Talk:Thurgood Marshall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 06:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heya! Thanks for nominating and working on this article; I think it will be a neat review to take. Let's see what needs to be done! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking it up; looking forward to your comments! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vocem Virtutis—just a friendly reminder that I'm still waiting for any feedback you might have. (No rush, of course: you're certainly welcome to take as long as you need.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I apologize for getting caught up, but I have every intention of having the initial review completed within the next couple days. Vocem Virtutis (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How's this coming along, Vocem Virtutis? Again, no hurry, but if you're in a situation where you aren't able to finish the review, just let me know and I can try to find another reviewer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Extraordinary Writ and Vocem Virtutis since this seems to be stalled I'm happy to help fill in. I checked all the images (et al.) this evening, and am about halfway through the prose (excellent so far). I should be able to find time to check references by the end of this weekend at the latest. Will leave comments in VV's table below. VV, if you return you're welcome to give whatever additional feedback you have time for, but no pressure either way. Thanks all. Ajpolino (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, made a first full readthrough. Excellent work. All that's left is to check references, which is typically the most time-consuming part. I think I'm still on track for the weekend or earlier. Thanks for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my apologies but I'll need a brief extension. Started ref checking this evening. I won't go through every reference, but I'll try to verify a smattering of them. Hopefully done in another day or two. Sorry for the long total wait! Ajpolino (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all—take as long as you need! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've got a couple very minor issues on the references for you to look into, but nothing that would prevent this article from getting the coveted green plus. Thanks for your patience and for an enjoyable read! If there's anything else I can do to be useful, just let me know. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Ajpolino, for an excellent review—it's been a pleasure working with you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Generally, I'll fix smaller grammatical errors on my own as I review; if there are larger issues with grammar throughout a page, I'll elaborate below.
Just finished my first readthrough. The prose is certainly at GA level, and was a pleasure to read. Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
~~This is the most time-consuming part of the review, at least generally speaking. Most likely, this will be the last bit of the review I finish.~~

Checking A Defiant Life refs now -- pretty neat that Internet Archive lets you rent books by the hour.
Not important, but the material to support "The five cases eventually... in December 1952" is all on page 119 (the ref says 119–120). If you have some reason you wanted to point the reader to the larger page range, that's fine. Just figured I'd point it out in case it was a mistake.
Changed to 119. (I probably saw the December 1952 figure on pg. 120 and didn't notice that it was also mentioned on 119.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"the two justices voted the same way in the vast majority of cases" (regarding Marshall and Brennan) - I'm not seeing this in the cited source. Am I just looking right past it, or is it elsewhere?
I think I got that from "Brennan could almost always count on Marshall's vote" on pg. 211. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gently point out that those two things are not quite the same. This is not a hill I'll die on, but if it's not too much trouble it would be nice to have cleaner agreement between the text and ref. Ajpolino (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Rejiggered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! A vast majority indeed! I do love the "Brennanmarshall" bit. Adds a bit of life to the text. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've settled in with the aim of checking every fifth reference or so. Almost all check out just fine. Notes where needed:
Legal Career - "In 1935, Marshall and Houston... account of his race." Looks like the wrong pages for the Davis book? But I think the Gibson book covers the whole sentence here. So you can probably just remove the former unless there's something I overlooked.
Will look at this in the morning. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason I cited Davis was because it explicitly said that Murray was rejected on account of his race ("both men had been rejected...because they were black") while Gibson only implied it ("sent his standard rejection letter"). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe the application to U. MD. Law was $2 in 1935! Typed it into an inflation calculator which suggests the U. MD. application fee has outpaced inflation by almost 2-fold. Go figure.

Love the details of how Johnson convinced Southern senators to stay mum on Marshall's solicitor general nomination (not suggesting you add more details to the article. Just got a chuckle reading about it.).

I don't feel strongly about this, just pointing out that ref 11 currently has a URL to the Google Books page (where I can't read Tushnet's book) whereas at archive.org (where the other book refs point the interested reader) I can borrow the book for free. If you don't have a particular reason for mixing it up, perhaps the archive.org link would be superior?
I don't think archive.org has Making Constitutional Law: it shows for me as "not in library". Are you seeing something different? (I'd certainly rather link to the Internet Archive if they have it.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Naively, I had just searched for it in the Archive.org search bar and a borrowable version popped up. Does this link show it as borrowable for you? Ajpolino (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...you're right. Now added. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Made it through. I had to skip a couple since I don't have access to Hein Online, but I think I checked a pretty good cross section of refs.
If you want, you actually can access HeinOnline through the wonderful Wikipedia Library: click one of the links, hit "log in", type Wikipedia into the "Off-Campus/Remote Access" field, click "login", and sign in with your Wikipedia account. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'll try and point out any issues I see in this section pretty quickly; after all, issues here can affect the entire article if not acknowledged quickly.
Excellent review of an enormous topic. Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I hope I don't need to explain why this is important. I'll list any issues I see here ASAP.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Not usually an issue, but if it is, this'll sink the nomination pretty quickly.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All files checked. Ajpolino (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail: