Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Will P. Brady/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by FACBot (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 19 February 2022 (Promoting 'Will P. Brady'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [1].

Will P. Brady

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)

This article was originally an afterthought written as I tried to learn more about the family of Brady's niece, the philologist Caroline Brady (an interesting story—see the part about Van Egmond). A year and a half later I returned to it and dug in; the result is a detailed snapshot of some of the legal, political, and social dynamics at play in West Texas in the early 20th century, where Brady, the El Paso Herald wrote, was "one of the best known public men". Reviewed by Iazyges last year and refined since, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
  • File:1929.11.15 - The Austin American - Will P. Brady.png Not convinced by the licensing here, the photograph would be covered by any copyright notice attached to the publication.
  • I've taken a look through the paper (both when I added the image to the article, and again now), and there appears to be no copyright notice. From looking at the twelve pages and running text searches (e.g., for "copyright" and "1929"), the only notice I can find is the page-eleven copyright notice for an R. J. Reynolds ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "His parents, James and Agnes Brady,[5] were early settlers of the city, having arrived five years earlier.[6][7] " This doesn't seem that early given that Austin had been the capital, on and off, for thirty years.
  • Per the source (1924 obit of Will Brady's father), "Mr. Brady was a pioneer resident in Austin, coming here in 1871 and for forty years was engaged in the mercantile business." "Early" and "pioneer" are, I think, relative terms. According to Austin's population figures there were only 4,428 residents in 1870, and 42,174 in 1925. I would assume that given that he moved there when Austin was quite small and still around when it was ten times larger, many considered him an early settler. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Brady's graduation from high school require three footnotes? Similar for the college.
  • The years are kind of odd—he graduated high school in 1895, but matriculated at UT in 1894. This seems to have been the way things were done then—a number of his high school classmates did the same—but it seemed worth adding some reinforcing footnotes to show that the dates are correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning up front when you discuss his tenure as superintendent--you allude to it later--that he only had jurisdiction over the rural schools, not those in Austin.
  • Did Brady have to face a primary election in 1900?
  • Are we able to say whether Brady sought re-election in 1904?
  • It seems unlikely; he didn't run in the primary, at any rate. Although speculative, I would guess that he was ready to move on to other things. Also, in the later words of judge Dan M. Jackson, "It's a good Democratic principle to reelect public servants that are efficient and trustworthy, and it has been a Democratic custom in Texas to give second two year terms to efficient men". Thus, there may have been an unofficial term limit and/or expectation of a second term, after which it may have been natural for Brady to expand his horizons. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brady stood for the bar" That's an unusual phrase to me, anyway, as a lawyer. Did Brady pass an examination or was some other mode of admission followed?
  • Changed to "applied for admission to the bar"; "stood for the bar" doesn't sound odd to me, although to be fair, I would normally say "took the bar" (if referring to the exam itself). The source just says "The bar examiners for the Third supreme judicial district are in session in the court of civil appeals. The board has six applicants before it for licenses to practice law. The applicants are: Will P. Brady, T. J. Hollbrook, D. O. Sehilg and J. W. Moffett." (Yes, it says six but lists four). I don't know how the bar worked in 1905 in Texas; there might have been a test beforehand and the application was just the pro forma admissions process, or perhaps the application was the substantive part of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then spent several weeks in Milwaukee with a G. W. Briggs,[88] visiting the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis around the same time.[89]" This implies that it was 1906 but the St. Louis Fair took place in 1904.
  • "On 3 February 1909" Shouldn't this be month-day-year as a US article? Please check elsewhere in article. Used at least twice in 1919.
  • It's just personal preference; MDY has always seemed odd, whereas DMY/YMD at least progress from most to least specific (or vice versa). After a few copy edits, the article is fully consistent in its approach. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By September, however, following a visit to Los Angeles,[257][258] he and McClintock agreed that Brady would handle civil matters and McClintock criminal;[259] in such a case heard that month, Brady issued a directed verdict in a lawsuit over the possession of real property.[260]" This sentence could benefit from splitting.
  • "Spanish flu" perhaps "Spanish influenza".
  • "Ward county" probably "Ward County".
  • "democratic" should be "Democratic" when referring to the party.
  • "a position as assistant U.S. district attorney for the Southern District of California.[340] " Probably "assistant United States attorney" is a better way of putting it.
  • "tax exempt" likely "tax-exempt"
  • Compare " the state Democratic Central committee" and " the county democratic executive committee" Even ignoring the capitalization of "Democratic", I see inconsistencies (not to mention sundry committees, conventions, etc.) Also (later) "Liberty club". Find a consistent way of referring to these.
  • I've capitalized most of these. It's a bit difficult because a) the newspapers have inconsistent capitalization, and b) sometimes it's difficult to figure out what is an official name, and what is just a description. But it should be fairly consistent now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the second railroad referred to in the business section, from New Mexico to Pecos, actually built?
  • "By 1906 he was the acting state president of the organization,[367] and presided over the convention in Corpus Christi,[368][369] where he was elected president;[370] he had traveled there with his father.[367][371] " Why do we care about the father?
  • "crowds of more than 1,375 at once" Should "once" be "one time"?
  • "Following his 1915 move to El Paso, Brady remained involved in the social life of his new home." Probably "remained" should be "became" as he was not previously involved in El Paso activities.
  • "Across 1917 and 1918,[416][417] he and other members of the local bar assisted those filling out draft questionnaires.[418][419][420]" "Across" should probably be "During".
  • "The conviction was reversed on appeal the following year.[132][133] Hiles was again convicted of manslaughter in 1915, and the verdict sustained.[134][135]" Reversed would probably mean that the appeals court directed he be found not guilty, and he could not be retried. Possibly "overturned"?
  • "jitne" probably "jitney"
  • "Reum had moved to El Paso around 1900 with her husband Charles,[224] also a physician.[225]" This assumes that Anna Reum was a physician. Was she? Elsewhere, I mean.
  • According to various sources (example), they were both physicians. With that said, it seems to have been a bit of a loose and unregulated term back then; much of the trouble they got into seems to have been due to the increasing regulation of their field. This article about her husband contains some details, and quotes the relevant statute: "From and after the passage of this amendment [in July 1901] it shall be unlawful for any person to practice medicine ... in this state except, First, all those who were practicing medicine in Texas prior to January 1, 1885; second, all those who began the practice of medicine in this state after the above date who complied with the laws of this state regulating the practice of medicine prior to the passage of this act; provided that those who had diplomas recorded sicne January 1, 1891, shall present to the state board of medical examiners ... satisfactory evidence that their diplomas were issued by bona fide medical colleges of respectable standing." --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reeves County Bar association" Is this the proper capitalization?
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything done yet or is there more? Ping me when you're ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Wehwalt. Everything now responded to. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - Have you been able to revisit this one? Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I had. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks without supports. If there's no progress towards promotion, it may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I'm still responding to the above comments—which I would read as progress towards promotion—but have been swimming in deadlines recently. I'll try to respond more fully in the coming days, but would appreciate a bit of forbearance. It is, after all, a long article, and for that reason alone, it's likely to take a little longer for people to review it and for me to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • 'And "for many years among the front ranks of our business men", as...': I don't think we need the "and" at the start. MOS:CONFORM would allow capitalization of the "F" in "for", so I think it would look OK.
    Reworded. MOS:CONFORM, for its part, does say that "for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets", which is how I have always been used to doing it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since I think it's OK, but what I was trying to say was that CONFORM doesn't require the square brackets, so it would have been OK to start the sentence '"For many years among the..."'. Personally I think it looks a little fussy to have the square brackets, if the reader would not be misled by omitting them, but it's a valid stylistic choice so I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The election was close—the Houston Daily Post reported that "it is impossible to tell tonight" who had won,[50] though the Statesman claimed that Day likely would "be the winner by a fair majority"[51]—but Brady won with 2,679 votes to 2,524.': do we need the newspaper quotes? There are a lot of small details in this article, and I think it would good to trim details that don't tell us anything about Brady.
    Fair enough—dropped it into a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Brady's former colleague McKenzie, was one of the incorporators of the Pecos Valley Southern Railway": if I understand the timeline correctly shouldn't this be "then-colleague", not "former colleague"?
    Brady had been district attorney for a few months at that point. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had traveled there with his father": another small detail I think we could cut.
    It's a minor point, but gives a bit of a sense of the family dynamic. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly a fan of bundling citations, though I know other editors are; I think if multiple sources are needed to establish something, there's no harm letting the reader see that that's the case. However, I wonder if in some cases you're adding valid but unnecessary citations. For example, "By 1916 he was an organizer of a local University of Texas alumni group" is supported by four citations to newspaper articles. Are they all required? If you can reduce the density of footnotes in cases like this I think it would be a good thing. The point of a footnote is not to give the reader as much evidence as possible, it's only to allow them to verify the information cited. Other examples: "Brady also heard cases in November and December 1917" (five cites), "While at the university Brady was involved in committees related to the final ball" (two cites), "and F. T. Maxwell" (two cites), "were named to take his place" (three cites).
    I've removed or unpacked some of these. In some cases, they're needed. With F. T. Maxwell, for instance, one cite gives the names of every member of the Maxwell clan, which adds assurance that the first cite is the obituary of the correct Maxwell—particularly helpful, given that the first name is given only as initials. But footnotes are not meant only to permit a reader to verify the information cited. According to the relevant guideline, this is the first reason for footnotes. Among the other reasons, "[b]y citing sources for Wikipedia content, ... [y]ou also help users find additional information on the subject". For anyone interested, those additional footnotes provide plenty of additional information. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are quibbles, and I think the article is FA quality. It does feel like an accumulation of small details, but the prose merges the details smoothly into a narrative. I've identified a couple of minor points I think could be cut, and there might be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, just checking you saw these comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Mike Christie—just have had limited time with work and travel. I'll try to respond to the remaining two comments shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I've just become a bit busy myself in real life, but should have a chance to follow up tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've added responses for the remaining comments. Many thanks for the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wouldn't handle the footnotes the way this article does, but that's a personal stylistic preference and not an FA criterion, so I've no hesitation in supporting this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Brady thereafter obtained a Bachelor of Laws from" - in British English (where I am from) we would say "obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree" not just "a Bachelor of Laws". But maybe US English is different - can you confirm?
  • Lead has a sentence beginning with "And". I was always told not to do this.
  • "This included teaching at summer normals" - I have no idea what a "summer normal" is, is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "His wife and sister Helen were also present for trial" => "His wife and sister Helen were also present for the trial"
  • "In early 1917 he ran for reelection" - think the last word should have a hyphen
  • "supporting Roosevelt's reelection campaign" - same here

Source review

[edit]

Placeholding. SN54129 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Buidhe, can we put this off for a week, as I've got to take the article to AfD first.
    As Usernameunique is an experienced FACer—this'll be their 21st, I believe—are you requiring spot checks? SN54129 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an editor's first promotion spot checks are always optional. (Ok, bar exceptional blotting of copy book.) Personally I always do a few, and dig deeper if I am not fully happy; but that is not a requirement. (I occasionally do some even if I am not carrying out a source review.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This version reviewed.

Ref # Claim Pass/fail Responses
3b Move to El Paso, 1915 P
4d Ill-health retirement P (although suggest replacing the Find a Grave link) Unfortunately I don't have access to the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune. Certain libraries do (e.g., here), which I presume is how the copy at Find a Grave was found. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13 Caroline, philology F (no mention of her as philologist) The link to Caroline Brady is doing most of the work in that sentence; the citation is to establish that Caroline Brady was Will Brady's niece. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14d Quote P
37 Geography teacher P
42 Sprinkle residency P
51 Statesman quote re. Day P
58 3-week vacation P
74 Attends STM P
76 Co-leading discussion P
83 Umbrella P
122 Trial of Orner P
155 Pardon of Wright (If Ancestry.com has this source, presumably it's elsewhere?) Per the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, which holds the original copies, the copies are available online on only Ancestry. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
156a DA until 1914, shooting of P
180 Session dates F -Not directly given? (Also, headline is "Terms of New County Court at Law Will Be Fixed Next Tuesday") Fixed the headline. The source says ""The first term of the new court will be held in July, beginning on the first Monday of that month and lasting four weeks." The first Monday of July 1917 was 2 July, and four weeks (ending Friday) gives us 27 July. Cites 188 and 189 say that the court adjourned on Saturday, which I suppose could mean either that it was the first day the court was closed, or the last day the court was open. As such, I've changed it to "The first session of the court lasted the first four weeks of July". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
191 House to let P
203 $25 vagrancy fines P
214 News ads What is it citing? 217 is the ad in question; it responds to 216, another ad. 214 is just to show whom William H. Fryer was, and why he's red-link worthy. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
224 Unopposed on ballot P
244 Reum, HANA, Leavenworth P
263 Sheriffs conspiring to murder P
265 September in LA P (although seems slightly redundant)
269 Damn P
290 Cruce Oil P
296 Attorney, director - Primary source; mentions director but not attorney. Added another source (298), which mentions attorney. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
297 David Can't see David anywhere! My eyes...? It's a two-page article, with the relevant portion in the second full paragraph on page 8. "The Sunshine corporation is headed by Alfred Tinally, Judge Will Brady, Major D. J. Brady, H. T. Biggs of Pecos and Roy D. Barnum, treasurer." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
315 Fiscal relief P
320 Democrat P (note SPS) What is SPS? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
325 Houston delegate P
328 Endorsing Harper P
345 Arroyo Grande P
353 Chair local DNC, Roosevelt nominator P
377 Elected president P
381 Knight's picnic P
385 Knights of Pythias meeting P
388 Railways P
408 Sheppard in El Paso P
428 Liberty Club dance P
433 Mission secretary P
437 His marrying P
451 Home on Fort Boulevard P
458a Wife's death P

I've got a couple of queries that should be clarified—or informed that Benny snake-eyes sees better than me!—but the bottom line is that out of a spot check of ~10% of references, only six are problematic, and about half of them can probably be justified (SPS, PST etc). That's well within discretionary range, considering the sheer number of refs (0.66%, if anyone's counting). SN54129 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Serial Number 54129. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the still-unsourced reference to philology :p I consider Usernameunique's responses to be adequate. More broadly, the quality of the sources would appear to be the highest possible for the weight they bear; as such, I am happy to pass this source review. SN54129 15:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Will_P._Brady/archive1&oldid=1072685594"