With my winter hiatus at an end, I've returned to regular editing and picking up where I left off.
Sherman Minton is an intriguing character who played an interesting role during a turbulent period. The article is extremely well referenced, painstakingly researched, in compliance with all policy and guidelines, and well wrote (having been through several copy edits in its previous GA and FA reviews), and I believe it is now time to give Mr Minton's article the star. I look forward to your comments, and will work diligently to resolve any issue that may be found. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed it last time and I'll be doing it again. Preliminarily, I will say it looks much better than last time. One question, if the image labeled "Senator Sherman Minton" was taken during the time on the court, as it is sourced to the Supreme Court, how come he is labeled as a Senator in the caption? Please allow several days for a full review, I am hopelessly backed up both with aritcle and review work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which one you mean? The one in the lead says "Supreme Court" Minton, and the one in the article "Senator Sherman Minton", both are true to the caption. Maybe you are referring to one I've overlooked though? :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great article! All Supreme Court Justices should be so well-chronicled. That said, I have a few comments:
The first paragraph of the lead is a good summary, but the other paragraphs feel kind of jumbled. Do you think having them in chronological order might help?
The "Lobby Investigation Committee" section could be condensed a bit. I realize this is not a terribly useful comment, so if you can't find anything to remove, no problem. It just seems to go on a bit too long.
Looks good. I linked to the new article, but I see you added a "see also", so if you think it's duplicative, please revert me. --Coemgenus19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment
Only looking briefly at the World War I material (very small part of the article). You probably want to include links somewhere around there to American Expeditionary Forces, 84th Division (United States), and Western Front (World War I). You also link Germany twice, which is not needed (in general, there is a lot of overlinking in the article). You then link three places where his unit served (though it seems they were behind the front line and did not see action - you might want to make that clearer). The piped link showing Verdun for a link to Battle of Verdun is misleading, as that is usually used to refer to the main part of the battle that took place in 1916 (before the US entered the war and before Minton arrived in France). You then pipe Soissons to Battle of Soissons (1918). The Americans were there, aiding the French, but you need to be sure that Minton was actually in a support role behind the lines during that battle to justify linking it (he may have arrived in the Soissons area later in the war). Finally, you link to Belgium - can you be more precise about where his unit were located? You also really need dates, as the Americans were involved in a big push in the Verdun sector in 1918 (the Meuse-Argonne Offensive), but from the order you give here, it sounds like Minton was in Belgium at that time. Essentially, if he was only ever in a scouting role and never saw combat, I would just say that and link to the places, but not link any battles unless specifically mentioned in the sources you are using.Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you comments. I've taken your advice and linked to just the locations, he was not involved in combat, but the sources are not clear to what extent his supporting role had with the combat forces. I take from it that he was only watching supply lines during the war. The two sources also does not give date to his specific actions, but it does list those locations in that order. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed, so striking out comment, but will leave fuller review to others. Ping me if there is a lack of reviews and I may find time to look at the rest of the article, but it's not really my area, so I would only be looking at general readability. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
"Chief Justice John G. Roberts is the only other Supreme Court Justice from Indiana, but was not born in the state" - source?
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm looking at the legal cases, for example ref 99 - Standard Oil Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 173 F.2d 210 (1949). Compare that formatting (one comma) to United States v. New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 173 F.2d 79, (1949) (two commas), for example. Not a huge issue, just some minor inconsistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press US" - Oxfordshire is not in the US
Indeed it is not, but that is what the publisher is listed as in the book. I suspect they must have a printing house in the United States for North American materials. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gugin 2009: provide complete page range in References
I do not have that information, the book would have to be removed. I would prefer to leave this one, as it is only a further reading suggestion this information is not critical in nature, nor guideline violating. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical Dictionary, Dictionary of American Biography - entry name? Page(s)? Author?
I believe I've addressed the issue I could find. I don't personally have access to the further reading section, they are formerly general references moved to that section because I don't have access to them. I do not have the information necessary to expand them in any way, and will remove the section in its entirety if it is a serious issue. Thanks for you review! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general such information is available through an Internet search. However, formatting inconsistencies can usually be addressed without further info - it just involves rearranging/repunctuating what is already present. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but to correct some of the needed differences, such as page range issues, volume, and edition information, one would need to have access to the source directly, otherwise we would be reduced to guessing at the information, which I have already partially done. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I know FA nominators hate to hear these words, but the prose needs work and I recommend a copyedit, preferably by someone reasonably knowledgeable in the law. That being said, it has improved from last times. The article is improved from last time, but reading through I found a large number of prose glitches. I have itemized the ones in the lede, below. Once more work has been done, I will be very happy to go through again, I think the work can be done within the course of this FAC.
Lede
Is the comma in the opening sentence really necessary?
" He attended Indiana University, Yale and the Sorbonne; he was the most educated justice during his time on the Supreme Court. " I think these ideas are two different to be joined by a semicolon. Suggest reversing, i.e. "The most educated justice during his time on the Supreme Court, Minton was educated ..."
"infamous" Since the average reader will not know of that speech, I think you need to say at least briefly why it was infamous or else tone down the word considerably.
court packing plans" Surely there is an article or at least a section of Franklin's article that can be linked to?
"as a federal judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit." This reads oddly. How about "as a judge of the United ..." federal is redundant in my view.
The second sentence of the third paragraph needs splitting, it just tries to do too much.
" regular supporter of the majority opinions". I've never seen that phrasing before and suspect it will sound a false note to other lawyers who read it. How about『regularly joined the Court's majority opinions.
』altered the Bench's composition." Really, what you mean is "the Court", "the Bench" refers to the body of all judges, or perhaps all federal judges. As Eisenhower is deemed a moderate conservative, it might be useful to the reader if you noted that his appointees actually made the court more activist (and that's not my POV). A pipe to Warren Court might help. And I'm raising my eyebrows a bit, really the change in nine that saved time was Warren's appointment to replace Vinson. No one else had really made much of an impact by the time Minton retired.
the final paragraph of the lede gets much too bogged down in argument to suit my taste, but others may differ. I would also check the MOS on capitalization of terms like Senator and Justice when used in isolation like that. I agree with you, Court should be capitalized whenever referring to the Supreme Court as an institution.
I fixed up these specific instances, except a couple I think I don't follow.
The Warren court did indeed become increasingly activist, but this shift began during Minton's tenure and worsened after. I don't think its fair to say it happened after. He was quite consistently in the minority in the latter years of his term, but quite consistently in the majority in the early years - his positions remained the same, but the overall position continually moved towards activism. If that is what you mean, I think I capture this fairly well already - but I am not sure thats what you mean. :)
In regards to the last paragraph of the lead, Minton is consistently rated among the worst justices. It doesn't feel neutral to me to just say that without giving reasoning and an alternative point of view.
Np. I admire your dedication to this article. I've struck the oppose and will look it over in detail to see if i feel like supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Support. Edited by SteveT • C at 17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Most of my content issues were resolved in the second FAC, during which I pitched in with a few prose tweaks (I also note that I introduced a couple of now-resolved errors—sorry!) I was almost ready to support when the FAC closed, and assumed it would soon be back. I've read this more than enough times by now to be comfortable with the prose (maybe over-comfortable?) so only one major point remains for me. I'm afraid I do agree with those discomforted by the statement—in the lead no less—that "These rulings and their limited impact lead many historians to rank Minton among the worst Supreme Court Justices." I know this has come up before, and you must be tired of defending it, so I'm sorry to bring it up again. But although I'm willing to accept that this may be a common view of his time in the court, it is not supported by the article body as it stands, in which only one source, one historian (Schwartz), makes the claim. The section in question, "Death and legacy", also uses the weasely "Other historians [have a negative opinion]", when again only Schwartz is cited. These are harsh words; the consensus opinion—going only from what's written in the article body—seems to be instead that Minton's time is merely regarded as having had little overall impact. But even so, it's hard to judge, as only a few legal historians are cited on this point; without access to some kind of meta-analysis, we have to be very careful to avoid the appearance of selective quoting (and I'm not saying I think you've deliberately—or at all—done that here), which can be used to support almost any point-of-view. I'm happy to accept I've got the wrong end of the stick (does Schwartz offer commentary on what other legal historians say about Minton? It doesn't appear so from the book description) and I look forward to your response (there's no need to ping; I've watchlisted the article and this page). All the best, SteveT • C22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with your opinion. I am in fact loathe to write negative of a person, especially in the lead, I have felt since the opinion seemed to be so overwhelming, to not say it in the lead would be inappropriate. All the sources, even those sympathetic (Gugin and Radcliff) concede that consensus is not on their side, and that he is generally ranked very low. That is in fact the impetus for Gugin's work. I suppose I could try to bring that out better in the article. That said, I have no personal problem with removing that statement from the lead, that was just my attempt to sum up the legacy section in a couple sentences. I could probably word it in a less... blatant way. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's not that I'm loathe to see or write material negative of a person, it's more that I don't think the cited material supported the assertion. You say that the impetus for Gugin's rebuttal was the overwhelming degree of opinion against Minton's time as a SCJ, and I have no reason to dispute that, but as it stood, the article only used one legal historian's opinion to back it up (to clarify, I'm more than happy to see the "worst" statement re-inserted if an authoritative source can be found that says this is the majority opinion of Minton). Again, it wasn't that I didn't believe you; it was more because I'm aware of how more nefarious folks than ourselves can use such tactics to justify their own points of view. I'm more familiar with film articles, so I apologise for the frivolous example, but consider Battlefield Earth, widely considered one of the worst films of ... whatever the hell year it came out. Using the three positive reviews (out of hundreds) the film received, however, I could quite easily spin the "Critical Reception" section to convincingly claim that that film is pretty good (this is one of the reasons Wikiproject Films relies, perhaps too heavily, on review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic when more scholarly analyses are absent—mainly for newer films). That's why avoiding even the appearance of selective quoting, even when what's being stated is true, is so important. But you've already reworded the lead to my satisfaction, so this is just a pointless aside. I'm happy now to support its promotion. Nice work, SteveT • C17:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I don't have much background in Supreme Court justices, but I do have a copy of David Atkinson's Leaving the Bench, so I checked that to see how his comments on Minton match up with the article. I've no strong opinion about his reliability as a source, and of course you may already have read this and discarded this information, but here's what I found.
Atkinson says that it was the anemia that led to the use of the cane; his spine was damaged before they began giving him vitamin therapy. Your source says it was tripping over a stone that caused his use of a cane. Atkinson's source is Rudko, Truman's Court, p. 114.
Both Gugin and Radcliff agree that it was the breaking of his leg that started him using the cane, which occurred after he first developed anemia. This is not included in the article, but the cane in his photos was actually a gift from Truman given to him around the time of his nomination to the supreme court. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atkinson says Minton's main reason for retirement was "his fear that his mental powers were failing during the 1955 term". Atkinson cites this to p. 114 of Rudko's Truman's Court, and goes on to say that Minton's clerks didn't think he was losing any acuity. I think if this is reliable then it is worth including the reason why he retired. In fact Atkinson's whole book is about reasons for retirements from SCOTUS, so the page or so on Minton is quite detailed on that topic, giving the reasons Earl Warren believed were relevant, and other background information.
The answer to this is two-fold. Publicly his reason for retirement was his health. However privately he was also very unhappy about always being in the minority and having no impact in his later years, which also played a factor in his decision. I mention this in the paragraph starting as "Minton did not enjoy the limited influence of his judicial role in the later years...". However I don;t directly tie that to his cause of retirement. I will try to do that though. Is that more in line with your source, or is there something more? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Atkinson, Minton converted to Catholicism after his retirement. Source is private correspondence between Minton's son and Atkinson.
Gugin is the only source I have with much detail on this particular item. It indicates his wife nagged him into going to mass in his later years and he gave in, her sources are private letters and family interviews. Since it seems a very minor part of his life, I only mention it in passing like this "Minton himself was nominally Catholic and had shunned Christianity for most of his life; he only began to occasionally attend mass following his retirement." —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atkinson provides a comment made by William O. Douglas about Minton regarding his surprising conservatism, drawn from an interview Atkinson conducted with Douglas in 1968. These might be a bit peripheral to this article, but just in case you're interested, Douglas's remarks are about how a justice with a prior partisan record, such as Minton, loses the aid of a "comforting party line" when on the court.
Well, it wasn't really a review; I haven't read through the whole article, and may not get to it. I was just wondering if the extra source would be useful. If you like, I can email you a scan of the relevant pages and you can decide if any of it is usable -- just email me via the link on my user page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINKing abounds, I only got some of it, but there's more ... strangely, underlinking as well. Anyone who speaks English is likely to know what WWI and WWII are, but are non-US English-speakers familiar with Democratic party and Republican party, which are not linked on first occurrence? A thorough linking review is needed. Is all of that "See also" necessary? Indiana is linked over and over, and there's an external jump in the text-- that's a no-no that shouldn't have gotten by.
I am sorry, I had all that fixed at one point. I have tried to clean it all up again. I see Indiana linked six times, once in the lead, once in the body, and the rest in various infoboxes. I have always thought that links in infoboxes were exempt from the overlinking guidelines, I would gladly remove the links though if you think they are inappropriate. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Licensing tag for File:Boyhood_home_of_Sherman_Minton.jpg should probably be FoP-US
Its pretty apparent it is an official court photo, which makes it public domain as a work of the Government. It is made in the same standard template as court photos have been made for a very long time. I don't have a source for that, I took the image from a Library of Congress exhibit. As I don't have a source to establish the fact, I would remove the image if you think it necessary. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got this fixed. Do you know where a list of all those templates are? I often am not sure what to put when I upload things, and sometimes have to guess. I only upload when I am sure they are ok, but not always sure how to document it properly. Thanks! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He became friends with Paul V. McNutt, future Governor of Indiana, and several other men (including presidential candidate Wendell L. Willkie), who later became influential in the state.": "He became friends with future Governor of IndianaPaul V. McNutt, future presidential candidate Wendell L. Willkie, and other men who later became influential in the state."
The cite concerning subsisting on wild berries apparently comes from Gugin. A Google books snippet shows that Gugin cites that paragraph; I'd like to know what they cite it to, because it sounds like something a publicist might write.
I would have to grab that book to look it back up. She based her work in large part on family interviews, I would suspect it might be from there. The thing is not so uncommon though at that time and at that college, I've read of quite a few other instances of similar events there. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"lived on berries he picked in the forest, leftover bread from the cafeteria and free milk": not uncommon for valedictorians? I'd prefer to see a cite. - Dank (push to talk)
Gugin says, speaking of him and several freinds "They lived in the fraternity house and existed primarily on the wild berries they picked, the stale leftover bread they bought at two loaves for a nickel, and the free milk they coaxed from a milkman." There is a snippet view online [2], I don't have the book on hand to check the cite, its at the library. I don't know that I will have a chance pick it up again before this review ends. Perhaps I could just take out the wild berries and free milk part? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He replied to Republican attacks in the speech and claimed that while the constitution should be upheld, it could not be eaten by the starving masses; he concluded that the needs of the masses were more important than the need to uphold the constitution." I don't know what you're saying here.
It a paraphrase of what he said. To wit, he believed it was more important to meet the needs of the people than to abide by the rule of law. I think that is fairly clear. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The words contradict each other: "while the constitution should be upheld" but "more important than the need to uphold the constitution". - Dank (push to talk)
I think he was trying to ride the fence and have two positions on the same issue after the backlash. He said he supported the constitution, but at the same time thought it more important to enact the unconstitutional reforms. So he made statements that both did and did not support it, which is indeed a contradiction. Maybe you could suggest a better way to word that? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... designed to reform judicial salaries and districting, among many other measures." I'm not sure if this means that they were reforming judicial districting, and you probably don't need to say "many other measures" since it's an omnibus bill.
"Re-election": This is the right hyphenation outside the US, but most US dictionaries list it without the hyphen. I see it often enough that I'm happy leaving it alone, since you're consistent.
Yes, it was mixed usage at one point, and that is the one I just went with. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)
"In his final year in office, there was considerable speculation in the press that Minton would be named to higher office, including cabinet positions and the Supreme Court, but the speculations did not prove true.": That particular speculation did prove true. Did you mean "immediately named"?
It was speculated he would be named before his term ended. Since emphasis is that the speculation occurred in his final year in office, that the statement that it did not prove true was accurate. And arguably, a circuit court judge is a position lower than a Senator in influence and power. So it was nearly 15 years before he was named to higher office. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"immediately named" would be better, since he was eventually named to the Supreme Court. - Dank (push to talk)
I've modified to it "nominated by Roosevelt", the speculation was the he would reward him for his loyalty. So in that sense it never proved to true as well. I can further alter it if you think it nessecary. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Linda Gugin has speculated that he was managing Roosevelt's patronage system.", "as a reward for his loyalty during the court packing failure": Both of these need some evidence.
The article goes on to expound that evidence indirectly, stating how he was responsible for numerous patronage appointments both during and after his tenure in the position. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything in the article to support "he was managing Roosevelt's patronage system", which is not the kind of charge we should be making without evidence. Maybe I missed it. - Dank (push to talk)
To clarify: I see "Minton remained active in Democratic politics behind the scenes and was in regular correspondence with Roosevelt to make patronage suggestions", but patronage either is, or isn't far from, a serious crime, so "someone said they did it" probably isn't strong enough support; some kind of details, or pointing to where the details were revealed, is called for. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the very next sentence, after this statement, the article goes on to point out that Minton was directly involved in several important appointments, and later in the article it is mentioned how even after moving to the courts he still made patronage recommendations to Roosevelt. These and several other patronage related events not mentioned in the article are the basis of her speculation. I could rephrase it if you think appropriate to something more like, "Minton advised on many patronage appointments...". In any event, he was heavily involved in advising on patronage issues, if not directly managing the system himself. I think maybe we are meaning different things when we say patronage. In government there are two types of positions - those filled through a merit hiring system, and patronage positions filled by appointment. I don't pick up a negative connotation in the sources concerning his role, just the fact that he was unusually involved in a large number of appointments. Patronage, of itself, is not illegal so long as its not being used to gain something from the appointment other than putting a political ally in a position. It is if the deal is made to get money, to buy a person off, or things like that when it gets illegal. I don't think that was going on at all. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got halfway through it, to Seventh Circuit. I can't support it in the current form because a lot of my copyediting that fixed typos has been undone; I'd also rather keep the link I added to omnibus bill. This, this and this are the diffs of my work. The bigger problem is that IMO the writers don't have a feel for how to report neutrally on politics; please check my diffs to see what I think works better, and then check the second half of the article for similar problems, or get some Wikipedian who is familiar with political reporting and/or Wikipedian NPOV issues to do it. I'll revisit this in a few days. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about some of your fixing getting undone, I was delinking while you were copying editing and looks like we had an edit conflict at one point. Thank you for you comments, I've responded specifically to a few, I will try to address the remainder. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing fixed yet, which is fine, take your time. I'm not watchlisting, so feel free to ping me at any point where you've had a chance to deal with my concerns and the concerns of other reviews, and I'll take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose Hi Charles Edward. Hope you don't mind - I picked your article to ease back into reviewing because I've always enjoyed the topics you cover. I liked this one too, but see a few areas of improvement:
This is a long article. I see a lot of places where information could be trimmed because it isn't really necessary to understanding this man. The writing could also be tightened a great deal. I've made a first pass at the Family and Background section. I reverted myself, but here's the diff (think I messed up the refs - so don't revert back!): [3] I've listed some examples of what I changed below. I think tightening up the writing will make the article read better.
Paragraph one of Family and Background - the last 3 sentences are extraneous information.
It was normal in the 1890s for children to be born at home and for their mothers to be homemakers - we don't need to spell that out.
Made more sense to me to put his father's occupation as a clause in paragraph 2, where it talks about his disability while working?
We're told that the financial situation worsened after Minton's mother got cancer, but not spelled out exactly how. Can infer it, but do we really need that info? We don't know how that impacted him....
What does it mean - "after saving enough money to help the family" - to help them with/do what? Why did he go back to Indiana and not go to schoolin Fort Wort?
MOS nitpick - don't write out numbers over ten (fourteen)
I'm not exactly sure what this means: "The group had a powerful political influence in the state at the time, and he used his position for the benefit of his party."
"Becoming popular during his two years as commissioner," - did people actually know his name, or were they just thrilled that bills were lower? Was the popularity among regular people or only party leaders?
Minton was described as a "faithful disciple of judicial restraint," - who described him this way?
who determined that "The court's most notable decisions with the longest impact were..."
"This proved to be the most important vote as it allowed the tests to be given with only minimal suspicion of a person's disloyalty to the government" - according to whom?
I was confused that in the Judicial restraint section there was a paragraph on civil liberties but the only example was from his tiime on the Circuit court - wouldn't that go better in another section?
The legacy section seems to me to be a little repetitive in spots - reiterating information already covered in other parts of the article.
Thanks your review, and I appreciate your kind comments. I have tried to address the specific issues you raised. I've also tried to cut back in places on content. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead review:
"Born into an impoverished rural family in southern Indiana, Minton worked to pay for his education." I'm not a fan of this being the second sentence in the lead. First, it seems to congratulate Minton on his awesomeness before fully explaining why Minton was an important figure. Second, it incorrectly implies that this is somehow out of the ordinary and worthy of our attention. Lots of college attendees pay for their own education. While I appreciate that the lead is in chronological order, I think that for a person as significant as Minton is, it would be more logical to present his political accomplishments first before indulging in trivial biographical details.
The lead is very much changed from my initial writing of it. The point, which is somewhat lost now, was that he was desperately poor, and he had to finance not just his own college, but his highschool and work during his grammar school years as well. He was a child laborer. A despite his extreme poverty he became very highly educated, attending top American and European colleges, which is indeed very unusual for that period of time. I've just completely removed the sentence. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, I think that if you're going to mention his education, as you do with "He was the most educated justice during his time on the Supreme Court; he attended Indiana University, Yale and the Sorbonne.", you should definitely mention what degree(s) he obtained, so as to deter readers from presuming that he simply transferred schools several times for funzies. --Cryptic C62 · Talk22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He served as a Captain in World War I, before launching his legal and political career, and serving briefly in the administration of Indiana Governor Paul V. McNutt." Chronology and grammar are unclear here. Assuming I've interpreted this correctly, I'm thinking that a better phrasing would be: "He served as a Captain in World War I before serving briefly in the administration of Indiana Governor Paul V. McNutt, which marked the beginning of his legal and political career.
No, that would not be quite correct. The sentance is just an attempt to give background on his rise to the Senate and Court.. He was in the military for a couple years, then ran unsuccessfully for office multiple times while beginning a career in law, then about ten years later was a commissioner, and then another years later a Senator. It was more in line with your suggestion though, and changing it would conflict with the comments of previous reviewers. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I recommend splitting off the McNutt bit into a separate sentence along the lines of "His first official position was as a commissioner in the administration of Indiana Governor Paul V. McNutt." I have no idea if this is an accurate phrasing, but I think you get the idea. This is just intended to help clarify the chronology and make the sentence less clunky. --Cryptic C62 · Talk22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead uses "Captain" to refer to Minton's rank; the body uses "captain". These should be made consistent.
"Historians note the unusual contrast between his role as a partisan liberal Senator and his role as a conservative jurist." I don't see this point being made in the body of the article, though I may have missed it somewhere.
It is made in the seventh circuit section, the first paragraph of the jurisprudence section describes it in detail. That thought is subsequently built upon in the judicial restraint and legacy sections. I have however cut back the information on that particular item at the request of another reviewer.
