| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 05:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- "When the matter came to a vote, Fuller was confirmed 41 to 20" - was there an abstention, or just an open seat, since there theoretically should be an even number of senators
- Neither: fifteen senators just didn't show up! See this. The vote is available here; a number of absentees "paired up" with other absentees. I don't think I have anything citeable on where they all were: absences were presumably much more common in the days before jet airplanes were available to whisk legislators to and fro. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't hurt to link American Sugar Refining Company in " The federal government had brought suit under the Sherman Act against the American Sugar Refining Company"
- doi for " Gormley, Ken, ed. (2020). The Presidents and the Constitution. 1. New York, NY: New York University Press. " is busted and based on the note in the citation has been dead for several months. Probably best to just remove it as not useful for now
- Removed. (A bot added the DOI in this diff, and simultaneously noted that it was broken. Why the bot would feel a need to add broken DOIs to articles is beyond my ken.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Licensing for File:08 Melville W. Fuller bust, US Supreme Court.jpg needs some research. There's no freedom of panorama for 3D sculptures in the United States. If it was installed before 1926, it should be fine. Also fine if installed between 1926 and 1977 with no copyright notice. So basically you'll need to demonstrate when the sculpture was displayed in order to use the picture of it. Although I think if the sculpture was a work of a federal government employee during the official scope of their duties, then it would be fine as well. US copyright law is weird.
- I think this statue is the same one as the one described here, which has a date of 1914. (The sculptor and location both match.) Is there something that I should put in Commons to clarify this? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that it seems to be the same sculpture, place a link to that page and the 1914 date into the Commons file page and that should be enough to demonstrate that it is freely licensed. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done (I think); feel free to check my work. I used this clipping instead, which is clearer about the circumstances surrounding the bust's creation. (Thank goodness for Newspapers.com.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Exact dates in office for the state legislature in the infobox need cited
- This predates my involvement with the article, and I'm having difficulty verifying it. Pinging Rockhead126, who added them in this 2019 edit, just in case he remembers where it came from. I'll keep looking; if nothing turns up I'll have to remove it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I got the dates from the 1863 and 1865 Illinois House journals. Rockhead126 ( talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I haven't been able to find anything that specifically connects Fuller to these dates, so I think that trying to extrapolate them from the journals would probably raise an original research issue. I've thus just removed the section of the infobox that discusses Fuller's IL House service. (This shouldn't be a problem: infoboxes are better shorter anyways.) If I ever come across anything firmer, I'll be glad to add it back. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Other images are fine
- Sourcing is very strong, in my opinion
Extremely good work. I could find almost nothing to nitpick here. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I've responded above; everything except the dates should be taken care of. Do let me know if you have any more comments. By the way, do you think the article is within FA range? Obviously I'd send it through peer review, GOCE/REQ, etc. first, but I'd appreciate knowing whether the article is close enough to the criteria to make doing so worthwhile. Cheers,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Once we get those dates cited directly in the article, this will be good for GA. I was thinking while I was reading this that it looked like an article that could be a future FA. My first instinct would be to send this through GOCE - unfortunately you got a GA reviewer who has iffy prose himself so the prose potion of the review wasn't too tight. I think the sourcing looks good, although it wouldn't hurt to get someone more familiar with judicial bios than me to look at it as well. I think this has good promise.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback, and I'll certainly take it to heart. Thanks again for conducting this review! Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Once we get those dates cited directly in the article, this will be good for GA. I was thinking while I was reading this that it looked like an article that could be a future FA. My first instinct would be to send this through GOCE - unfortunately you got a GA reviewer who has iffy prose himself so the prose potion of the review wasn't too tight. I think the sourcing looks good, although it wouldn't hurt to get someone more familiar with judicial bios than me to look at it as well. I think this has good promise.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 05:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- "When the matter came to a vote, Fuller was confirmed 41 to 20" - was there an abstention, or just an open seat, since there theoretically should be an even number of senators
- Neither: fifteen senators just didn't show up! See this. The vote is available here; a number of absentees "paired up" with other absentees. I don't think I have anything citeable on where they all were: absences were presumably much more common in the days before jet airplanes were available to whisk legislators to and fro. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wouldn't hurt to link American Sugar Refining Company in " The federal government had brought suit under the Sherman Act against the American Sugar Refining Company"
- doi for " Gormley, Ken, ed. (2020). The Presidents and the Constitution. 1. New York, NY: New York University Press. " is busted and based on the note in the citation has been dead for several months. Probably best to just remove it as not useful for now
- Removed. (A bot added the DOI in this diff, and simultaneously noted that it was broken. Why the bot would feel a need to add broken DOIs to articles is beyond my ken.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Licensing for File:08 Melville W. Fuller bust, US Supreme Court.jpg needs some research. There's no freedom of panorama for 3D sculptures in the United States. If it was installed before 1926, it should be fine. Also fine if installed between 1926 and 1977 with no copyright notice. So basically you'll need to demonstrate when the sculpture was displayed in order to use the picture of it. Although I think if the sculpture was a work of a federal government employee during the official scope of their duties, then it would be fine as well. US copyright law is weird.
- I think this statue is the same one as the one described here, which has a date of 1914. (The sculptor and location both match.) Is there something that I should put in Commons to clarify this? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Agree that it seems to be the same sculpture, place a link to that page and the 1914 date into the Commons file page and that should be enough to demonstrate that it is freely licensed. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Done (I think); feel free to check my work. I used this clipping instead, which is clearer about the circumstances surrounding the bust's creation. (Thank goodness for Newspapers.com.) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Exact dates in office for the state legislature in the infobox need cited
- This predates my involvement with the article, and I'm having difficulty verifying it. Pinging Rockhead126, who added them in this 2019 edit, just in case he remembers where it came from. I'll keep looking; if nothing turns up I'll have to remove it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I got the dates from the 1863 and 1865 Illinois House journals. Rockhead126 ( talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I haven't been able to find anything that specifically connects Fuller to these dates, so I think that trying to extrapolate them from the journals would probably raise an original research issue. I've thus just removed the section of the infobox that discusses Fuller's IL House service. (This shouldn't be a problem: infoboxes are better shorter anyways.) If I ever come across anything firmer, I'll be glad to add it back. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Other images are fine
- Sourcing is very strong, in my opinion
Extremely good work. I could find almost nothing to nitpick here. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I've responded above; everything except the dates should be taken care of. Do let me know if you have any more comments. By the way, do you think the article is within FA range? Obviously I'd send it through peer review, GOCE/REQ, etc. first, but I'd appreciate knowing whether the article is close enough to the criteria to make doing so worthwhile. Cheers,
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
06:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Once we get those dates cited directly in the article, this will be good for GA. I was thinking while I was reading this that it looked like an article that could be a future FA. My first instinct would be to send this through GOCE - unfortunately you got a GA reviewer who has iffy prose himself so the prose potion of the review wasn't too tight. I think the sourcing looks good, although it wouldn't hurt to get someone more familiar with judicial bios than me to look at it as well. I think this has good promise.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- I appreciate the feedback, and I'll certainly take it to heart. Thanks again for conducting this review! Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Once we get those dates cited directly in the article, this will be good for GA. I was thinking while I was reading this that it looked like an article that could be a future FA. My first instinct would be to send this through GOCE - unfortunately you got a GA reviewer who has iffy prose himself so the prose potion of the review wasn't too tight. I think the sourcing looks good, although it wouldn't hurt to get someone more familiar with judicial bios than me to look at it as well. I think this has good promise.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)