Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wiley Rutledge/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [1].

---

Wiley Rutledge

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
  • I think this is covered by MOS:FULLNAME's the subject's full name, if known, should usually be given in the lead sentence; hence we have Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Barack Hussein Obama II, Theodore Roosevelt Jr., James Madison Jr., etc.
• "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
  • Done.
• "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112  Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
  • Done.
• "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
  • Done.
• It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
  • I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
• It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
  • I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
• " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
  • Reworded.
• "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
  • Removed.
• " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
  • That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
• " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
  • Good catch; fixed.
• "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
  • I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.

I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh

• Support: I have read the article multiple times, and had reviewed it during the peer review. The changes after my reviewed version have just improved the article. My only suggestion would be to add "|ref=none" in the further reading works. Otherwise, a well researched, comprehensive, well illustrated article that uses high quality sources. A first-rate work which fully deserves the bronze star! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kavyansh! I have added |ref=none as suggested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A beautifully written and interesting article. I can find very little to comment on. A couple of minor points below:

• "He wrote to Biddle eschewing all interest in the position": if I understand the intended meaning, "disclaiming" would be more precise.
  • Done.
• "but during the era of the Warren Court they garnered considerable acceptance": suggest "gained" instead of "garnered", to connote that it was a change.
  • Done.
• A MoS issue -- you have both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes; per the MoS you have to pick one or the other. I changed one example before realizing there were multiple examples of both.
  • I've tried to change them all to unspaced em dashes; let me know if you see any I've missed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the kind words, Mike Christie! Responses above. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Support. An outstanding article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• You have state abbreviations for locations, such as "Boston, MA". There's a short list of cities for which it's OK not to be more specific -- New York, Chicago, Boston, and a few others -- but if you want to add locations anyway that's up to you. However, for the sake of non-US readers, we should use the full state name rather than the abbreviation.
  • I think I've taken care of this (removing the abbreviations for major cities and expanding them for the rest); let me know if there's anything I've missed.
• Why is one law case cited in the references ([29]) when the others are all cited in the notes?
  • Someone felt strongly that the block quote needed to be cited directly to its original source, so it's in the references section because, unlike the other cases, it's actually verifying content.

The links all work and I can see no formatting errors; the above are the only issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Re your message: the Internet Archive has Atkinson's book, so I've added a bit from it; thanks for the pointer! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review by Z1720 - pass

• No licencing concerns
• ALT text used
• Upright used (not px)
• Captions are fine

No concerns with the images. Z1720 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2022 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

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