Wikipedia:Peer review/George Washington judicial appointments/archive1

George Washington judicial appointments

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is working on making complete, high-quality lists of federal judges appointed by various presidents. We would like to make some or all of these featured lists someday, and the beginning seems like a good place to start, so here are the appointees of America's first president. What does this list need to bring it up to featured status? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the automated suggestions, I added free images to the list and expanded the lead. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few points for you to consider:-

• There are numerous uncited statements in the lead, for example "a record ten judges", "10% of Reagan's appointment" etc
  • All of the data comes from the Federal Judicial Center database (as indicated in the first footnote). I suppose it should be simple enough to find a secondary source for the numbers.
    • The first footnote says that "All information on the names, terms of service and details of appointment of federal judges" comes from the Biography of Federal Judges. The information I have suggested should be cited is unconnected to names, terms of service or details of appointment, and is therefore not covered by the blanket footnote. It should be separately cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, no, "a record ten judges" is a detail of appointment that comes from counting the number of appointments made, as listed at FJC. "10% of Reagan's appointments" is also a detail of appointment that's found by merely adding up (and dividing) the numbers at FJC. I don't want to get too hung up on semantics though, and as BD2412 said, we should be able to find secondary sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really see the relevance of the "2% as of 2009" information, bearing in mind the growth of the U.S. between the 1790s and 2009
  • Well that's actually the point, to demonstrate how much the judiciary has grown.
    • OK, the point could be more explicitly made, but no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the Supreme Court list, why not add the states from which these judges came? It would be interesting to see the geographical spread.
  • Not a bad idea at all.
    • Are you going to act on it? Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I was going to, but Quadell beat me to it. bd2412 T 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of bits of information that you may wish to work into your Supreme Court table: Cushing was appointed Chief Justice on January 26 1796 but declined to serve; Robert Hanson Harrison of Maryland was appointed an Associate Justice on September 24 1789 but likewise refused to serve. This information is worth footnoting, at least. Harrison's declined appointment means that Washington made eleven, not ten appointments to his Supreme Court.
  • The FJC doesn't count a judge as an appointment until the judge receives his commission (after all, there's no draft for judges). Technically, the table only covers successful appointments (i.e. those who served for at least a day as a federal judge). I do not know if Washington had any nominees (other than Rutledge, who was already "appointed") rejected by the Senate.
    • Even if you don't incorporate this information into the table, it is relevant. The article is called "George Washington judicial appointments"; Cushing and Hanson were appointed, but refused to serve. Worth footnotes, at least. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You're right, it's relevant and deserves a mention, even if it's not in the list itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• Confusion with Rutledge: his Chief Justice term appears to have expired 4 years before his appointment. Footnote [5] does not clarify.
  • Fixed - that was just a typo.

• Non-Americans don't understand the state abbreviations you have used in the District table. Perhaps the column heading could be "Court district", the repeated "D" done away with, and the state names given in full?
  • Problem is, as you go forward in the series (to, e.g., Abraham Lincoln judicial appointments) the "D" becomes an E.D. or a W.D. or an S.D. and so forth. Washington just happened to precede the advent of subdivision.
    • OK, us Limeys will just have to use the links. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Judiciary Act image is an unreadable grey blur - is it worth keeping?
  • I added some handsomer images - maybe we can get a clearer image of the bill (or a close-up of some text)?
    • Have you spoken to one of the image gurus? They are sometimes good about improving blurred images. Trouble is, the lack of clarity might be due to the state of the document rather than to the quality of the image. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think so. I added the image just because I was looking for some sort of relevant free image to put in, but you're right that it's not all that useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hope my responses help! bd2412 T 04:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• These comments are very helpful, yes, and thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have implemented all of the suggestions you have made. Thanks again! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Good-looking article, well done Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)