Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Cordray


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:16, 21 December 2008.

Richard Cordray

 * Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... It has been improved greatly and is an interesting subject.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The lead is simply a list of Cordray's previous offices. What about WP:LEAD? Dablinks and a deadlink need sorting. Will read on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The intent is to have the first paragraph describe his many notable (in the WP sense) past offices. The second paragraph describes unique claims that make him notable.  I expanded the second a little.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead in general should be expanded. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I started expanding ant then someone unexpanded it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Tony, you added 15 words and "somebody else" (User:Robert K S) removed four. These movements are neither here nor there; the lead needs to be written as a summary of the whole article per WP:LEAD. It's not just a case of adding on bits. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest. I did not want to lay out in detail that he has had three unsuccessful campaigns this early in his career.  I laid it all out there in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would violate WP:NPOV. –Juliancolton Tropical   Cyclone  14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is all good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.j-archive.com/
 * Clearly fan created. However, is it possible that there is any other/better source of such information?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved this to the ext.links section. It only says that he is "A judicial clerk from Grove City". That he is from Grove City and worked as a judicial clerk has already been established with other refs. --maclean 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://politicalgraveyard.com/
 * I think politicalgraveyard might be reliable because the site creator is a professional at record keeping: http://potifos.com/ . I don't know if there has been previous debate about his web site's work, but I consider him to be an expert on maintaining records such as these.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed this ref. That Cordray ran in the 1992 race is established by other sources, that thirteen-term Republican Chalmers Wylie retired is unlikely to be challenged. --maclean 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. If there are no reliable sources for the information, it shouldn't be included. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you still questioning both resources or just the j-archive?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are unstruck, so yes, I'm still questioning both. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Tony, can you explain more clearly what's going on in the third paragraph of the Early legislative career section. It sounds like some sort of gerrymandering attempt; I realise you have to be careful with your words, but at present it's incomprehensible. In particular, what does "...so that incumbent Democrats were in the same district in nine specific districts" mean? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohio has a law that you have to live within your district. The republicans gerrymandered the state so that many democrats homes were in the same districts.  I will look back at the text and see what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the references and gave it a shot. I focused the sentences on Corday, and left out some details, like the Senate. I could not get footnote 11 "Underwood, Jim and Thomas Suddes (1991-10-06). "Remap Sends Lawmakers Scrambling To New Homes" The Plain Dealer Newsbank" to work. -maclean 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try a different browser.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand now. I've done some more copyedits to the rest of the section and am reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good copyediting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Further comments Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Law career section: I've done some copyedting and some reorganisation of material for clarity's sake.
 * A timeframe is required for the first para, about Cordray's time in the US Solicitor-General's office. At least say what summer this was.
 * I have no further information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That surprises me. I suggest you hide this lack of info by rewording the para along the lines: "After a brief period in the office of the United States Solicitor-General, Cordray entered private law practice. In 1993 he co-wrote..." etc
 * Anything that is missing is not a surprise. Note that I wrote this in the absence of any articles in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, and New York Times.  Almost all information comes from what would be considered major local newspapers from Ohio.  As state attorney general, I expect he will hit the national press on a few issues even if he remains non-controversial.  However, I am not so keen on the rewording because it is possible he did his Solicitor General stint during a summer in law school before clerking for the Supreme Court.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggested revision doesn't exclude that possibility. Your wording isn't wrong, but it unnecessarily invites the question "which summer?" without providing any more illumination. (If you don't want to change it, would you be cross if I copyedited it?) Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not so keen on the change, but I will make it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. It seems that your change is confusing his stint with the United States Solicitor General and his time as Ohio Solicitor General.  He went into private practice following the latter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you've given his dates as Ohio Solicitor as from September 1993 to the defeat of Fisher by Montgomery in 1994. So how can the 1993 private practice detail in the first para be after his Ohio Solicitor stint? Try not to be so resistant to small changes designed to improve the article! Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my own confustion. Let's go back to my previous best guess.  Suppose he did this during the summer of 1985 (my best guess), then he went back to complete his last year at Law School and to serve as the Law Review Editor.  Then he either clerked two years for the Supreme Court or did something for a year and then clerked a year for the supreme court.  The description above is not so good.  Let's suppose he did the USSG after the Supreme Court.  This would be summer 1989 (most likely) or 1988 or 1990.  Then, he ran for public office.  Maybe he did private practice before public office in 1991, but I doubt it.  Could you reconsider your suggestion in light of the two most likely scenarios.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the sources, and I understand the position now. I have slightly expanded the "hate crimes" sentence, and I have moved the "summer with the USSG" sentence to a more appropriate place, since it is mentioned in the source in connection with his Ohio appointment. I think it's A1-OK now, but check it out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a date for his appointment as Ohio's Solictor?
 * Late September 1993.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Third para: "When the same court overturned the decision..." etc - clarify this is the 6th US Circuit Court, and also which decision it was that they overturned.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph "...sought a ballot issue to cement the policy". This won't be understood by anyone not familiar with US politics-speak. What is a "ballot issue" - is it a referendum? Does "cement" mean "confirm?
 * That is clearer now.
 * How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Section looking good - except you've introduced a new, unnecessary problem by adding a new final sentence to the third paragraph. What's George W Bush doing there (I assume you meant Bush Senior)? The sentence is very ponderous, and adds nothing of interest- why is it relevant who was president at the time of his appearances before the Supreme Court? I thought the judiciary was separate from the executive. I recommend losing this sentence altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Politics are usually partisan. He was appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican.  This is encyclopedic content in this regard, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this at all. "He was appointed by both a Democrat and a Republican". In what sense are you using the word "appointed"? Was he selected by these administrations to act on their behalf in some way? And can you please confirm that it is George W, and not his father, that you are talking about? If it's GW, then there's somrthing amiss with the article's chronology. (I just knew this sentence would cause trouble) Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the dates of the supreme court cases. Clinton was Prez from Jan 1993 - Jan 2001.  He was followed by the son (W.).  Yes he is a specialist who argues on behalf of legal departments in Supreme Court Appeals.  The USDOJ chose him to argue on their behalf.  Do you want more in the article about this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This explanation, and your rewording, has clarified the position. But, for chronological consistency, Clinton ought to be mentioned before George W. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Treasurer career
 * This sentence appears in the middle of the section: "Cordray has also engaged in private practice, including personally arguing six cases before the United States Supreme Court". This information has nothing to do with his Treasurer career, and both facts are well-established earlier in the article. Suggest you withdraw the sentence as it has no purpose.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement: "He owns a small business as well" may belong somewhere else, but is again nothing to do with his Treasurer career.
 * Excised.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The main paragraph is under-referenced. No sources given for his four initiatives, the figure of $650 million, his presidency of the Board of Revision or chairmanship of the Budget Commission.
 * Found ref for four initiatives (I think)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Found refs for presidency of the Board of Revision or chairmanship of the Budget Commission--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Found refs for $650 million.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "...recovering from the misdeeds of Bob Taft" reads as POV, even though you cite this. If you want to say this, I suggest you use the exact words of the source, in quotation marks. Anything else reads like your personal view.
 * See what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's OK now, because you've identified the POV as Cordray's. I've copyedited it a bit for clarity, and split the sentence because it was too long and convoluted, but the meaning is clear now.


 * Attorney General race:
 * Class 1 senators, class 2 etc - all a bit complicated. Perhaps a simple explanation of "offyear" is all that is necessary.
 * Wow. In trying to find the link, I learned that I was confusing United States midterm election with Off-year elections. I have got that part fixed. Here is the deal about Senator classes.  Senators are elected to six year terms. Each state has two Senators.  Elections are staggered so that every two years a third of the Senator seats are up for election.  The three thirds are called classes.  In a given six year cycle, there is year 2 - Class 1, year 4 - Class 2, and year 6 - Class 3.  Midterm elections are every 4 years.  Can you tell me what you think the article is missing in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The details of the contest for seats on the Ohio Supreme Court don't concern Cordray and should be omitted.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal section: This is a bit scrappy; at least half of it is about his Jeopardy experiences. Look through his biog, there's interesting things to be said. For example, his father's 43 years' service to a centre for the mentally retarded, his mothers's social work also involving mental disability. These may not be "notable" in themselves, but they give useful information about Corday's background. You could also mention Cordray's work on the Advisory Board of Friends of the Homeless, and his being part of Al Gore's "select group known as Leadership 98". This is material supplied by Cordray himself, so why not use it? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have expanded with this material.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Cordray was born in Columbus, Ohio,[66] the middle child between brothers Frank, Jr. and Jim." This belongs in the "early life" section, not "personal". I'm not a huge fan of Personal sections; could this be merged elsewhere? ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply A quick run through this months WP:FAL shows that two of the three recent WP:FA promotions (Ayumi Hamasaki and Maggie Gyllenhaal) of living persons have separate early life and personal life sections. In fact, except for athletes all living people promoted since November 1 have had a separate personal life section.  From my experience at WP:FAC and WP:GAC most people ask you to separate family and personal life from early life.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This meets the FA criteria. Except one thing is missing: in the Attorney General race, I don't think it says whether he won that race or not (the intro says, but not this section). --maclean 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comments
 * There's a problem with the very first sentence of the lead, which at present describes a highly transient situation which will change in about three weeks' time. I think this should be rewritten to be less time-dependent, and to avoid words such as "currently". My suggestion: "Richard Cordray (born May 3 1959) is an American politician of the Democratic Party who served as State Treasurer of Ohio. In November 2008 he was elected Ohio Attorney General, to take office from January 8, 2009 for the remainder of an unexpired term ending January 2011". Or something similar. Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed a troublesome sentence from the lead: "During his 2008 election there was no evidence that the financial crisis of 2007-2008 affected his service as Ohio State Treasurer". This sentence was awkwardly placed, badly worded, not representing what the article says in the main section, and implying that the financial crisis was finite when I believe it is ongoing. Rather than trying to repair the sentence, I have dumped it and I believe the lead is better for it.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting trouble with refs [20] and [30]. In neither case can I reach the source - I get network timeouts.
 * I am able to get in. Try changing browsers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If these final issues can be sorted out I will be happy to add my support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: I have copyedited the article, and have negotiated for several amendments which have been amicably agreed with the main editor. The article is both comprehensive and well illustrated, very thoroughly cited. An imformative piece of work about US politics at state level, dealing with someone who might&mdash;who knows&mdash;be a star of the future. Ref [30] now works, but I couldn't get to [20] on either of my browsers (Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer), though I'm not withholding support for that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the article slightly and clarified some legal matters. In the past I also added US Supreme Court case citations. The article, in my opinion, has no serious problems and satisfies FA criteria now. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes, corrected numerous WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH, WP:LAYOUT issues, and there is still some WP:OVERLINKing. TTT, it may be helpful to ask  or another editor to review; this density of MOS issues is surprising for a repeat FAC nominator.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.