Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sherman Minton/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:17, 21 March 2010.

Sherman Minton

 * Nominator(s): &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sherman Minton: New Deal Senator, Supreme Court Justice during the Cold War. An interesting man who was involved in alot of interesting things. After several weeks of improvement, a GA review, and thorough research, I believe this article now satisfies the FA criteria. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, so long as it qualifies there. Are disclaimers such as this required? If so I will be sure to add them in future nominations. Please note that my editing patterns are the same as when I was not a participant in the cup, and I am not part of the so called "award culture". :) I will withdraw from the cup if nomination such as this are not acceptable to the FAC community (as there is negativity towards them as of alate). My primary interest is in improving articles. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I place this notice on all FACs nominated by WikiCup participants according to this discussion. It's nothing for you to worry about, just a piece of information. Ucucha 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links, external links look fine, alt text also fine. Note that Wikipedia requires "logical punctuation" for quotes, which is different from the standard American system. I corrected a few instances, but there may be more. Ucucha 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Generally quite good. I'd like to see a number of issues cleared up, though.
 * Lead photo: Once someone gets around to an image check, this is going to be trouble.  US government is not a source.  What is the photographer's name and when was it taken?  I know from experience with the Scalia article that official photographs are not always taken by a federal employee; neither of Scalia's has been.  No idea how it was in Minton's day.
 * "seventh circuit court". Odd phrasing!  I would either give the Court its full title (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) or else say "a Federal appeals court".
 * Early life
 * Earliest American settlers to Indiana. Perhaps puffing on the part of the source?  According to our History of Indiana article, Indiana Territory had a population of some 70,000 only a couple years later.
 * a regional New Albany and St. Louis Air Line Railway. I'm a bit confused by this.  Were there several by this name?
 * "a heat stroke". Perhaps just "heat stroke"?
 * "bicyclers" Surely "bicyclists"?

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead photo was scanned from one of my source books, and that book is listed as the source on the image page. US Government was listed as the author. The image caption notes it as his "official photo" and the date taken, but gives no info on who specifically took it. I've checked the LOC for a similar image but could no locate one. Changed "earliest" to "Early". source indicates they were in the territory well before they settled in Georgetown. Population of the territory roughly tippled between 1814 and 1816 because of the end of the war of 1812, land grants, etc. All else is fixed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Several sources in refs but not notes: Atkinson, Barnes, Braden, Congressional Quarterly's, Corcoran, Hall, Minton, Wallace.&bull; Ling.Nut 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, except "Congressional Quarterly", that is ref # 164 and 165. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments If the image becomes in issue, you might want to contact the Supreme Court Historical Society. Also, heck of a good image of Minton here if you could figure out the sourcing.  Also check this out, Senate passes are printed by the GPO and taking a photo of one gives you no copyright.  Just ideas.  And to continue:
 * graduate school: Am I reading this correct to see that he never took an undergraduate degree?  There's no mention of one.
 * Pardon my possible ignorance here, he received a masters at Yale, and a bachelors at IU Law. Would that masters be what you are referring to as an undergraudate degree? That is noted towards the end of the paragraph, "he earned a masters degree". None of my soures mention any degree from the Sarbonne. Side note: he was the most educated justice on the Supreme Court at the time of his appointment. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "there he was lectured by". I usually take the verb lecture to mean a dressing down, reading the riot act, etc.  I don't think that is what is meant here.  Perhaps "attended lectures by"?  Also, I'd pipe to "President" and "Chief Justice", the full titles slow down the reader and tell him nothing he didn't already know.
 * "He continued debating ... too many ands in that sentence.
 * Legal career
 * William Jennings Bryan. I think this sentence would be much stronger if you put it in the active voice with Bryan as the subject.  Perhaps "During one lecture circuit, he met Williams Jennings Bryan.  The three-time Presidential candidate advised the young Indianan about politics, inspiring him to consider a career in public life."
 * "none was awarded". Ambiguous.  Did he fail to earn one, or did the Army not award any to those who finished the course?
 * (long stretch where I have no comments)
 * Lobby
 * blanket subpoena. What's that?
 * That is the term used in my source Gugin. I think it means that they issues supeanoes for anything and everything like "every communication between X and Y", but after the suit could only issue specific supeanoes, like "the communication on March 1 between X and Y purported to say ABC". &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Senator Black. Probably worth mentioning that he was appointed to the Supreme Court, after all he served with Minton there.
 * "fomenting a dictatorship". Perhaps worth a rephrase.  I'm afraid that most people would think "fomented" is how you'd describe beers after a six pack.
 * "improperly". I'd move this before "accepting".  Incidentally, is it necessary to mention that Rural Progress is a rural newspaper?  Kinda goes with the territory, no?
 * "Minton did not realize". This sentence is unclear as to who was doing the suffering.  I would guess Minton.  That's just a guess.
 * "Dickinson". Probably worth mentioning his party.
 * Court packing
 * unconstitutional: I'd throw in a pipe to United States v. Butler.
 * "in response" If I'm reading this sentence correctly, we're talking about Minton's response to Minton's speech?!
 * "allies or the axis powers". Links and capitalizations are in order here.
 * "the deciding factor" that is so close to a matter of opinion that I'd inline attribute it.
 * "impactful" Not a word I'd use.  Perhaps significant?

I will finish up later or tomorrow. I have taken the liberty of correcting minor errors, you might want to doublecheck.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented back on a couple. The rest are resolved. Thanks! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 13:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More:
 * Judicial career
 * Timeline for swearing in. It reads at present like Minton didn't resign his post in the Administration until after he was sworn in.
 * Fixed, he confirmed, resigned, sworn in. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * including challenges to ... strikes me most of these can be linked.
 * I linked the ones not already linked elsewhere, except wartime measures, I am not sure what to link that too since its so broad a topic. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * deferred the decisions of the district court ... perhaps affirmed? Even "summarily affirmed", if they didn't bother with opinions.  Similar usages in paragraph, which I would go over carefully.
 * "unique position of adjudicating cases" What about Hugo Black? And there must have been other congressmen who were appointed to the courts.
 * I am only aware of three at the time besides Minton. Maybe unique is not the right term here, perhaps "uncommon"? It would certainly be unique now. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'switch'. While it is not usual to link within quotation marks, consider that a pipe to The switch in time that saved nine might be helpful to the reader.
 * "The editors of ..." I would rewrite this sentence, it makes little sense.
 * "twelve dissenting opinions". Now that you've given his stats, is it really helpful in the prior paragraph to have the language about him being mostly in the majority?
 * "simplistic". I don't think you intended to use this word, which would be highly uncomplimentary to Minton.
 * Actually.. Shwartz in particular accuses Minton of being a simpleton and over simplifying complex issues. However, that is not what Gugin meant, so I rephrased it.
 * "later overturned that decision". If there is an article on that decision, suggest a pipe.
 * I will need to look this one up. I vaguely recall it being a US Government vs a Chicago produce company. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Modernistic candies Any chance of a blockquote from this opinion?
 * Will need to look this one up too for direct quote. Minton talks about how he and his fellow justices gamble regularly, but understands how children could be ruined for life by a 1 cent gumball gambling machine. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll finish up later with the Supreme Court material.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)a bit more
 * OK, here we go.


 * Supreme Court
 * Might not hurt to note that it was not then customary to have a SC nominee appear before the committee, I don't think it was until the early Seventies. Your source may say.


 * See, Harry S. Truman ... Why is this here? It contains almost nothing on Minton, and what it is, is already in the article.  Probably nothing to do with you, but I'm startled to see the 11th circuit on the map in that list, given that it wasn't established until 1982...
 * Removed, I suspect at some point that article may become more developed an useful that it is in its present state.&mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * William E. Jenner. You mention him as a leading "former Senate opponent".  He never served with Minton.
 * It said "former opponents, led by Jenner". I think I've clarified this now. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "but the measure was defeated 45–21." A motion to recommit is not a measure.  Perhaps, "but the attempt failed, 45–21".
 * "last member of Congress". You might want to add "sitting or former".
 * court. I don't know what the MOS is on this, but I tend to refer to the Supremes as "the Court".  No one objected on Scalia, so I guess it is OK.
 * Makes sense, I agree MOS is not clear here, I'd looked at that before. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm a lawyer, and I appreciate cites to the United States Reports, but to most people, they are so much gibberish. You might do well to put the cites into footnotes.
 * "Much of his judicial philosophy revolved around attempting to ascertain and uphold the original congressional intent behind legislation"  Too wordy.
 * That whole section was kind of bumpy. I reordered things a bit to flow better.
 * (next sentence) "However" Why however?  Brown had nothing to do with statutory intent.
 * "the defendant's position" Who was the defendant?  McGrath was the attorney general, I know that much.  The Joint Committee?  Suggest a rephrase here.
 * loyalty tests. Is this the same as "loyalty oaths" (I am not now nor have I ever been ...)?  Loyalty oath might be helpful here.
 * I am positive here. I think there is a difference between the test and the oath. I don't believe an oath was the issue (which they might have), but the issue was about how they applied a test to confirm their loyalty, and then terminated the employees based on the result of that test. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I read that paragraph correctly, Minton supported loyalty tests. His position then drifted to have him supporting loyalty tests.  Am I missing something?
 * He supported them, with caveats. Bailey v. Richardson was basically a green light that they were ok in general, while in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath he held that just believing an ideology was not cause to terminate an employee, but in Adler v. Board of Ed. of City of New York he ruled that being a member of a potentially subversive organization was cause for termination. That last one was the most impacting, because the court skirted the issue of allowing the tests to be conducted with little suspicion to begin with. The dissenting opinion held that the employee had to actually been caught in an act (or plot) of subversion before termination could occur. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "fundamental fairness" A pipe to Palko v. Connecticut might be good.  I hesitate to call a "doctrine" a "precedent" though.  Perhaps "test" instead of "precedent"?
 * "Minton upheld decisions". Probably not.  Probably the Court did.  That whole sentence is a pain, all the information is coming at the end.  What about "In United States v. Rabinowitz, Minton wrote the Court's opinion upholding a lower court ruling which allowed police to search automobiles without a warrant, provided there was probable cause to justify the search."
 * alien trials. We're talking about immigration matters, I'd assume, not criminal trials.  I'd clean that up.  Shouldn't this go into the 7th Circuit section?  Also, if you are going to refer to a Judge Douglas, I'd pipe to his article and list his first name to avoid confusion with Justice William O. Douglas.
 * My source mingles the two decisions together in explaining his position on such matters. I have separated it though and added a bit of background to the case. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "a 1954 letter" Truman wasn't president anymore by 1954.  Hmmm.
 * I've clarified this. Minton was making a general statement about the position the party should take and urged Truman to help facilitate its adoption. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "contested primary". I assume we're talking about New Hampshire?  Might want to say so.
 * "Indiana University School of Law — Bloomington." Is that the official name?  Surprised by the inclusion of the city name when the school was mentioned earlier in the article without the city name.
 * It's actually Indiana University Maurer School of Law now. But I think it was just Indiana University School of Law when he attended. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "another Indiana senator". Suggest piping to that senator's article.

And that's about it. Work on these, and I want to give it another read through. I'm not thrilled with the prose, but I think I will wind up supporting, but it may take more tweaking. I will probably be on only very limited time the next two or three days. But I think that with some attention to the prose (I've taken out some careless errors), I'll support his as a worthy addition to your Hoosier stable!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've addressed most of these concerns, I've replied back on a few. I need to look a couple things up as well which might take me a day or two as I've returned one of my sources to the library. Thanks again for your thorough review. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/minton.htm
 * http://www.oyez.org/justices/sherman_minton
 * Find a Grave is not a reliable source, it's user submitted information, just like a wiki.
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've fixed those items, they were not sourcing anything of significance. They've been moved to external links and their text removed from the article. The one from michealariens.com I pared down to match what another source says. I think that site may be reliable though - he is a legal historian and university professor and author. No matter now, its removed. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Prose looks OK. Tony   (talk)  07:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.