Talk:Louis Brandeis Supreme Court nomination/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Duonaut (talk · contribs) 23:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Duonaut and will be conducting the review for this article. I'll begin by reviewing against the immediate failure criteria. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for beginning this process. SecretName101 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's see:

Y not a long way from meeting the criteria

Y no copyvio stands out

Y no cleanup banners or even {{cn}}

Y pretty stable

Y N/A, no previous review.

Should be good to proceed. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

1(a)

Done checking against this criteria. Overall very well written. However, there are a few things which could be fixed:

"He had never come up in speculation of individuals who might replace" while clear, should be reworded as replace is a transitive verb (i.e. taking an object). I suggest "He had never come up in speculation of individuals who might be nominated" or "He had never come up in speculation of individuals who might replace Lamar/a justice".

"old-fashioned politicians read the nomination as bait for the Hebrew vote at the coming election" is not the direct quote from the article. This is not a GA requirement but per MOS:QUOTATION I recommend adding square brackets where the words are replaced or using the quote as-is.

"However, the only three absent senators" could be reworded as "The only three absent senators who were not paired" or "There were three absent senators who were not paired, being:"

"Taft respect and like Brandeis when they" seems to have a typo. I presume it's supposed to be past tense, but I'll leave it to you.

With these changes it should pass 1(a). Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Made changes based upon each of these concerns SecretName101 (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

1(b) and 2(a)

Overall, you passed these. I would say more paragraphs in the lede are advisable as the article has 30k+ characters; I would recommend splitting up what exists as the paragraph is pretty big, and then adding anything if necessary. Any concerns about weasel words etc. will come up during the neutrality review, if they exist. 2(a) is an easy and obvious pass. Onto 2(b) Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

2(b)–6(b)

2

Only one issue in a citation which I couldn't fix: Ref 1 does not confirm what it is used for, or at least the archived version I found does not confirm it (the link is dead). I presume this was on the same website but not that page, or else it's hidden by Internet Archive somehow. There is no original research. Virtually everything is verified and the only unverified statement I found is not contentious and did happen. As for copyvio, there is a degree of close paraphrasing but I'm not sure I'd say this is copyright violation as the article does not primarily rely upon one source. May ask for a second opinion, however. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What statement did I neglect to add a citation for (so I can add one)? SecretName101 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

For Frankfurter's accession to the Supreme Court (unless I missed it) Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Also corrected the first use of ref 1. I believe that all other uses do confirm what they are used for. I'll double check again SecretName101 (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ref 57 (the news story "Brandeis Takes His Place In Supreme Court") confirms this statement. SecretName101 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks for checking for me. With this, you pass 2(b). I'm gonna move to second opinion for 2(d) just to be certain. As long as your article passes this, it's good to become a GA in my eyes. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

3

Very good coverage of the topic, no unnecessary detail to any extent that I noticed. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

4

I had my doubts but the sources seem to back up anything that sounds biased, even government sources—so I think it's safe to say that it passes this. If I open to a second opinion, though, additional comments are welcome here as in any section. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

5 and 6

Obvious pass for 5. There isn't exactly a lot of media to illustrate this, so I'd say 6 is a pass as well. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extra comments

I would recommend adding page numbers to reference 6 (For the Soul etc.) and adjusting quotes according to WP:LQUOTE (if applicable). These fixes are again not required, as GA criteria does not require either of these.

Overall, this is how it holds up:

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

As I said 2d is a probably pass but I may ask for a second opinion. Thanks for your cooperation in this review. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: I added several new images to the article since you previously reviewed. All are of works that were published in 1916 over the course of the nomination process, therefore expired in copyright. Furthermore, two are works of federal government officers created in the course of their government work and were printed by government offices, therefore meaning they have always been public domain works. SecretName101 (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's good. As you provided, 6 is still passed with these images. Good work. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion: copyvio check

I think the usage of sources in this article is fine but to be certain I am requesting another reviewer look over it. Earwig seemed to be alerted although false positives are hardly uncommon with the tool. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Much of the copying picked up by Earwig is just proper names and properly marked quotes. But other of it is not, and is problematic. From [1] we get copied and lightly edited phrases including "enjoyed close ties to the Jewish community of his native ... Cincinnati", "Brandeis’s friend and .. political ally Felix Frankfurter, who ... had been appointed to the Harvard Law School faculty the previous year", and "one of the most important and influential justices". From https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/04/04/louis-brandeis-jewish-confirmation-hearings/ we have "at the home of the publisher of Harper's Weekly", and "circulated a document with false ... to retrieve love letters he had written to a woman in Bermuda". On the other hand, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/louis-brandeis-confirmed-as-justice and https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33225.pdf, also given high percentages by Earwig, look non-problematic to me. To me, the level of copying from the first two sources (and the less clear-cut evidence of more copying, better-disguised by copyediting) and the fact that the person who included this material is also the GA nominator would be grounds for a quick fail. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"the less clear-cut evidence of more copying, better-disguised by copyediting"? Rewordings of information cited to the sources from which the information was attained is not plagiarism. SecretName101 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearly all the earwigs picks up are phrases such as "Senator Henry Cabot Lodge" that are so straightforward that no one could claim original intellectual property on them, and direct quotes attributed to proper sources. SecretName101 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The examples David picked up on were not quotes. I also noticed the Bermuda sentence as being almost the same. "foes circulated a document with false gossip that Brandeis had aided legal efforts by Wilson to retrieve love letters he had written to a woman in Bermuda" into "enemies of the nomination also circulated a document with false accusations that Brandeis had, recently before being nominated, provided Wilson with aid in legal efforts to retrieve love letters he had written to a woman in Bermuda" is effectively the same sentence, far too close a paraphrase. CMD (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

One or a mere handful of sentences in a more than 6,500-word article seems like a pretty easy thing to fix, and a reason to continue a hold rather than fail a nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

At a cursory look at comparisons using this earwig, I can see no further major concerns highlighted. It appears just direct quotes and phrases so generic they hold zero grounds for intellectual property concerns. SecretName101 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Earwig is not infallible, it looks only for direct copyvio and does not catch close paraphrasing. I have not done a comprehensive review of the page or sources, so I do not know if how limited the concerns may be. CMD (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

"I only plagiarized the six full sentences you caught as plagiarism, the rest is fine" is not a very convincing excuse, even if excuse-making were an appropriate reaction to being caught at plagiarism. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: as of now do you think the concerns have been addressed or still too close? Seems SecretName101 has made some edits to the aforementioned sentences in the last few hours. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

David, gross exaggeration (i.e. "six full sentences") is not appreciated. Please don't use condescending hyperbole. We are here to help eachother, not make enemies of one another. SecretName101 (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• I was asked to have a look at the possible close paraphrasing here. I did some spotchecking and did identify some instances of text too close to the original. For example, "marking the start to an end political leaders blocking the appointment of Jews from being appointed to higher political positions" vs "signaled the beginning of the end to the use of anti-Semitism by political leaders to block the appointment of Jews to positions of great importance in American political life", or "Negative testimony was given that Brandeis was unprofessional, unethical, unfit in character. Negative testimony was also given that Brandeis was an activist incapable of being an impartial justice" vs "Opponents testified that his conduct was unprofessional and unethical, his character unfit, and an advocate who would not—nay, could not—be impartial as a Justice". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Completion

@Duonaut: Is there going to be a timeline for verdict? SecretName101 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies about the extended delay. Quite honestly this had slipped my mind. I'll look over the possible copyvio again and if I still have concerns I'll bring in a second opinion again or fail (in which case I'd advise you to renominate). But I'll ping you when I'm finished. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101: There seems to be some remaining possible close paraphrasing issues. As this is not my area of expertise I recommend you follow what is described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Step 4a: What to do during a review if it seems abandoned, assuming you want another review. I can also do this myself if you like, or just close this one if you don't want to go through GA again. My apologies for any inconvenience but thank you for bearing with me. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut I've used the Earwig and fail to see any problematic paraphrasing at a glimpse. If you could do another review, I'd appreciate that. SecretName101 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Earwig reports only direct, word-for-word copying, not close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed Nikkimaria's comments last month. Given those I think I will fail this to put a close to it. However, I would recommend renominating on your end as besides this possibility it really is quite a good article and as long as those issues are fixed (or judged not a problem by someone else) I see no reason why this can't become a GA fairly quickly. I certainly apologize for doing this as I know how long the GA process can be but I simply would prefer someone else to take care of this issue. However, for any future reviewer, rest assured that apart from this potential close paraphrasing issue that the article is substantially well-written and I generally approve of it going to GA status otherwise. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Duonaut Wikipedia’s own policy acknowledges that there are a limited way of saying essential information.

  The examples given followed Wikipedia’s guideline of not replicating “creative phrases” and rewording where possible.

  I am at al loss with one particular example given. The only similarity between the example given of “marking the start to an end political leaders blocking the appointment of Jews from being appointed to higher political positions" vs "signaled the beginning of the end to the use of anti-Semitism by political leaders to block the appointment of Jews to positions of great importance in American political life" is that they convey the same information/concept/thought. SecretName101 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  There’s a degree with which paraphrasing has to maintain some resemblance before it distorts/loses original meaning SecretName101 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you feel a particular phrase cannot be paraphrased without losing meaning, you have the option of quoting directly with appropriate attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Except there is no EXACT phrase. There are similar wordings, which is unavoidable when it comes to plain stating certain matters of fact. There are only so many ways some things can be said without unneeded ornamentation. To have a completely incomparable wording is impossible to do without losing meaning. SecretName101 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)