
 * Looks fine &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Education
 * "He was briefly expelled from school after committing a prank in February 1908." Do you know what the prank was? If so, I'd love to see it included.
 * I will look it up and add it as a note. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal career and WWI
 * "He took a number of cases..." Again with the "a number". lol Could you replace it with several, many, or whatever is appropriate?
 * Fixed :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

'Lobby investigation committee
 * "In practice, the committee's investigations were politically motivated and directed against groups who were challenging New Deal legislation." Is this a well-known and confirmed fact, or a theory? If the latter, you should add "According to (whoever),..." or at least add something like, "Historians claim the committee..."
 * I think it is fairly well fact. They only targeted pro-Republican Lobby groups. During Minton's leadership they focused almost exclusively on Republican control of the media. I have went ahead and attributed it though given the type of claim it is. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The committee's investigations made national news headlines a number of times..." My pet "a number of" peeve again. :D
 * Fixed! lol. Thats a little embarrassing. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...President of the University of Wisconsin..." If I'm not mistaken, the word "president" should be lower-cased here, right? If so, could you fix it? There are two references: one where you introduce Glen Frank, and one at the start of the following paragraph.
 * Fixed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Frank went on a number of NBC radio stations..." You love the phrase "a number of" don't you?
 * Fixed again! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal partisan
 * "...and regularly took verbal shots at his opponents." This wording strikes me as unencyclopedic. Can you try rephrasing "verbal shots"?
 * Reworded section a bit, it was not quite as clear as it needed to be either. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "During one of Long's filibusters he threatened to join the Republican Party." Who threatened? Long or Minton?
 * Long threatened, I've clarified. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reelection campaign
 * "Wilkie never responded to Minton's attacks, leaving Minton's to battle..." I find the "leaving Minton's" wording to be confusing. Can you reword?
 * Clarified. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...and was most likely managing Roosevelt's patronage system." This, like my first comment under "Lobby investigation committee", seems like a claim that has to be attributed, at least generally. Am I wrong?
 * Yes this one was definitely speculation. They don't know exactly what all his job entailed, but their evidence suggested this. I have attributed it. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "He was involved in getting several officials appointed to high office along with numerous others to lower ranking positions." This sentence is a bit awkward and confusing. Can you reword?
 * Fixed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination and confirmation (Seventh Circuit)
 * "Minton developed a particularly close friendship with J. Earl Major..." Can you add some context as to who J. Earl Major is?
 * Done - he was another judge on the court. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jurisprudence
 * "Minton was also in the majority in a number of cases..." A number of cases, eh? ;)
 * Fixed! :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "..."pronounce the law as it was written, but on no occasion [c]ould he make the law." Why are the brackets in "[c]ould" that way? What's the original wording? Does it have to be that way?
 * The original wording is "would" instead of "could". "Could" sounded better to me in this context. I also thought a direct quote to be best in describing his philosophy. It avoids all the trouble of WP:OR. What do you think? &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Clemency board and failing health
 * "Truman appointed Minton head of a War Department Clemency Board..." Since War Department Clemency Board is in caps, should that be "a" board or "the" board?
 * It was THE board. Fixed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination and confirmation (Supreme Court)
 * "His allies worked to have the hearing request during one of Jenners’ absences and committee sent the measure..." I assume you mean the judicial committee?
 * Thats rights, clarified. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "He also stated that as a sitting judge, he thought it would be improper for him submit himself to a hearing." This sentences follows a sentence about the vote to send it to the full Senate. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like it should be moved to right before that sentence, right after "...detrimental to his health to travel in his condition."?
 * Fixed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Judicial restraint
 * "The majority opinion authored by Minton in the 1953 case Barrows v. Jackson is "considered by legal scholars to be Minton's most skillfully wrote opinion"." This direct quote should be directly attributed in the sentence.
 * Done. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Death and legacy
 * "The most important role Minton played on the court was behind the scenes as a peacemaker..." The most important according to who? I would think considering the cases he was involved in, this is debatable at best. Maybe it should be changed to "Arguably the most important role?" Or it should be attributed?
 * I've reworded it significantly. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, could you please add alt text to the images?
 * Done! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll place this GAN on hold until the above items are addressed. Good luck! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough review and copy edit! I see you made a number of, errr many, improvements. :P Do let me know if anything is outstanding and I will try to resolve it quickly. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Offline source accepted in good faith.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)