Talk:Wiley Rutledge

Feedback welcome

I've rewritten from the article from the ground up, so if any page watchers are lurking around I'd be glad to hear any comments or suggestions you might have. It's not quite perfect, and there are still a few things I'd like to add, but I'd welcome feedback nonetheless. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Wiley Rutledge's grave is empty? Source: Christensen, 2008, pg. 25: "'The remains of Justice Rutledge are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, Suitland, Maryland, near Washington, D.C., pending a family decision on his final resting place. Annabel Rutledge placed a headstone in his memory at Mountain View Cemetery in Boulder, Colorado.' Of course, I had previously gone to Boulder—a several-hundred-mile "detour"—and paid my respects at what I now discovered was an empty grave."
  • ALT1: ... that future U.S. Supreme Court justice Wiley Rutledge married his college Greek instructor—in a tuberculosis sanatorium? Source: Hall, 2001, pg. 331: "There he majored in classical languages and met his future wife Annabel Person, who taught Greek at the college....The same disease that killed his mother soon destroyed his health as well, however, and he was forced to retire to a sanatorium, where he began the slow process of recovery from tuberculosis—and where he married Annabel in August 1917."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Camilleri

5x expanded by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Self-nominated at 04:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC).

• Full review to follow (though a quick check checked out), but right now I have a question about ALT1 (which is my preferred hook): is there a reason why there's an emdash instead of just being a space? The thought seems to work even if there's just a space between "instructor" and "in" since the main hook fact is him marrying his wife in a sanatorium. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Narutolovehinata5. If you think it would flow better without the emdash, that's fine. The reason I put it there is that there are two facts that I want to emphasize: that he married his college professor (unusual) and, separately, that he got married in a tuberculosis sanatorium (really unusual). But I trust your judgment, so feel free to remove it if you think that's better. Thanks again! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The reason I brought up the emdash thing is because I don't really see that being used often in DYK hooks. I think the hook does read slightly better without it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Very well: removed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Extraordinary Writ: Really sorry about this, but after my initial comment, I saw some other nominations that also used the dash, and on further reflection I think the dash does work in this case after all. Sorry about the inconvenience! Anyway, the article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been done. I also didn't find any close paraphrasing. As mentioned earlier, I like ALT1 the best; I don't have access to the source so I'll assume good faith here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure, no trouble at all, Narutolovehinata5. I've added it back in. Thanks again! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Nomination is approved with only ALT1 being approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT1 to Prep 5 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly useful source

Hey, Extraordinary Writ. I was wondering if you'd seen this source during the course of your research and/or if it may be of any use to you:

• Mendelson, Wallace (1950). "Mr. Justice Rutledge's Mark upon the Bill of Rights". Columbia Law Review. 50 (1): 48–51. doi:10.2307/1119223. JSTOR 1119223.

It's fairly short, but it's quite a reliable source. For some reason, I can't access JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library right now, so I figured I'd hand it off to you in case it has something useful. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TheTechnician27. I had seen that article a while back: basically, it's only four pages long and so there's not an awful lot I can use it for. Thanks for pointing it out anyhow (and for your help with the citations) – I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair. By the way, if you'd like, I could perform the GA review. I've only performed two so far (Bionicle (video game) and Marjorie Taylor Greene) and they generally take me a little while, though I like to think that's because I'm quite thorough. It isn't a rubber stamp, and I sometimes ask incidental questions that could be more appropriate for a FA discussion, but I'm always careful to delineate these and not let them get in the way of the review. Regardless, I've given the article a B-class in the interim, as it clearly meets those criteria. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to offer. I'll leave the choice up to you: I certainly wouldn't want to pressure you into doing a review that you wouldn't do otherwise (particularly since your user page says you're not reviewing any GANs at the moment), but if you want to do it I'm hardly going to say no. I'm not in a hurry (I've been working on Rutledge on and off since October), so I don't really mind whether the review comes now or later. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops! That blurb on my user page was actually outdated by a couple months. I'd be happy to review it; I'm really interested in learning about the subject, and I seriously doubt there would be more than a few issues to iron out, if that. I'll go ahead and start a review. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wiley Rutledge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellent spelling, prose, and grammar throughout. The lead is long enough and covers the main points; the layout is well-structured and comports with guidelines; the prose avoids weasel words, euphemisms, etc.; and the MOS guidelines about fiction and lists do not apply here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Contains a properly formatted reference section. All citations are to reliable sources. c and d are combined section-by-section below.

   i. Lead

   ii. Early life and education

   iii. Career

   iv. Court of Appeals (1939–1943)

   v. Supreme Court nomination

   vi. Supreme Court (1943–1949)

   a) First Amendment

   b) Criminal procedure

   c) Wartime cases

   d) Equal protection

   e) Business, labor, and the Commerce Clause

   vii. Personal life and death

   viii. Legacy

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the subject extensively without straying into extraneous detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article refrains from judgment calls on Rutledge's judicial philosophy or decisions and turns only to reliable sources for secondary analysis.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A couple edits every month or so; no warring whatsoever.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are well-used and well-captioned. I tried finding a picture of Cloverport circa 1890s for the 'Early life and education' section, but I couldn't, and that's well beyond the scope of a GA review and probably even an FA one. All images have reasonable justifications for public domain status.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Status query

TheTechnician27, Extraordinary Writ, where does this review stand? It was opened five weeks ago, and only one edit made here and to the article by the reviewer since the beginning of the month. How soon is this likely to be completed? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. The review will be completed by the end of the week. Real life has just gotten a bit hectic lately; however, I have checked the lead, Early life and education, and Supreme Court nomination but forgot to update them, and they were all good. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Supreme court nomination subarticle

I assume the recent abbreviation (now reverted) of the article was an implementation of summary style because of the newly-created Wiley Rutledge Supreme Court nomination. I'm not sure it was a good idea to create a sub-article; the article is fairly long, but not excessively so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree that this wasn't at the point where a split was necessary from a size perspective. After my revert, most of the subarticle (with the exception of the "subcommittee" section) now duplicates the main article—unless there's a bunch more detail that someone wants to add to the subarticle, I'd be inclined to merge it back into the main article. Courtesy ping SecretName101. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would keep the article on the nomination, as there is substantial information there about other potential candidates for the nomination that does not really fit into the biographic article (in fact, I see some of that content was just removed). BD2412 T 02:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the subarticle has been expanded a bit since my earlier comment—there's probably enough content now to make the subarticle worthwhile. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Something garbelled in last paragraph of lead

@Extraordinary Writ: Something seems garblled in the section on his death in the last lead paragraph, but I don’t know enough about topic to try to fix it: “On the Court, his views aligned most often with those of Justice Frank Murphy, having suffered a massive stroke, after six years' service on the Supreme Court.” Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Serjeant Buzfuz—this was vandalism, which has now been reverted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes more sense now! Excellent work on the article. Enjoyed reading it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)