Talk:Elena Kagan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Mine! I look forward to this review. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

General

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please try to improve the captions for the images. They should give context and be informative  Request withdrawn Kagan graduates from Harvard Law School in 1986. - graduated, or HLS, 1986  Request withdrawn Obama nominates Kagan.to be an Associate Justice for the United States Supreme Court he nominated her  Done Solicitor General Kagan meets with Obama in the Oval Office, April 2010. Obama would nominate Kagan to the Supreme Court the following month why have this after the video of her being nominated?  Done Kagan, Obama, and Roberts before her investiture ceremony - link investiture  Done Elena Kagan, as a nominee to the Supreme Court met with Senator Jeanne Shaheen - need a comma before met  Request withdrawn In October 2010, the four women to have served as justices on the United States Supreme Court: O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan awkward phrasing "Greene, 2014" is cited repeatedly in footnotes, but not listed in "sources" Sources now includes Greene, 2013 - which year is it? Now sources only has 1 item, which looks odd...  Done There it some WP:CITEKILL in some places. I suggest limiting the number of sources used for any individual claim to 2, 3 at most. Thus, [78][79][80][81][82] and [136][137][138][139] should be trimmed, as well as some of the 6 cases where there are 3 refs.

Lede

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Done Elena Kagan (/ˈkeɪɡən/; born April 28, 1960) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nominated by President Barack Obama on May 10, 2010, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August 5, 2010. can we split this sentence up? Now reads President Barack Obama on in May 2010 and the U.S. Senate on in August  Done After attending Princeton University, Worcester College, Oxford and Harvard Law School, she completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. - rephrase - I read this as Worcester College and Oxford being two different things, and also "completed clerkships" sounds weird she clerked for a federal Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall - odd to say who the Justice was but not the Judge she clerked for  Done Then on May 10, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court we don't need the date twice within the lede  Done Confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 63 to 37, Kagan was sworn into office on August 7, 2010. She is considered part of the Court's liberal wing, although she does tend to be one of the more moderate justices of that group. She wrote the majority opinion in Cooper v. Harris, a landmark case restricting the permissible uses of race in drawing congressional districts.  Request withdrawn Don't need the vote margin in the lede  Done Don't need both date of confirmation, and date of swearing in  Request withdrawn Why mention this one case?  Done now reads Confirmed by the United States Senate by a vote of 63 to 37. - needs a subject

Early life

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Done Kagan has two brothers who are public school teachers. unless they were teachers then its the wrong section  Request withdrawn bat mitzvah should be capitalized - entire section has repeated instances  Done "She had strong opinions about what a bat mitzvah should be like, which didn't parallel the wishes of the rabbi," said her father's colleague. need ref for this quote (and Bat Mitzvah)  Request withdrawn bar mitzvah - same issue  Done They negotiated a satisfactory solution. - who? Kagan, her father, the father's colleague, and the rabbi?  Done Kagan asked to read from the Torah on a Saturday morning but ultimately read on a Friday night, May 18, 1973, from the Book of Ruth. - read from the Torah vs read (should add [from it]); rephrase how the date is included  Done Today, she identifies with Conservative Judaism. - rephrase - as a Conservative Jew Now reads as a Conservative Judaism. - someone can't be a Judaism  Done Childhood friend Margaret Raymond recalled that Kagan was a teenage smoker but not a partier. rephrase, in part because next sentence has she and Kagan and its confusing who "she" is)  Done Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter - see WP:SOB

I'm going to stop here. This article needs a copy edit before I proceed. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Done attracted students from all over the city. - what city?  Done At 23, she entered Harvard Law School in 1983. - awkward phrasing  Done Her adjustment to the atmosphere of Harvard was rocky, she received the worst grades of her entire law school career in her first semester. 2 independent clauses - use ; instead of ,

Early career

all done --DannyS712 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Done She also clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 ending the clerkship at the end of the year. - what does this mean? As a junior associate, Kagan drafted briefs and conducted discovery, which meant looking at evidence in preparation for trial. don't explain what this "meant" You said this was removed, but my point was that we shouldn't explain what a junior associate does. Thus, the new sentence, As a junior associate, Kagan drafted briefs and conducted discovery., is also IMO not needed  Done It was during her time at the University of Chicago Law School that Kagan first met Barack Obama who became a lecturer at the school in 1992. - rephrase  Done When Clinton's term ended, her nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court lapsed, as did the nomination of fellow Clinton nominee Allen Snyder. - that's not when it lapsed. Both sources just say it lapsed, and nominations lapse when the senate's term ends, not the president's. See, eg, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31980.html

Return to academia

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Done Thus, she needed to be rehired, and the school chose not to do so; reportedly due to doubts about her commitment to academia. - rephrase  Done While there, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, including the role of aiding the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law, which was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, and is being developed into a book to be published by Harvard University Press. - that's a really long sentence, and should be broken up The new version (While there, she authored a law review article on United States administrative law, focusing on the role of the President in formulating and influencing federal administrative law, which was honored as the year's top scholarly article by the American Bar Association's Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.), is still too long (imo). Can we split it into 2? (While there...administrative law. The article was honored...)  Done she was named a full professor - where? its not clear, even though the rest of the sentence is based at harvard, she could have been the professor at chicago  Request withdrawn The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. - unneeded details  Done Kagan made a number of prominent new hires, increasing the size of the faculty considerably. Her coups included hiring legal scholar Cass Sunstein away from the University of Chicago and Lawrence Lessig away from Stanford. She also broke a logjam on conservative hires by bringing in scholars such as Jack Goldsmith, who had served in the Bush administration. - need to rephrase first part; why "coups"?; need evidence for the previous existence of a logjam  Done In October 2003, Kagan sent an e-mail to students and faculty deploring that military recruiters had shown up on campus in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policy. It read, "This action causes me deep distress. I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy". She also wrote that it was "a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order".[61] - need a ref for the first sentence; rephrase (in the second sentence, "it" refers to the email, but later, "it" refers to the email's subject, which is confusing)  Request withdrawn From 2005 through 2008, Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute. She received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008. - not part of academia  Done By early 2007, Kagan was a finalist for the presidency of Harvard University as a whole after Lawrence Summers' resignation the previous year but lost to Drew Gilpin Faust. She was reportedly disappointed not to be chosen, and supportive law school students threw her a party to express their appreciation for her leadership. - rephrase

Solicitor General

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Done Before this appointment she had never argued a case before any court. At least two previous solicitors general, Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr, had no previous Supreme Court appearances, though Starr was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before becoming Solicitor General. - rephrase sentence 1, clause 2 of sentence 2 is unneeded detail (not about Kagan)  Request withdrawn Kagan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009, by a vote of 61 to 31,[70] becoming the first woman to hold the position.[71] - the cite in the middle disrupts the flow; can this be split into 2 sentences? Also, woman -> female?  I'm probably just being stupid Upon taking office, Kagan pledged to defend any statute as long as there is a colorable (plausible) argument to be made, even though she might not personally agree with the policy she was obligated to defend. - why use "colorable" if its not a direct quote? Rephrase, this is confusing; did she pledge to do this before she was confirmed, or afterwards? The second clause repeats the first (will defend it), and she isn't "obliged" to defend anything; if she were, there would be no need for her to pledge anything  Request withdrawn As Solicitor General, Kagan's job was to act as the lawyer for the United States and defend legislation and executive actions in appeals before the Supreme Court.[71][44] Thus, the arguments Kagan made as Solicitor General were not necessarily indicative of her personal beliefs. - shouldn't explain the job, a link to Solicitor General of the United States, which is already included, is enough  Done in the re-argument of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,558 U.S. 310 (2010) - need a space During argument, Kagan asked the Supreme Court to uphold a 1990 precedent that the government could restrict corporations from using their treasuries to campaign for or against political candidates, or in the alternative, for the Court to keep its ruling narrowly focused on corporations that resembled Citizens United instead of reconsidering prior cases which allowed for restrictions on some corporate campaign finance. The Supreme Court reversed laws on how much corporations could spend on elections, a major defeat for the Obama administration. - rewrite; some issues are  Request withdrawn What was the precedent?  Done "or in the alternative" - too technical  Done What was the decision? If you're going to highlight citizens united, explain it clearly  Request withdrawn NEW: In the alternative, Kagan argued that if the Court would not uphold precedent, for the Court to keep its ruling in Citizen's United narrowly focused on corporations that resembled the petitioning organization, Citizens United, instead of reconsidering broader restrictions on corporate campaign finance. - in addition to my above (minor) point regarding "in the alternative," this sentence is really long. Can it be split or shortened? (Suggestion: Kagan argued that, if the Court would not uphold precedent, it should keep its ruling focused only on corporations similar to the petitioner, Citizens United)  Done During her 15 months as solicitor general, Kagan argued only six cases before the Supreme Court. She helped win four cases: Salazar v. Buono, 59 U.S. 700 (2010) United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010). Another case she argued as solicitor general was Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, 560 U.S. 272 (2010) which was decided by a per curiam opinion. The Washington Post described her style during argument as "confident" and "conversational". - rewrite; some issues are  Done numbers: 15, six, four - standardize format  Done for the cases, you have 1, 2, and 3, 4. The "and" is in the wrong place  Done solicitor general - capitalize  Done Why is a per curiam opinion significant enough to mention?  Done Integrate describe her style better  Done NEW: Fix ref 76 - Greene, 2014, p. =136.

Supreme Court

All done --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Done I don't think the For the Senate's roll call vote on confirmation... is necessary; its just a section of the article linked directly above  Done Some of the details in the nomination section should be left to the main nomination article, imo. EG, the second-to-last sentence is unneeded  Done The confirmation hearings - what confirmation hearings? explain  Done doing so without taking notes - what does taking notes have to do with answering the questions? It may be relevant if she was answering them without referring to notes. Also, this specific claim should have a ref  Already done The new and doing so without taking notes on the Senator's questions - Senator's suggestions that it was only 1 specific senator. Did you mean Senators'?  Done For Specter, that evasiveness obscured the way justices actually ruled once on the Court, and he noted that Kagan published an article in the Chicago Law Review in 1995 in which she criticized the evasiveness she came to practice. - rephrase the first part  Done Kagan is the first justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972. She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history (and, for the first time, part of a Court with three female justices) and the eighth Jewish justice, making three of the then-nine justices Jewish. - rephrase and trim  Request withdrawn Good, but She is the fourth female justice in the Court's history and the eighth ever Jewish justice. - why use ever for Jewish but not for female?  Done Tenure as Justice - shouldn't this be "Tenure as a Justice" (or just "Tenure")?  Done Tenure as Justice section - rewrite; issues include  Request withdrawn Multiple WP:SOB issues (not just in this section) Thanks for pointing out the templates  Done Mechanics issues (missing spaces, : instead of ;, etc)  Done Unclear pronoun usage (During that term - which?) The year (2018) is only given a few sentences prior: In 2018, Slate observed Kagan had crossed ideological lines on multiple cases during the proceeding term, and considered her to be part of a centrist block along with Justice Steven Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice Roberts. Still, FiveThirtyEight observed that Kagan voted with her more liberal peers, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, over 90% of the time. During that term, Kagan most commonly agreed with Justice Stephen Breyer, voting together in 93% of cases, and agreed with Justice Samuel Alito least often, voting together 58.82% of the time. (bolding added)  Done Kagan's first opinion as a justice, Ransom v. FIA Card Services, involved the issue of what income a debtor was allowed to shield from creditors in bankruptcy. - rephrase  Done failed to treat all Americans the same - unless this is a direct quote, it should be fixed - nothing was suggested to show that all Americans have to be treated the same  Done Kagan noted the board in Greece was forum for ordinary citizens. - was a forum  Done First Amendment Rights - why capitalize rights?  Done Sixth amendment section - rewrite; issues include  Request withdrawn More WP:SOB  Done where the five justice majority held that the freezing of untainted assets, those not traced back to criminal activity, pre-trial was a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel where those assets were needed to retain counsel of the defendant's choosing. - rephrase Now where the five-justice majority held that the pre-trial freezing of untainted assets, those not traced back to criminal activity, was a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel when those assets are needed to retain counsel of the defendant's choosing. - can I suggest removing ", those" to result in "untainted assets not traced...". Also, tense: was a violation; are needed  Done through the alleged sale of drugs, pretrial even where those - make pretrial vs pre-trial uniform  Done with a showing of probable cause that the property will ultimately be subject to forfeiture. - makes no sense in context. Was this meant to be without a showing...?  Done Gerrymandering section - rewrite; issues include  Done Kagan wrote for the majority in Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 15-1262 (2017), striking down two of North Carolina's congressional districts. The Court held the districts were unconstitutional because they relied on race and did not pass the strict scrutiny standard of review. - striking down the map; relying on race isn't unconstitutional in-and-of itself The four sources for this claim, in order and with bolding added, say: "relied too heavily on race...excessive use of race..."; "violated the Constitution by relying too heavily on race in drawing them...predominant factor"; "if legislators use race as their predominant districting criterion", ""A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason,"". Relying on race does trigger strict scrutiny, but it did not lead to the maps being unconstitutional; rather, the extent of and purpose for the use of race were unconstitutional, meaning the map was struck down (having the districts exist is constitutional, but their configuration wasn't).  Done In a footnote, Kagan sets forth a new principle, that is congressional districts where race is the predominant factor may be found to be an unlawful racial gerrymander, even if they have another ultimate goal, such as sorting voters by political affiliation. - What does this even mean?  Request withdrawn Writing style section - really unclear, some of the details not needed  Request withdrawn Time magazine named Kagan one of its Time 100 most influential people for 2013 - need source for specific quote  Done That same year, a painting featuring the four women to have served as justices on the United States Supreme Court, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and O'Connor, was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. According to the Smithsonian at the time, the painting was on loan to the museum for three years. - rephrase

Personal life

Request withdrawn --DannyS712 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite - issues include Early on in her tenure as a justice, Kagan began socializing with several of her new Court colleagues. She attended the Opera with Ginsburg, dinner with Sotomayor, attending legal events with Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, and hunting with Scalia. The hunting trips with Scalia stemmed from a promise Kagan made to the Senator during a meeting prior to her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Senator James Risch of Idaho expressed concern that New York City native Kagan did not understand the importance of hunting to his constituents. Kagan offered to go hunting with the Senator before promising instead to go hunting with Scalia if confirmed. According to Kagan, Scalia later laughed when she told him of the promise and he took her to his hunting club for the first of several hunting trips. - how is this personal and not part of her time on the Supreme Court? Kagan is known to spend time with longtime friends from law school and from her stint working in the Clinton Administration rather than DC social events she is invited to as a justice. - rephrase; repeated "time" is awkward; why does this matter?

Discussion

• Please do not change the notes or the review itself. Post here (the discussion section) and I'll look over the changes. Thanks! --DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

General

1. I changed several captions.
   1. Note done. See WP:CAPLENGTH which uses a caption for Maya Angelou written in present tense as its example.
   2. Same as above
   3. Done
   4. Done, made present tense for consistency.
   5. I had added the date for specificity. Otherwise, the caption is almost identical to the one used for Sotomayor. Again, this feels well beyond what is expected of a good article nominee.
2. Added Greene to "Sources"
   1. I keep going back to the scope of a good article review.

   update, I removed Greene from "sources". The first usage of Greene has a full citation. I had thought that was the case.

3. I will take a look at the citations later when I have more time

update, I looked at the citations. CITEKILL is guidance. For the two sets of citaitons you pointed to, I bundled the citations. For the first set of citations pointed out, I removed one source, but the point being cited is about her name being mentioned as a supreme court contender, I think that it is better to show multiple sources talking about her in that way. For the second set, each citation supports a different year's statistics. They are all necessary. I looked over some of the sentences supported by 3 citations, and I am comfortable with the citations. I don't see a hard rule that 3 citations is the maximum allowed, and if such a rule exists, than I see no reason to trim down 3 citations. If you want to point to individual sentences, I am happy to reconsider, but overall I am satisfied that I made reasonable judgement calls.

Lead

1. Done
2. Changed to Oxford University and added Oxford comma, changed clerkship
3. Removed the second occurrence of the date
4. Vote margins are in the lead for other Justices and I don't think the lead is so long that it needs to be trimmed; removed swearing in date; the case is probably the most significant and high profile majority opinion she has written.

Knope7 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Early life

1. I moved it to the footnote. Some articles mention future occupations or even dates of death that occur later under "Early life." I also added a couple of other sentences to this opening paragraph.
2. It's lowercase in the source. It's consistent throughout.
3. Added ref.
4. Again, it's consistent.
5. Changed to Kagan and the Rabbi.
6. From is already included, but I changed the order. Removed the date.
7. Done.
8. Done.
9. Done.

Knope7 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

1. Changed to New York City
2. Moved 1983 to the beginning of the sentence.
3. Done

Early career

1. Good question. Removed the end of the sentence.
2. Removed. Not everyone knows what a junior associate does. It's a very brief description.
3. Rephrased.
4. Changed.

Knope7 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Return to academia

1. Done
2. Done.
   1. Changed.
3. Done
4. They are examples of her approach to leadership. I reread the source material and I don't see the problem with the details included.
5. Coups because they were high profile hires from other institutions. I'll go back to the logjam part.
   1. Changed wording and added second source for hiring more conservatives.
6. All sentences here are sourced from the same reference. There does not need to be a citation for consecutive sentences unless there is a direct quote. I'm not sure what you want rephrased here.
   1. Changed the first it.
7. It's the best place to fit this in the article chronologically. Its something she did while she was in academia.
8. Done

Solicitor General

1. Done
2. Citations are allowed, and even encouraged, mid-sentence where appropriate. Woman or female would fit grammatically, I chose woman.
3. Changed. Update: I'm not sure what is still a problem here.
4. Wikilink's are not supposed to be used in place of providing appropriate explanations of terms. A lot of Americans do not know what the Solicitor General does, let alone international readers. I think the explanation is appropriate.
5. Done
6. Changed. I explain the precedent but I do not cite it. Citizen's United is a very complex case, but I simplified it based on the secondary sources that explain Kagan's involvement. Update: I actually added a few words to try and clarify. I think that it's important to say why she wanted to focus on companies like Citizen's United. She wanted to avoid broad implications for corporate finance. The original sentence was already chopped into two parts.
7. 1. Done
   2. Done
   3. Done
   4. She argued six opinions, all others are mentioned. I moved this to a footnote.
   5. Moved
8. Done.

Supreme Court

1. Removed
2. I removed one paragraph of minor criticism. I don't think the section is excessively long.
3. Added detail
4. Added a few words, but the gist is she didn't need to write down anything and could respond to complex questions without taking notes. The claim does have a ref. It's hidden because it is the same ref as the next sentence and therefore a references is not needed.
   1. Someone else changed Senator's to their
5. Done
6. Moved some detail to footnotes
   1. Because in writing a long article and in depth article, I made a lot of choices. I chose to use ever in one place but not the other.
7. I think it's fine but I changed to Tenure
8. Not done
   1. I see one SOB, and SOB does not say you can never have two wikilinks back to back. I don't think SOB is part of the GA style guide. I also wonder if you are counting some of the templates for Supreme Court decisions as SOB?
   2. I saw one spacing issue, which has been fixed. Feel free to change a : to a ; if that is important to you. I don't see the issue.
   3. Changed.
9. Changed.
10. This reflects what is in the source. It's treating all Americans the same regardless of religion.
11. Changed.
12. Changed.
13. See below
    1. Template, not changed.
    2. Changed.
    3. Changed.
    4. Added "mere" to show probable cause is a low bar for seizing assets.
14. See below.
    1. Not changed. Relying on race triggers strict scrutiny. The failure to pass strict scrutiny is what makes the districts unconstitutional. This is supported by the sources cited. Update: I checked the opinion itself. It upholds the lower court opinion which struck down the districts. It is accurate to say it struck down the districts, not the map. Triggering strict scrutiny was necessary for the districts being struck down because the way the districts were drawn did not pass the test applied under strict scrutiny.
    2. Adjusted, but it's a complicated concept.
15. I reread this section and did not make any significant changes. This section explains that she tends to write on behalf of a group and she writes on her own so infrequently that this tendency is notable. The second paragraph explains that she writes towards a broader audience. This is also unusual and something that is notable. It's relevant and well-sourced.
16. Two quotes are in the same sentence. The sentence is cited.
17. Changed.

Personal life

1. These are all personal interactions with her colleagues outside of work. I could see an argument for including them in Supreme Court, but there isn't always a right and wrong answer. I chose to include them in personal life and I think they are appropriate here.
2. Not changed. I don't see a problem with using time and longtime in the same sentence. If you would like to suggest different wording, that's fine. This is again insight into her personal life and how Kagan spends her time outside the court.

---

@Knope7: See updated review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article has been copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors just prior to nomination. I am happy to make changes, but please note that some differences maybe a matter of preference. Knope7 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: Please do. I'm sorry, but there are a lot of things I see that I don't want to spend the time pointing out in a GAR. If you copyedit it, I'll then assume that any minor issues remaining are a matter of preference. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I have gone through the article again, but as I pointed out before,the article was copy edited before nomination. There can be more than one way to express an idea. I am happy to make changes at your request, but sounds like reworking every sentence is not something either of us would like to do. I assure you, significant work has gone into this article. 21:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: Please see the updated review (and watchlist this page if you haven't) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: Can you please see the last few edits I made to this page for how I would prefer if posted? Specifically, making notes corresponding to different notes above is much easier using #, and it is also easier for me to refer back to while in edit mode. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: Please see continued review --DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: Please see continued review, and add this page to your watchlist --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw the continued review. Is there a reason why I can't wait until the review is complete? Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: No, not really, I didn't realize you were going to wait. I'll finish it in the next few days. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe we should discuss some of the comments for the Tenure, Jurisprudence, and other sections towards the end of the article. The constant "rewrite" comments are an issue for me. Are you requesting I rewrite entire chunks of the article? I don't think that is necessary. I would also ask if you have consulted WP:GACN. You and I may have very different styles. The question isn't whether the article meets your preferences, but does the article meet the GA criteria. I do not believe the article needs to be re-written to meet GA criteria. Knope7 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: What I meant by "rewrite" is that there were either multiple problems with the phrasing, and thus, IMO, it would be better to "WP:TNT" that specific paragraph/section, etc, not that it needs to be rewritten completely. Sorry. I'll reread the comments I left, along with the changes you made, and get back to you. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TNT is at all appropriate here. From that essay: "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over.

Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. Anyone can start over as long as their version isn't itself a copyright or WP:PAID violation, or a total copy of the deleted content."

I do not see any allegations close to the seriousness copyright violations, advocacy, or sock farms. I am not rewriting the Sixth Amendment and Gerrymandering subsections nor the Personal life section from scratch and I do not believe that is a fair request as part of a GA review. We maybe be at an impasse. Knope7 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Knope7: It that case, please just address the specific concerns listed, and if I see any more I'll add them. Sorry for the misunderstanding --DannyS712 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will go through the remaining comments in the coming days. Thanks. Knope7 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the remaining comments. Knope7 (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.