Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dred Scott v. Sandford/archive1

Dred Scott v. Sandford
A surprisingly easy read for a potentially dense topic. Seems to do a great job of explaining the issues decided in the case, and how the result changed the country in the run-up the Civil War. A pic would be nice, but not essential, and I doubt there are any available of a relevant subject. (AFAIK, there are no photos of Dred Scott -- maybe one of Justice Taney?) Tuf-Kat 07:31, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Ambi 07:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, but I'd like to see an image. There appear to be a number of images of Scott on the Internet, including one that looks very much like a sepia tint photo . Filiocht 13:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * There's an image now. Shorne 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In which case, it was up to me to strike the comment. Filiocht 07:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Sayeth 15:56, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, now that I have done some minor editing. Shorne 17:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I observe two problems, both easily fixable. 1) The opening sentence is way too long and complicated, borderline run-on. 2) Spelling of Sanford/Sandford is inconsistent in the article; please determine which is most appropriate, and fix the article (and if necessary, the title) to reflect this. --Michael Snow 18:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a note about (2): Isn't this discussed in the introduction? Anyway, I'll leave Tuf-Kat to fix these; I've done enough editing today. Shorne 18:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As explained in the article:  While the name of the case is "Scott v. Sandford," the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford." The article seems to use the two spellings consistently, "Sandford" when referring to the name of the case, and "Sanford" otherwise. Paul August 18:52, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Think I've dealt with (1), though perhaps the (now) second sentence could still be split further. --195.11.216.59 12:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)