Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of judicial appointments made by George Washington/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 20:37, 21 April 2009.

List of judicial appointments made by George Washington

 * Nominator(s): – Quadell (talk)

The new WikiProject United States courts and judges is working on making complete, high-quality lists of federal judges appointed by various presidents. We would like to make some or all of these featured lists eventually, and the beginning seems like a good place to start, so here are the appointees of America's first president. This has been through peer review here, and we got lots of good suggestions, which we implemented. Is it ready for featured status yet? If not, what more is needed? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  — Chris!  c t 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try not to mix references and notes all together in one section.
 * References need to be in proper format
 * I'd thought they were. Can you give me an example of a reference that is not in proper format? – Quadell (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And as a follow-up, are the changes I made here the sort of thing you're referring to? – Quadell (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes— Chris!  c t 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "All information on the names, terms of service, and details of appointment of federal judges is derived from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public-domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center." - please turn this into a general reference instead of just saying all info came from here
 * Notes like "Recess appointment; formally nominated on October 31, 1791, confirmed by the United States Senate on November 7, 1791, and received commission on November 7, 1791." need reference
 * Regarding division of references and footnotes, I don't see how this is possible unless there is a format other than with which to set them off.
 * There are other ways to organize notes, such as using Cref or Ref label/Note label.— Chris!  c t 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the request for references for the material in the notes, that is part of the "information on the names, terms of service, and details of appointment" from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. bd2412  T 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But instead of writing that, can't you format it using cite web or similar templates?— Chris!  c t 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Can you show me what you mean? I know using the templates isn't mandatory for featured status. – Quadell (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Yes, templates aren't mandatory but they can put the refs in proper format. The link you provided above shows exactly what I meant. Also a few more comments:
 * Ref 3 is missing publisher and assess date
 * Notes should be sourced individually using b/c it can help readers clearly see where that info come from— Chris!  c t 18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've fixed that. – Quadell (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - this is going toward the right direction, so I am supporting its inclusion as featured list.— Chris!  c t 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Could you please unmerge your notes and your references? (A note is something like List of Jericho episodes and references are in List of Jericho episodes). More generally speaking, a note is more like a parenthesized message for the reader, and a reference tells them where they can find something to verify the article. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to read Chris' oppose before I posted. The best way to convert your notes (which I feel you really should do) is to use the Ref for the notes and citation for the actual references. See Footnotes for more. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the very last note with the Ref format, to see how it looks. Is this the sort of change that would satisfy your concerns? If so, I'll go ahead and make the same change to the rest of the entries. – Quadell (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me— Chris!  c t 01:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a complete overhaul of the way this list handles references and notes. Comments welcome. – Quadell (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoah... I just found out about . Where ya been all my life?! I'll convert to that format when I get a minute. The article now uses this format, which is much easier to maintain. – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, nice. I'll wait for someone else to come by and review the prose, as I am not the one to ask for that, but personally, I think it looks fine. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This list looks great! After all of the above I have no further comments. I hope to see John Adams here soon and eventually Obama! Reywas92 Talk  01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 06:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose 
 * I'd like to see the exact dates of His Presidency. In the image caption at least.
 * Good point. This has now been added. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "appointed a record ten Justices, including ..." - I counted 11
 * You probably counted Rutledge twice, once as associate justice and once as chief justice. – Quadell (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The page(or you) told me to include "one successful elevation of a sitting Justice to Chief Justice". That part in the lead needs to be tweaked a little.-- Crzycheetah 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've changed the wording. – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I sort the "Seat" column, I'd like to see the "Rutledge, Johnson, then Paterson" order, as that is the correct order of "Seat 4". I know there's a way to do that.
 * I think you're saying you want it sorted by Seat and then by date. To do this, first click the arrow next to "Began active service", and then click the arrow next to "Seat". I could change the code to make it always sort by seat-then-date when you click seat, but then it would be impossible to sort by seat-then-name, and I think it's better to leave options for people. – Quadell (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add that helpful hint as a note?-- Crzycheetah 06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. Lots of featured articles include sortable tables, and none of them have notes on how to use them. I don't think leaving such a note would be compatible with Self-references to avoid. – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note #5, "Paterson was initially nominated...withdrawn by the President" needs a citation
 * I'm looking into this. 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cited. Paterson was withdrawn because he had been in the Senate when the pay was set for the judges, and there was some constitutional concern under the Ineligibility Clause that he could not serve until the end of the Senate session in which he served. bd2412  T 21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Current notes 12, 14, 16, and 17 need citations. All these subdivisions need to be checked.
 * You have a point, but I'm in a tough spot here. [obsolete discussion withdrawn]
 * Aha! Nevermind, I found the syntax. Not exactly intuitive, but it works. This is now fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In Note #16, it is stated that Peters was assigned to the Eastern district. My question is who was assigned to the Western district.
 * Jonathan Hoge Walker, appointed in 1818 by Monroe. This happened after Washington left office, which is why it isn't mentioned in this list. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking this over. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you force image sizes? I don't think it's appropriate per MOS:IMAGES. The difference between 200px and 180px is not that big, and if we don't force it, it will let others use their own default size.-- Crzycheetah 05:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support-- Crzycheetah 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


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