Wikipedia:Peer review/Roger J. Traynor/archive1

Roger J. Traynor
I have been working on this article about Roger J. Traynor for a couple of months. This article is about the most accomplished state court judge in the history of California. Can someone take a look at it and let me know where it needs improvement? I would love to see it on the Featured Article list someday.

Also, I know that it would be nice if the article had a picture of Justice Traynor, but I'm not sure how to get one that's clear of copyright issues. About the only way I can think of would be to ask his heirs directly, but that might be awkward.

There is a really low quality picture of him in his New York Times obituary (I was able to access a scanned version of the article through ProQuest Historical Newspapers, which has scanned the full content of the Times back to 1851), but the Times picture is probably still covered under American copyright law, thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. --Coolcaesar 06:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello? Anyone?  I don't know if the lack of feedback is a good or bad thing.  Can I safely assume this means I can go ahead and nominate my own article for the Featured Article list? --Coolcaesar 04:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be a bad idea; this article isn't ready. It really just needs to be more indepth. I would turn the cases which are currently under bullet points into prose and expand their discussions. The references, etc. are good, but it would probably fail FAC as too short. More biographical detail might also be nice. THIS book might be helpful; if you don't have access to a copy, I could get ahold of it and take a look. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a small contribution (longer intro telling us why we care about this guy, and moved up early life). There's a Robert J. Traynor honor society, according to Google.  Include info about it.  Also, the POV of the article clearly favors a liberal viewpoint - can it be more neutral?  I'd be interested to see what the "conservative critics" cited had to say about his views.  Kaisershatner 15:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. Now the article is actually more of a mess after you guys started editing it. I think putting it on the peer review list was a bad idea.  Although I concede user Kaisershatner's point that the article needs work on POV, the misspellings that he and other users introduced certainly didn't help the situation (for the record, the guy's name is Roger, not Robert).  I'll have to clean this up in a few weeks. --Coolcaesar 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding of my concerns about the POV. I dispute that I introduced misspellings, although that should be easy to fix in any case.  I did refer to him as "Robert" above, but not in the article.  HTH.  Kaisershatner 15:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)