Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Will P. Brady/archive1

Will P. Brady

 * Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)

This article was originally an afterthought written as I tried to learn more about the family of Brady's niece, the philologist Caroline Brady (an interesting story—see the part about Van Egmond). A year and a half later I returned to it and dug in; the result is a detailed snapshot of some of the legal, political, and social dynamics at play in West Texas in the early 20th century, where Brady, the El Paso Herald wrote, was "one of the best known public men". Reviewed by last year and refined since, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass

 * File:1929.11.15 - The Austin American - Will P. Brady.png Not convinced by the licensing here, the photograph would be covered by any copyright notice attached to the publication.
 * I've taken a look through the paper (both when I added the image to the article, and again now), and there appears to be no copyright notice. From looking at the twelve pages and running text searches (e.g., for "copyright" and "1929"), the only notice I can find is the page-eleven copyright notice for an R. J. Reynolds ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Other image licensing looks ok (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , seven minutes! I'm impressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "His parents, James and Agnes Brady,[5] were early settlers of the city, having arrived five years earlier.[6][7] " This doesn't seem that early given that Austin had been the capital, on and off, for thirty years.
 * Per the source (1924 obit of Will Brady's father), "Mr. Brady was a pioneer resident in Austin, coming here in 1871 and for forty years was engaged in the mercantile business." "Early" and "pioneer" are, I think, relative terms. According to Austin's population figures there were only 4,428 residents in 1870, and 42,174 in 1925. I would assume that given that he moved there when Austin was quite small and still around when it was ten times larger, many considered him an early settler. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does Brady's graduation from high school require three footnotes? Similar for the college.
 * The years are kind of odd—he graduated high school in 1895, but matriculated at UT in 1894. This seems to have been the way things were done then—a number of his high school classmates did the same—but it seemed worth adding some reinforcing footnotes to show that the dates are correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be worth mentioning up front when you discuss his tenure as superintendent--you allude to it later--that he only had jurisdiction over the rural schools, not those in Austin.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did Brady have to face a primary election in 1900?
 * Yes, . --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we able to say whether Brady sought re-election in 1904?
 * It seems unlikely; he didn't run in the primary, at any rate. Although speculative, I would guess that he was ready to move on to other things. Also, in the later words of judge Dan M. Jackson, "It's a good Democratic principle to reelect public servants that are efficient and trustworthy, and it has been a Democratic custom in Texas to give second two year terms to efficient men". Thus, there may have been an unofficial term limit and/or expectation of a second term, after which it may have been natural for Brady to expand his horizons. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Brady stood for the bar" That's an unusual phrase to me, anyway, as a lawyer. Did Brady pass an examination or was some other mode of admission followed?
 * Changed to "applied for admission to the bar"; "stood for the bar" doesn't sound odd to me, although to be fair, I would normally say "took the bar" (if referring to the exam itself). The source just says "The bar examiners for the Third supreme judicial district are in session in the court of civil appeals. The board has six applicants before it for licenses to practice law. The applicants are: Will P. Brady, T. J. Hollbrook, D. O. Sehilg and J. W. Moffett." (Yes, it says six but lists four). I don't know how the bar worked in 1905 in Texas; there might have been a test beforehand and the application was just the pro forma admissions process, or perhaps the application was the substantive part of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "He then spent several weeks in Milwaukee with a G. W. Briggs,[88] visiting the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis around the same time.[89]" This implies that it was 1906 but the St. Louis Fair took place in 1904.
 * Gee, I wonder how you know that... I botched the year, both events were in 1904. Now fixed and placed in chronological order. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "On 3 February 1909" Shouldn't this be month-day-year as a US article? Please check elsewhere in article. Used at least twice in 1919.
 * It's just personal preference; MDY has always seemed odd, whereas DMY/YMD at least progress from most to least specific (or vice versa). After a few copy edits, the article is fully consistent in its approach. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " By September, however, following a visit to Los Angeles,[257][258] he and McClintock agreed that Brady would handle civil matters and McClintock criminal;[259] in such a case heard that month, Brady issued a directed verdict in a lawsuit over the possession of real property.[260]" This sentence could benefit from splitting.
 * The semicolon helps split it, and is I think useful given that the second clause relates the first in both time and activity. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Spanish flu" perhaps "Spanish influenza".
 * I don't care much either way, but just followed the name of the article, Spanish flu. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Ward county" probably "Ward County".
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "democratic" should be "Democratic" when referring to the party.
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "a position as assistant U.S. district attorney for the Southern District of California.[340] " Probably "assistant United States attorney" is a better way of putting it.
 * Done, and linked to Assistant United States Attorney. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "tax exempt" likely "tax-exempt"
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare " the state Democratic Central committee" and " the county democratic executive committee" Even ignoring the capitalization of "Democratic", I see inconsistencies (not to mention sundry committees, conventions, etc.) Also (later) "Liberty club". Find a consistent way of referring to these.
 * I've capitalized most of these. It's a bit difficult because a) the newspapers have inconsistent capitalization, and b) sometimes it's difficult to figure out what is an official name, and what is just a description. But it should be fairly consistent now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was the second railroad referred to in the business section, from New Mexico to Pecos, actually built?
 * It's unclear; there are not many results for the "Panhandle, Pecos & Gulf railway", but it may have been built under a different name. List of Texas railroads does include some similar-sounding railroads. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "By 1906 he was the acting state president of the organization,[367] and presided over the convention in Corpus Christi,[368][369] where he was elected president;[370] he had traveled there with his father.[367][371] " Why do we care about the father?
 * It's a minor point, but gives a bit of a sense of the family dynamic. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "crowds of more than 1,375 at once" Should "once" be "one time"?
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Following his 1915 move to El Paso, Brady remained involved in the social life of his new home." Probably "remained" should be "became" as he was not previously involved in El Paso activities.
 * Deleted "new", though I'm open to other options. I'm trying to make the point that Brady, though he was in a new place, remained involved in the social scene, just as he had in Pecos. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Across 1917 and 1918,[416][417] he and other members of the local bar assisted those filling out draft questionnaires.[418][419][420]" "Across" should probably be "During".
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "The conviction was reversed on appeal the following year.[132][133] Hiles was again convicted of manslaughter in 1915, and the verdict sustained.[134][135]" Reversed would probably mean that the appeals court directed he be found not guilty, and he could not be retried. Possibly "overturned"?
 * Per the opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, "For the error of the court in failing to limit said impeaching evidence, the judgment is reversed and remanded." --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * " Peyton Forbes Edwards, formerly a district judge and speaker in the Texas House of Representatives" Should this be "speaker of"? If so, mildly surprised we don't have an article on same, and List of speakers of the Texas House of Representatives doesn't mention him.
 * Per the source, "In 1875 he was speaker in the house of representatives". I haven't been able to corroborate this, however, so have removed it (now "member of the Texas..."). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "jitne" probably "jitney"
 * Changed. Both are used—and the source cited uses "jitne"—but looking at newspapers.com, "jitney" was more common in coverage of this issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reum had moved to El Paso around 1900 with her husband Charles,[224] also a physician.[225]" This assumes that Anna Reum was a physician. Was she? Elsewhere, I mean.
 * According to various sources (example), they were both physicians. With that said, it seems to have been a bit of a loose and unregulated term back then; much of the trouble they got into seems to have been due to the increasing regulation of their field. This article about her husband contains some details, and quotes the relevant statute: "From and after the passage of this amendment [in July 1901] it shall be unlawful for any person to practice medicine ... in this state except, First, all those who were practicing medicine in Texas prior to January 1, 1885; second, all those who began the practice of medicine in this state after the above date who complied with the laws of this state regulating the practice of medicine prior to the passage of this act; provided that those who had diplomas recorded sicne January 1, 1891, shall present to the state board of medical examiners ... satisfactory evidence that their diplomas were issued by bona fide medical colleges of respectable standing." --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reeves County Bar association" Is this the proper capitalization?
 * Capitalized, as per above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is everything done yet or is there more? Ping me when you're ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, . Everything now responded to. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - Have you been able to revisit this one? Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought I had. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

We're past 3 weeks without supports. If there's no progress towards promotion, it may be archived. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Coord note
 * , I'm still responding to the above comments—which I would read as progress towards promotion—but have been swimming in deadlines recently. I'll try to respond more fully in the coming days, but would appreciate a bit of forbearance. It is, after all, a long article, and for that reason alone, it's likely to take a little longer for people to review it and for me to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
These are quibbles, and I think the article is FA quality. It does feel like an accumulation of small details, but the prose merges the details smoothly into a narrative. I've identified a couple of minor points I think could be cut, and there might be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'And "for many years among the front ranks of our business men", as...': I don't think we need the "and" at the start. MOS:CONFORM would allow capitalization of the "F" in "for", so I think it would look OK.
 * Reworded. MOS:CONFORM, for its part, does say that "for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets", which is how I have always been used to doing it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck, since I think it's OK, but what I was trying to say was that CONFORM doesn't require the square brackets, so it would have been OK to start the sentence '"For many years among the..."'. Personally I think it looks a little fussy to have the square brackets, if the reader would not be misled by omitting them, but it's a valid stylistic choice so I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'The election was close—the Houston Daily Post reported that "it is impossible to tell tonight" who had won,[50] though the Statesman claimed that Day likely would "be the winner by a fair majority"[51]—but Brady won with 2,679 votes to 2,524.': do we need the newspaper quotes? There are a lot of small details in this article, and I think it would good to trim details that don't tell us anything about Brady.
 * Fair enough—dropped it into a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "and Brady's former colleague McKenzie, was one of the incorporators of the Pecos Valley Southern Railway": if I understand the timeline correctly shouldn't this be "then-colleague", not "former colleague"?
 * Brady had been district attorney for a few months at that point. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "he had traveled there with his father": another small detail I think we could cut.
 * It's a minor point, but gives a bit of a sense of the family dynamic. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly a fan of bundling citations, though I know other editors are; I think if multiple sources are needed to establish something, there's no harm letting the reader see that that's the case. However, I wonder if in some cases you're adding valid but unnecessary citations.  For example, "By 1916 he was an organizer of a local University of Texas alumni group" is supported by four citations to newspaper articles.  Are they all required?  If you can reduce the density of footnotes in cases like this I think it would be a good thing.  The point of a footnote is not to give the reader as much evidence as possible, it's only to allow them to verify the information cited.  Other examples: "Brady also heard cases in November and December 1917" (five cites), "While at the university Brady was involved in committees related to the final ball" (two cites), "and F. T. Maxwell" (two cites), "were named to take his place" (three cites).
 * I've removed or unpacked some of these. In some cases, they're needed. With F. T. Maxwell, for instance, one cite gives the names of every member of the Maxwell clan, which adds assurance that the first cite is the obituary of the correct Maxwell—particularly helpful, given that the first name is given only as initials. But footnotes are not meant only to permit a reader to verify the information cited. According to the relevant guideline, this is the first reason for footnotes. Among the other reasons, "[b]y citing sources for Wikipedia content, ... [y]ou also help users find additional information on the subject". For anyone interested, those additional footnotes provide plenty of additional information. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , just checking you saw these comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, —just have had limited time with work and travel. I'll try to respond to the remaining two comments shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem; I've just become a bit busy myself in real life, but should have a chance to follow up tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , I've added responses for the remaining comments. Many thanks for the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. I wouldn't handle the footnotes the way this article does, but that's a personal stylistic preference and not an FA criterion, so I've no hesitation in supporting this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * "Brady thereafter obtained a Bachelor of Laws from" - in British English (where I am from) we would say "obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree" not just "a Bachelor of Laws". But maybe US English is different - can you confirm?
 * At least in American English, I'm much more used to hearing names of degrees (Bachelor of Laws or otherwise) without "degree" tacked on to the end. The relevant article, for its part, includes both usages. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead has a sentence beginning with "And". I was always told not to do this.
 * Roworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "This included teaching at summer normals" - I have no idea what a "summer normal" is, is there an appropriate wikilink?
 * It's linked two paragraphs above: "He also helped organize a circulating library intended to supply the teachers in the county with professional books, and in 1900 taught physical geography at the Elgin summer normal." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "His wife and sister Helen were also present for trial" => "His wife and sister Helen were also present for the trial"
 * Changed to "present in the courtroom"—there were actually two trials (hung jury; conviction), which is a nuance I'm trying to avoid getting into here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "In early 1917 he ran for reelection" - think the last word should have a hyphen
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "supporting Roosevelt's reelection campaign" - same here
 * Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, . Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Placeholding. SN54129 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, can we put this off for a week, as I've got to take the article to AfD first.As Usernameunique is an experienced FACer—this'll be their 21st, I believe—are you requiring spot checks?  SN54129  13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , are you not familiar with the rule that after every 20 FAC nominations, the source reviewer has to do a full source review, spot checking each and every cite, to ensure that the nominator's standards haven't slipped? Footnotes, too. Bon voyage! --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * After an editor's first promotion spot checks are always optional. (Ok, bar exceptional blotting of copy book.) Personally I always do a few, and dig deeper if I am not fully happy; but that is not a requirement. (I occasionally do some even if I am not carrying out a source review.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This version reviewed.

I've got a couple of queries that should be clarified—or informed that Benny snake-eyes sees better than me!—but the bottom line is that out of a spot check of ~10% of references, only six are problematic, and about half of them can probably be justified (SPS, PST etc). That's well within discretionary range, considering the sheer number of refs (0.66%, if anyone's counting). SN54129 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, . Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Apart from the still-unsourced reference to philology :p  I consider Usernameunique's responses to be adequate. More broadly, the quality of the sources would appear to be the highest possible for the weight they bear; as such, I am happy to pass this source review.   SN54129  15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)