Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Melville Fuller/archive1

Melville Fuller

 * Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever.

I've been working on this article for the better part of a year, and I'm confident it's ready to face the rigors of FAC. reviewed it for GAN in July; since then, it's been extensively expanded (by yours truly), carefully copyedited (by the GOCE), and prudently peer-reviewed (by the incomparable ). My heartfelt thanks go out to all who have helped improve this article. I eagerly anticipate all comments, and I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley
Just booking my place. I hope to look in tomorrow to add my considered views after another, post-PR, perusal. ("Incomparable", forsooth! Some might replace the "arable" with "etent" or "rehensible".) –  Tim riley  talk   20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * My quibbles were dealt with at PR. I have just finished rereading the article in its post-PR state and have seen nothing new to quibble about. The content shows every sign of being balanced, the proportions are sensible, the sources look good, varied and fairly recent on the whole, the illustrations are well chosen and the prose is fine. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is File:CJ_Fuller.tif paged? When and where was this first published?
 * I'm not sure how it got paged, nor do I know how to un-page it. Is that a problem? (It doesn't seem to be doing any harm.) I've clarified the licensing: the LoC gives a 1908 copyright date, so all should be well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Melville_Fuller_Signature.svg: is this copyright ineligible, or copyright expired?
 * Per Commons, ordinary signatures like this one are copyright-ineligible under US law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so can the tagging be changed to reflect that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Melville_Weston_Fuller,_Chief_Justice,_Supreme_Court,_three-quarter_length_portrait,_seated,_facing_right_LCCN97502838.tif: the author credit indicates that he died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago
 * I've adjusted the licensing tag. Since it was registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, the copyright has long since expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * File:The_Fuller_Court.jpg: when and where was this first published?
 * Registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, per this, pg. 492. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * File:08_Melville_W._Fuller_bust,_US_Supreme_Court.jpg: what's the copyright of the photograph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The original upload included a pd-self tag, which I've since added back. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * Consider adding the year of the decisions you cite in parentheses.
 * I've added years to the lead, which I think was the only place missing them. Let me know if you see any others without them.
 * "He helped develop a gerrymandered system for congressional apportionment, and he supported provisions prohibiting African-Americans from voting or settling in the state." Would this benefit from context? Such systems were routine a century before Baker v. Carr and the provisions regarding African-Americans presumably had support that extended well beyond Fuller.
 * I've clarified that the provisions about African-Americans were supported by Democrats more broadly. Regarding gerrymandering, my source says only that Fuller was "instrumental in framing a blatantly partisan congressional apportionment scheme", so I presume that it was a bit more extreme than one's workaday gerrymander (and that Fuller in particular was responsible for it).
 * "a ban on the printing of paper money." By banks or by the federal government (i.e. the new greenbacks that were being issued to finance the war)? (see also the mention of his views in the 1870s)
 * Done.
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * " The dissenters felt the decision was foreclosed by the Court's past holdings, and each one decried the majority's perceived infidelity to precedent." You're really saying the same thing twice here. I think you say it better when you focus on precedent, so I would rewrite just to say that the dissenters felt the court was not following its precedent.
 * Done.
 * "marked only the third time in American history that a Supreme Court decision was reversed via constitutional amendment.[29]: 59  " Less impressive than it sounds when you consider that the Income Tax Amendment was only the sixth since there had been a Supreme Court, and so three of the six amendments (arguably five) were passed to reverse Supreme Court decisions. I would strike the word "only".
 * I see what you mean, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, out of thousands of decisions rendered over the preceding 120 years, this was only the third deemed sufficiently egregious to merit reversal via amendment. For what it's worth, my source expressly says that "the decision became only the third of four to be directly overturned by constitutional amendment". I think I'll keep it as is, although I'm glad to change it if you feel strongly about it.
 * " Most modern legal scholars believe Pollock was wrongly decided" This is from a 2014 paper relying on papers from 1998 and 1999. Can such broad statement, that may or may not be dated, be stated in this way? It may become dated even if it isn't already.
 * I've attributed the statement and given it a date, just to be safe.
 * "the Sherman Act, an 1890 federal antitrust law that outlawed monopolies" Not that I'm aware. "Innocent monopolies" were still allowed.
 * I've removed "that outlawed monopolies" altogether, since the word "antitrust" says all that needs to be said.
 * What is "the legal academy"?
 * Legal scholars as an institution: see.
 * "The Court's expansive Commerce Clause cases during the New Deal period essentially abrogated Knight." I might say "decisions" for "cases"
 * Done.
 * " In Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890)," It might be worth noting somewhere that Utah remained a territory until 1896. You've just come off a discussion of the Insular Cases without a paragraph break.
 * Clarified.
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these very helpful comments, : I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The only other thing I can think of is can something be said about contemporary reaction at his death?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea: I've added a sentence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably insincere on the part of both TR and Taft, who wanted Fuller dead years before so Taft could have the job ... but fine.
 * Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Will do one (hopefully tomorrow). Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources are all reliable
 * All of the further reading items are used as sources. Since further reading is generally for items not included as sources, I don't think they need to be listed there
 * Removed. MOS:FURTHER seems to permit duplication when (as here) "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list", but since both you and Tim riley have independently raised the point I'm glad to just take it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing stands out as problematic with the formatting

Spot checks coming soon. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "The Wong Kim Ark decision has taken on additional significance as prominent Republican politicians, including Donald Trump, have called for the reversal of birthright citizenship" - checks out
 * "During his confirmation, Fuller's mustache produced what law professor Todd Peppers called "a curious national anxiety"" - checks out
 * "and legal historian Edward A. Purcell Jr. said that it "helped create a newly powerful and activist federal judiciary that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century and continued to operate into the twenty-first" - checks out
 * "A 1993 survey of judges and legal academics found that Fuller's reputation, while still categorized as "average", had risen from the level recorded in a 1970 assessment." - checks out

No issues with source-text integrity or copyright noted. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, – much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

 * "However, he opposed the Lincoln Administration's handling of the war" 'Lincoln Administration' could be linked to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln
 * Done.
 * "including William M. Evarts of New York, Nevada's William Morris Stewart, and" looks a bit odd while reading. Maybe move Nevada after Stewart's name.
 * Done.
 * "Cullom demanded an immediate vote, fearing that delay on Fuller's nomination could harm Republicans' prospects of winning Illinois" Probably worth mentioning that Republicans did win Illinois in the 1888 election.
 * Somewhat surprisingly, none of my sources mention this, so I don't really feel comfortable mentioning it directly (per WP:OR; WP:SYNTH, etc.). Here's a compromise: I've linked 1888 United States presidential election in Illinois, so curious readers can investigate on their own.
 * That works. The more interesting part about this is that Benjamin Harrison (Republican nominee) won Illinois by just 2.9%. The last Democrat to carry Illinois was James Buchanan in 1856. (please bear with me if I talk too much about elections) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Found nothing else which needs to be addressed. Excellent work. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Much appreciated. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely support this article's promotion as a featured article. @, honestly, I never thought that a biography of a Supreme Court chief justice could be so interesting! As a side note, will you be able to take a look at this FAC? Regardless, thanks a lot for your work on this article! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, . I'll try to pay Daisy a visit in the next week or so: I've been pretty busy lately but I'll do my best. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Grapple X
I've combed over this one and am happy to support it; well-written, wonderful depth, and it does a great job of balancing biography with legacy. The only thing I could draw attention to, and it's certainly not a hindrance to me supporting this, is that we see the construction "damaged his historical reputation", or "harmful to his historical reputation", etc, a few times, although the section discussing his legacy paints the picture that his image hasn't so much been tarnished as it has just always been poor. Obviously if this is the verbiage of the sources then we should stick to it but if not, it may be worth looking at wordings that would denote that these decisions have shaped a poor reputation rather than harming a good one. Just a thought to consider and a subtle one at that. Good work on this article. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and support, . Good point regarding the "damaged his reputation" phrasings: I've replaced them with more accurate wordings (e.g. "has contributed significantly to his poor historical reputation"). Again, thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)