Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009.

Saxbe fix

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

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a last shot at a March 4 or March 6 centennary WP:TFA. Since the last time this article was here I have augmented the text with a lot of detail. The entire text except for the Background section, which I beefed up yesterday, has been copyedited by, , , and. Several others have visited the page to make minor edits in the text. It is deeper and reads much more smoothly than before. We have cleansed the article of most blog content. It is ready, I believe. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support As Tony noted, I've helped out a bit on this article. I did oppose the last time out, on the grounds that it was not comprehensive. I think Tony's taken care of that now. Before, it read somewhat like a list, and I had concerns it was possible he might have missed some. Tony's done a lot of research into it now, and I think it is as good a survey of the Saxbe fix as has ever been done. I think it meets all FA criteria, and I hope it gets through in time to take its place on the main page on the centennial of the first Saxbe fix.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I've also done work on this. I opposed it on go-around #2 because I didn't think it was comprehensive and the sourcing was weak in places. I didn't comment during go-around #3 because it was still in motion. The article has improved a lot in all these areas, and I think it's now likely the best general audience treatment of the topic around. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(I believe this was mentioned in prior FACs; also, see sample edits on MOS issues). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the dabs. I'll leave the MoS issues to Tony or someone else, I've never quite understood some of this article's cite formatting conventions.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I think the article is comprehensive (especially for this obscure part of the constitutional law), well sourced, and well written. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious image issues as follows: These should be resolved before promoting them as part of Wikipedia's best works. Jappalang (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Philander Knox, bw photo portrait, 1904.jpg states it is held in copyright by C.A. Jarrett, Pittsburgh, Pa. Nowhere on the LOC does it state that this image is in the public domain or has no known restrictions.  Creation does not equate publication.
 * Can anyone tell if this or any other picture of Knox ran in the NYTimes on the dates cited in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced it with File:Senator Philander Chase Knox.jpg, which is in PD due to its non-renewal of copyright. I have also swapped Taft's image (File:TaftOfficial Portrait.jpg with File:William Howard Taft as Chief Justice SCOTUS.jpg).  According to the White House Historical Association, the portrait's copyright was transferred (not released), and the image's first publishing in 1962 in The Presidents of United States (which has been renewed several times) means that the portrait is actually copyrighted until 2057.  This might present a problem for the James Madison portrait as well (there was some contention recently that first publishing between 1923 and 2002 overrides death of authors), but I will investigate that later.  Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Madison portrait with that by Stuart. The Stuart's portrait is definitely in public domain, whereas the Vanderlyn's might still be copyrighted by the White House Historical Association.  Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:WilliamBartSaxbe2.jpg and File:Edmund Muskie.jpg are taken from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which specifically states "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.)." Information should be provided to verify these images are in public domain.
 * Can we crop either File:C39273-16.jpg or File:DSCN4101 rumfordmuskiememorial e.jpg?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Use File:Edmund Sixtus Muskie, U.S. Secretary of State.jpg, you might want to use a cropped version. Jappalang (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I swapped the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For Saxbe, try cropping him from File:Mr McCreight with William B. Saxbe.jpg. It is amazing that neither LoC nor NARA has images of him, and we have to rely on a family photo...  Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what licensing I should crop it to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Images replaced by verifiably "free" ones. Jappalang (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Edward Oliver Wolcott.jpg: same as the two above, but the Directory has stated this image belongs to Caxton Printers, 1950.
 * This image was not so hot so I removed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:LloydBentsen.jpg: flag in background no longer a guarantee, best provide a source where the image came from please.
 * What about File:Portrait of Lloyd Bentsen.jpg or File:Lloyd Bentsen, bw photo as senator.jpg?
 * Nevermind, I found it on an archive of the US Treasury webpage; I have updated the image page. Jappalang (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:William Paterson (1745-1806).jpg: no date of first publishing, so how can it qualify for PD-1923? Note: neither can this portrait qualify for PD by federal work since it is claimed to be created by a state government.
 * I have replaced this with File:William Paterson copy.jpg, which is certifiably in public domain. It does not seem to align well with the other two images, but you can crop the image and upload it as another file to fit it.  Jappalang (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:President Grover Cleveland.jpg: this image is copyrighted in 1903 by its author (see original plate) and LOC did not even try to give it the "no known restrictions" endorsement. This copyright must be proven to have expired (either having been published before 1923 or having been unpublished until now).  Please clear it with the US copyright office since they have provided an ID in the notes on the LOC page.
 * Is either File:Grover Cleveland portrait2.jpg or File:Grover Cleveland, painting by Anders Zorn.jpg O.K?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the following:
 * Photos: p. 28 of The Romance of Life Insurance, this page here in The Burr McIntosh Monthly, or p.10164 of The World's Work are definitely published before 1923. This stereograph might have been printed in Grover Cleveland, but unable to look inside the book, I cannot tell.
 * Drawings: this, this, and this qualify for public domain by publishing before 1923. Jappalang (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced by File:Grover Cleveland in Romance.jpg. You might want to check the sizing.  I have uploaded another public domain photo of Cleveland (File:Grover Cleveland's latest portrait.jpg), but it seemed unsuitable in here&mdash;could use it in another article though...  Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Image issues resolved, all images used in this article are verifiably in public domain or under appropriate CC license. Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I was skimming the Legality section, checking a few sources here and there to verify claims.
 * I came across "Some proponents of this view, such as Pete Williams,". Surprised to see that a high-profile legal journalist would actively support one view, I clicked on the cited source to find no such thing. Williams is summarizing the views of legal scholars. Rather disconcerting to see the article twist this so that he becomes a "proponent".
 * How about "such as those described by Pete Williams"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an odd way of framing it. Williams isn't describing proponents (which is what the current wording suggests) but quoting the proponents. I just don't see why Williams needs to be mentioned at all. It's a blog post of a reporter, not the legal views of a scholar. Budding Journalist 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you rather have Williams totally expunged from the article? He is a former Deputy Secratary and Pentagon spokesperson.  He has some knowledge of how things work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you want so I removed his name and left the comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "as a solution to the clause, it should be noted that Congress " Recast please.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some scholars think that the phrase..." Some scholars? Source is a Volokh post that is just his "very tentative thinking". Nothing about other scholars. If there are more scholars, then the source should be changed to reflect this.
 * Much of the debate is about the two ways of viewing the Clause. Many say one way is right, and and many say another is right. Volokh says both ways are reasonable.  The fact that there is scholarly debate means that there is some ambiguity in the wording doesn't it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My issue was with the source used rather than the wording (at the time, I didn't think the source matched what was being said in the article). But I just re-read the source, and I have changed my mind on this. Budding Journalist 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional." You'd at the very least at need to ascribe this view to someone. Seeing as how this is cited to Volokh, is this really what Volokh is saying? Seems to me, he's actually saying that "If [it's "on net"], then the question is how you resolve the ambiguity...I don't know what the answer is given all that, but those are the things that I'd think about." Budding Journalist 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is ascribed to Volokh Professor Volokh suggested [in the e-mail requesting this response -EV] that the clause might be read so that the emoluments of an office “have been increased” only if the salary at the time of appointment is higher than the salary at the beginning of the appointee’s congressional term. See the opinion of John O'Connor. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't see this in the article. I'm saying that "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional" needs to be ascribed to someone ("According to so-and-so, in the latter case..."), and that that sentence doesn't match the source given (at least, not the way I read it, but feel free to correct me). Budding Journalist 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking into account that Saxbe fix is exactly the elimination of the net increase, the adoption of the "on net" interpretation means that Clinton is eligible (Saxbe fix is constitutional). This plain reading of what Volokh says (he does not use the magic word "constitutional", though). Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am having problems with the link for the Bentsen fix. Does anyone know how to get a permalink out of THOMAS for that link. I hope the Clinton and Salazar fixes are permalinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

References comment -- Reference errors found with WP:REFTOOLS
 * O'Connor, p. 94 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * This is using a named ref. for the multiple occurrences. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Either you fixed it or the script is acting up.-- TRU  CO   21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. This and the other problem were related because the ref appeared twice.
 * TEC94 | Multiple references are given the same name -- TRU  CO   21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what is going on. TEC94 is the name of the O'Connor, p. 94 ref--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference formatting checks out fine.-- TRU  CO   23:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

 Awkward end of 2nd paragraph  "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship and court challenges to such appointments have failed." -- Subject of sentence is muddled; first half it's appointments of judges, second half it apparently is all Saxbe Fix appointments. Perhaps it should be "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship. All court challenges to Saxbe Fix-enabled appointments have failed." I'm reluctant to make this change myself because I don't know whether "all challenges" is accurate. CouldOughta (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the 'court challenges failed' refers only to those appointed to the federal bench. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence to: "Members of Congress have been appointed to federal judgeships without any fix being enacted; court challenges to such appointments have failed." Is that any better?  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood. The original sentence was correct but the new wording is better.CouldOughta (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have been through this article several times, looking for ambiguities, inconsistencies, and anything else I could find to criticize. It is on a complex and relatively obscure but fascinating legal issue, and the article is clearly written and well referenced. Not something I would have ever known about in such detail without this careful presentation. I am impressed. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - This article takes a complex and obscure topic and explains it articulately, providing a rich context of both historic and contemporary relevance. It clearly explains meaning with thorough sourcing, and it provides unbiased explication of multiple points of view. This is exactly what people come to Wikipedia looking for, and the contributors should be awfully proud of it. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.