Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Levitt/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 March 2023 [1].

---

Albert Levitt

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is about... A must unusual but undoubtedly talented individual (though, perhaps, a bit unhinged) about whom I started this article 14 years ago as part of my research on Nixon's early elections. One can focus on the religious obsessions of his later years, or his being a perennial fringe candidate in multiple states, but still, he got a trio of degrees from Ivy League universities, married a feminist and then a wealthy widow, and got a significant Supreme Court decision named after him without either going to jail or being involved in a lengthy lawsuit. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

SupportComments by Dugan Murphy

I'll write some out in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• "as a young man,": you probably want a period instead of a comma.

Done.

• Seems worthwhile to Wikilink Unitarianism in the lead and first section of the body.
• "1,600 miles (2,600 km) trip" should be "1,600-mile (2,600 km) trip" or another wording.
• "Chapel, in Brooklyn": comma doesn't seem necessary.
• Is AFS Intercultural Programs and appropriate article to Wikilink when referring to Levitt's WWI service?
• "the war in 1917": what war? I know you mean WWI, but the article doesn't make that clear.
• "its army": French or US?

I was trying to avoid a repetition of United States or a variant and I think the sentence is clear but I've made it explicit.

• I recommend Wikilinking Elsie Hill from the photo caption.
• I recommend Wikilinking ROTC.
• I recommend Wikilinking LL.B.
• "women's activist" is a poor phrase, I think. Maybe "women's rights activist" or "women's suffragist" instead?
• "seeking to draft": change to "drafting" or leave as-is?
• The sentence that starts "He also consulted with future" is too cumbersome, I think. It would likely work better as two sentences.
• If you're going to use "NWP", then you should include it in parentheses earlier, like you do for ERA.
• Same for "PUC" later on.
• "claimed that they had approved": I stumbled reading this, thinking "they" were the activists, but it seems "they" are Pound and Frankfurter. I recommend rephrasing to make that more clear.
• "not now" seems awkward. Perhaps "no longer"?
• "friends of associates": should that be "friends and associates"?
• Wikilink Juris Doctor for J.D.?
• ", unconventional": I'm thinking the comma would do better as a colon.

I'm inclined to leave it as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• "at Brussels,": should be a period instead of a comma.
• "it was suggested": who suggested it? I recommend avoiding passive voice here if you can.

It's just a paraphrase of the source. "in accordance with the suggestion made at that time that a tentative code be prepared by each delegate."

• "state House": should both or neither words be capitalized? I'm thinking neither.

I fear there would be ambiguity, so I've deleted it. It should be clear he was filing as an independent inn the race he just lost.

• "state Supreme Court": similar to above, I'm thinking no capitalization needed, unless using the organization's actual name.

Rephrased.

• The sentence that begins "By then, there was criticism" is confusing. Reword and maybe split into two.
• Is Independent Republican (United States) and appropriate article to Wikilink?

I don't see that the article is terribly applicable or helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• The sentence that starts "Governor Cross refused to debate" is another cumbersome one. I recommend breaking it up.
• "The Courant noted,": Given that the quote that follows is two complete sentences, I believe a colon would be more appropriate than a comma.
• When referring to congressional districts, sometimes they're capitalized, sometimes not. I think they should not be. Sometimes the numbers are spelled out and sometimes they are not. You should make that consistent in either form.
• "Federal employees": no need to capitalize. Same with "Federal judges".

Done except for one direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Citation 55's formatting is messed up.

What's wrong with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed with this edit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Never heard "Interior Department" before. I've always seen "Department of the Interior". I recommend switching.
• The sentence that starts "When Cramer was nominated" is way too much. I recommend splitting it up.
• "Cummings'" should be "Cummings's" per MOS:'S
• "Black had been elected for a six-year term beginning in 1933": it took me a while of wondering how he was elected to the supreme court before I realized this refers to his senate seat. I recommend rewording.
• "as Van Devanter, as a retired justice": seems like too many ases.
• The sentence that starts "That day, while the court sat" is way too long and has way too many commas. I recommend splitting it up and removing the need for so many commas.
• Seems appropriate to Wikilink Union Party (United States).
• I'm confused by the sentence that starts "Although Levitt was defeated". How is the Union Party's choice of a gubernatorial candidate connected to Levitt's loss in the probate judge race? I'm also unclear on the vote count math that in Cross's loss. I recommend rewording.

I've rephrased. Baldwin was on the ballot twice, as a Republican and as a Unionist. The combined total elected him, but he needed the Union Party votes to outpoll Cross. Levitt had successfully sued to get the Union Party on the ballot. I can't say with certainty that Levitt's lawsuit elected Baldwin, because those who voted for him on the Union Party ticket might have voted for him anyway but there was certainly the appearance of being a kingmaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• The references to Great Britain should be changed to the UK. Great Britain is the island and UK is the country.

I've changed to Britain. Will that do?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I recommend adding a word here: "with the others in the Republican primary [being] cross-filing Democrats"
• "Anti-Communist" is capitalized, but "communist" is not. I think both should not be capitalized.
• I recommend changing "per cent" to "percent" given the article's use of American English.
• "Army" is capitalized in the lead, but I think it shouldn't be, unless spelled out as "US Army" or something like that.
• Infobox: doesn't list French ambulance service. Should it?

While the ambulance service was under the command of the French Army, I don't believe he had formally enlisted in military service. We do not list military service in the infobox for Ernest Hemingway, who served in Italy under similar circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The number of citations to primary (albeit WP:INDEPENDENT) source newspaper articles looked alarming to me when I first skimmed the article. Reading through it, I didn't find any use of those primary sources that clearly conflicts with WP:PRIMARY. As far as comprehensiveness is concerned, do you think there is any scholarship you're missing here that could add some analysis to this article? There is plenty of factual detail about the doings of his life, but given the reliance on primary sources, little analysis about the impact he had or his place in history. I'm also tempted to say that there's WP:EXCESSDETAIL in this article, which plays out in a lot of play-by-play of events in Levitt's life. Do you see opportunities for summarizing more? I think the lead is an appropriate summary of the article, but to me is really wanting of some analysis, which the body doesn't have, unfortunately.

Regarding the amount of detail, the article goes into greater detail in a few portions: The description of Levitt's involvement with the ERA, something that is mentioned by multiple secondary sources on the ERA. The Connecticut battles of the early 1930s, which is where he seems to have made his mark during his lifetime as it was mentioned in most versions of his obituaries that were longer than a paragraph. The judgeship: there was more of a battle over his appointment than I spend time. African-Americans wanted one of their own, given the racial makeup of the VIrgin Islands. There's a JSTOR article I have that says John Nance Garner, the VPOTUS, wanted a Texan and thought Levitt was African-American, which he didn't want. I didn't want to spend the time on it, especially as it wasn't clear why the choice fell on Levitt.

The other area where I dwell a bit is the 1950 Senate campaign. In my view, that's worth spending time on, both because the intersection with a future president, Nixon, makes it noteworthy, and because it adds to Wikipedia's existing quality writing on the 1950 Senate election, which is a FA.

The scholarship on Levitt is minimal. As I said, there's some on the ERA. There's some on his Virgin Islands judgeship, both the source I mentioned above and the ones we use in the article. There's law review commentary on Ex parte Levitt, which is a significant case in the law of standing, but it doesn't get into him as a person. It's a fair question. I like to write an assessment section to round off an article. But here, the material to work with just isn't there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a nice, straightforward article in an appropriately encyclopedic voice that is mostly clear and understandable. And what a figure! Dugan Murphy (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think I've gotten to or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I approve your responses to all the issues I raised, including the items you kept the same. I am inclined to agree with your defense of the article's level of detail. Such is the fate of biographies of really busy people with long lives, especially when they're involved in events that require explanation for the average reader to understand. It's really too bad there isn't more scholarship on this interesting and impactful life, so we'll live with the lack of analysis. FYI: I just noticed inconsistent use of US/U.S., so I changed instances of the former to match the latter. Having done that myself, I am inclined to support this nomination on all the FA criteria but the images and sources, neither of which I looked at, though at a glance, the sources look fine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Miss_Elsie_M._Hill,_152005v.jpg needs a US tag, and what is the author's date of death?

Replaced with another image and the tag does not go to date of death.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• File:Levitt_for_Congress_1958.jpeg is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed that image description. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker... - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've heard of 'never the bridesmaid, never the bride', but this guy takes the prize on it!

Lead

• A brief aside, but I'm trying out the new Vector skin for a bit – without the TOC between lead and first section, it does push infoboxes quite far down the articles. This one reaches to part way through the Harvard and the ERA section on my screen (although that will vary on a myriad of grounds for others). There's nothing to do about it, but its lucky the photo of Elsie Hill is not pushed out of her section altogether.
• "minister, attorney, and government official" uses a serial comma, "Connecticut, California and New Hampshire" doesn't. Whichever you choose should be consistent

Harvard and the ERA

• "Dean Pound was willing": Just "Pound", rather than the title?

Roving professor

• "receiving his J.D.": I had to use the blue link to find out what a JD was – maybe a couple of words to help?

I've made it clear he was going to law school.

Judge (1935–1936)

• "President Roosevelt": Just "Roosevelt"?

1950 Senate primary

• Nixon "had in fact been responsible for aiding the Communist Party": while I presume there was little or no basis for this, I think you may need to give a detail or two on exactly why Levitt thought that?

The source spares us his reasoning. However, it seems consistent with his other bêtes noires, such as his commentary on McCarthy, that in attacking the communists, they were in fact aiding them.

Perennial candidate

• "Albert Levitt gave an address": just "Levitt"?

Well, now you have two Levitts and Lilla said she was from Frederick, Maryland.

• You don't link "vice president" (nor "president", above): I presume this is deliberate, but I'll raise the question in case it's an oversight

Yes, seems to me a low probability click, that in looking at what is certainly not a basic-level article on American law and politics, that a link to those offices would be necessary for the reader.

• "He continued to warn against the "subversive" political activities of the Catholic Church."[125]" There's an extra quote mark here

That's the lot from me; he seems an eccentric sort, forever tilting at windmills! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Levitt is, quite possibly, an epitome of misguided talent. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Support All good - either in your edits, or your reasons for not picking up on the suggestions. Nice piece on someone I'd never heard of before. (Caveat: I have no knowledge on the subject, so this is a review only of the prose, and not of the completeness or reliability of the sources used.) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Could Levitt's political party affiliation be inserted in the infobox? Seeming that he ran multiple times for Congress, and that he was both a Democrat and Republican, it seems important enough to be included to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added that. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by WhatamIdoing

I think there should be a link to Anti-Catholicism in the United States somewhere in this article. It's a little weird to read about an anti-Catholic US politician without mentioning the broader subject.

I've piped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I wonder whether he really opposed "the Vatican" (the city–state) per se, or if this is a sort of rhetorical metonymy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've rephrased that slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I'll start taking a look at this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Butler, Amy E. (2002)." Per MOS use an endash in the year range in the title.
• Why is "Lane, Frederick (2008)" using a {{cite news}} template?
• "Watkins, T.H. (1992)" Our MOS prefers spaced initials: "Watkins, T. H.", also (as above) use an endash in the year span in the title.
• Note that ref #15 appears to be subscription only.
• Ref #18 is wrongly listed as "July 27, 1925", it should be 1926.
• Small typo in ref #25 leaves a square bracket displaying. Same in ref #37 and #53.
• Ref #44 is missing an "n" from "Governor".
• Refs #58 and #59 should have "St. Thomas, V.I." in a location parameter, not as part of the newspaper title.
• Ref #59 also has a typo: "Google NNews".
• Ref #65 should include Wimer, Arthur C. as author.
• Add a publication date for ref #69.
• Ref #74 is missing author details.
• Why does ref #83 include the location? All previous sources where the location name is in the title of the publication don't. Be consistent. Same with #106

Because some might think "Wilmington" in the name of the paper, which is Wilmington, California, was actually Wilmington, Delaware, which is certainly more famous. Ditto 106, but Selma is more famous as Alabama.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ref #103, per the source space "S. R."
• Ref #113, use {{Cite court}} or similar to format this appropriately.
• Ref #120 is missing author details.
• All sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
• Searches in all the usual places did not reveal any glaring omissions.
• Spotchecks carried out on ref #26, ref #57, ref #65, ref #81 and ref #115 reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and on each check the source was accurately reflected in the article text.

Nothing much wrong with this, just a few formatting issues to sort out, nice work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've gotten everything. Note the one reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

All good, source review passed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment by GuardianH

Seeing as Levitt was a Unitarian minister, would it be appropriate for him to have the honorific of The Reverend? GuardianH (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean at the top of the infobox? No, I wouldn't bother. He doesn't seem to have used it in his main career. If he were primarily a minister, I'd say yes but being a minister seems to have been only a small part of his career. Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "three Ivy League schools". Would a school be what a non-American would call a university?

I've changed it, but it's common shorthand to say "school" in this context

• "returning to the U.S. Army after the United States joined the war." That's not what the main article says.

Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Infobox: why does his military service record exclude his returning ambulance corps work.
• "He returned to the United States after several months", Assume that the date he finished serving with the French, the circumstances under which he left and the date he returned to the US are all unknown.

It was certainly in 1915, as he taught at Colgate from 1915 to 1916. As for circumstances, I've seen nothing. Ref 8 mentions several other Columbia graduates who had gone over to France and returned so it probably wasn't unusual to do as Levitt did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• "his Bachelor of Divinity". USvar may be different, but in BritEng that would need something like 'degree' after it.

It's not necessary in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• "a member of the annually-appointed Assay Commission." A brief in line explanation of what this entailed would be helpful.
• "working in the War Transactions Section." The War Transactions Section of what?
• "the two resided together on a permanent basis". "resided" jars. Any reason you can't say 'lived'?
• "He was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in 1928, then residing in Redding". Unless the bar resided in Redding suggest "then" → 'while'.
• "over his support for Prohibition". Is "over" a USEng way of saying 'due to'? If not suggest stating what his position was.

Yes, that is what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• "There had been political conflict involving Wilson in the Virgin Islands, and Cummings (the Virgin Islands judgeship was then appointed by the Attorney General, who also had the power of dismissal) was expected to take care to appoint someone who could resolve the situation." The bit in brackets makes for a convoluted sentence. Suggest either converting it to a footnote or splitting the lot into either two or three sentences.

Rephrased some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Might it be noted somewhere which party Roosevelt belonged to?
• "Levitt was defeated for judge." '... in the election for judge'; '... in the race for judge'?
• "Another case, that of John Fodor for larceny". Is that grammatical?

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• "was able to identify Levitt as the person who had been involved in Connecticut politics of the 1930s". Is there a "not" missing? Cus otherwise the sentence doesn't seem to make sense.

No, it's fine as it stands. They were able to identify him as the Albert Levitt of Connecticut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It may be me, but it's the "as he had not mentioned that" that is the problem. The sentence is saying - or seems to me to be saying: "Nixon, was able to identify Levitt ... as he had not mentioned that involvement in his campaign announcement". I am taking "he" as meaning Levitt and "as" as a synonym for 'because'. In which case I can't make sense of it.

Ah. A light dawns. "As" deleted and the comma changed to a dash. That should do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• " Albert Levitt gave an address of Ventura, California." Should "of" be 'at' or 'in'?

Clarified. This was in obtaining the marriage license.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Could write-in be linked.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I believe I got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, are we good here?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

All looking good with one exception, noted above. I am going to be away for a few days. So if the closing coordinator is happy with however you amend that or agree with you that the sense is clear as is, they should take this as a support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with that issue now. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Not much from me. A few minor points you may like to consider:

• Lead

• "He then went to seminary" – at my most recent venture to FAC a reviewer asked me to bluelink seminary, which I did. Borderline, but harmless, I think.
• "Attorney General Homer Cummings appointed him to his judgeship" – the slight ambiguity here could be removed by turning "his" into "a".
• "the appointment of Hugo Black to the Supreme Court" – is this the national supreme court or a state one?

• Law student and professor

• "his romantic relationship to … Elsie Hill" – unusual preposition; one might expect "with" rather than "to"

• Roving professor

• "While there, in 1921, President Woodrow Wilson appointed him" – this seems to say that President Wilson was there, but I imagine it means while Levitt was there.

• 1950 Senate primary

• "helping America's enemies scuttle reconciliation" – unless "scuttle" is a quotation it seems a little slangy for an encyclopaedia article

• Perennial candidate and death

• "he the same year married Lilla Cabot Grew Moffat" – strange word order: it might flow better if you moved "he" to between "year" and "married"
• "Levitt spent time devising a peace plan for Rhodesia" – I think this needs a little elaboration. As it stands, it doesn't tell readers much; they may wonder why Rhodesia needed a peace plan. I assume Levitt made proposals aimed at ending the rebellion of the Smith regime and reconciling the factions in Rhodesia, but a few words of explanation would be good.
• I see from a quick dip into Newspapers.com that in 1967 Levitt is reported as "telling the senate foreign affairs committee that President Johnson's actions in Vietnam were unconstitutional, illegal and all sorts of other things" (Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 1, 1967, p. 25a). If this is correct, it might perhaps be worth a mention? Tim riley talk 09:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added something on that, using an article which isn't quite as colorful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support the promotion of this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: well and widely sourced, good illustrations, balanced coverage, a clear and consistently readable narrative and the right sort of length for its material. Impeccably neutral, too: we get no hint of Wehwalt's opinion of Levitt. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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