Talk:Henry W. Sawyer/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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. I am unfamiliar with the person so bear with me....jotting queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd link civil liberties
  • Done.
• Any other influences/inspirations that can be added to Early life section?
  • Unfortunately, no. The law review articles I cite were all written by friends, but they never mention his childhood. In the oral history transcript, he goes from his birth to college in one paragraph! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah well, we can but try...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Shortly after joining the firm, he was assigned... - a bit repetitive as you've said "joined the law firm" in the sentence before. Maybe some dates here would be better than "Shortly after..", which is a little ambiguous.
  • I tried to clarify it -- the DA's office was mostly part-timers from private practice in those days (it changed to a modern full-time office in the 50s.) --Coemgenus (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Working under lead prosecutor Laurence Howard Eldredge and alongside assistant prosecutor Lemuel Braddock Schofield, Sawyer worked to convict Chief Magistrate John J. O'Malley of 206 counts of malfeasance in office, but he was found not guilty in two trials in 1948 and 1949 - a long sentence, which might be better split. also, you switch subjects in it, so the "he" (obviously O'Malley but grammatically Sawyer) doesn't quite fit right....
  • Yes, should be better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• As a lawyer, Sawyer focused on civil litigation in corporate law, at which he was successful - was he 100% successful? Maybe another descriptor.."excelled/was very good at etc."
  • Done.
• Another similar case was Deutch v. United States - a bit of a weak connecting sentence, could be made more exact I think...
  • Yes, done.
• If you could expand the first para of Local politics - why they felt the way they did etc. Might be good.
  • Done, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Similarly the Civil rights advocacy section - adding colour/depth to the section would be good, if possible.
  • I expanded it a little, but there's not much in the sources about specifics or about his motivations, other than that he was "troubled" by what was going on. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Earwig's copyvio is clear.

• • Thanks for the review! I fixed a few of your points and will try to address the rest this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Casliber: I think that's everything.
  • @Casliber: Were there any other changes you wanted me to make? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked - all seems ok. 1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 6 September 2017 (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.