Talk:William Johnson (judge)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:William Johnson (judge)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this nomination. (I've taken the liberty of changing the subtopic to Law, which "includes...judges/legal academics.") I should be able to give you some preliminary comments within a day or two, but I'd just like at the outset to thank you for working on this article. As far as I can tell, there is not a single GA or FA for any Supreme Court Justice serving prior to 1900, which strikes me as regrettable. Perhaps this article will remedy that situation. For the record, this is just my second time reviewing a GAN, so feel free to point out any grievous errors I might make. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton! Let me know if you need help accessing any of the journal articles I used. Muttnick (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Observations:

This is an interesting article about an interesting man, and I absolutely believe that it has GA potential. My main concern is broadness (3a) - I feel that there's a good amount of important content that isn't included at the moment. The following SCOTUS bios may be helpful as an idea of what to aspire to: Hugo Black (GA), John Marshall Harlan II (GA), and Sherman Minton (FA). (Of course, there's a lot more information out there for some of those justices, so don't be too worried about matching their articles' lengths.) For reference, here are WP:GACR and WP:GANOT. My preliminary review is as follows:


1a - The prose is more-or-less solid. I might do a bit of nitpicking later, but as it stands I'm not too concerned.

1b - Fine by me. You might consider mentioning that Johnson was a Supreme Court justice in the first sentence of the lead since that's the main thing he's known for. (Most SCOTUS bios seem to do this.) If you end up expanding the article (see below), a second paragraph in the lead might be prudent.

checked box Muttnick (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2a - There are references, which under WP:GANOT is probably enough to pass GAN. However, I would strongly encourage you to standardize the references. Sometimes (e.g. ref. 3), I can't even tell what sort of work (book, journal, website) it is. In other cases (e.g. 17, 19, 20), the source (URL, ISBN, etc.) isn't clear. Ref. 9 is a bare URL. Thankfully, there's an easy solution: use reference templates on everything (except court cases). This makes everyone's life (yours, mine, and the reader's) so much easier. Also, the two further reading sources by Morgan appear to be identical, and the one by Vanburkleo seems to duplicate a source used as a reference.

checked box I have standardized the references. I also went through the "Further reading" section for the first-time ever and fixed it up. Muttnick (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Looks good. I'll do a full source check at a later point. Could you include a citation for "was selected for sharing Jefferson's political philosophy" and "the first member of the Court who was not a Federalist"?

checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2c - Could you find a secondary source for the info about his being a slaveholder? Otherwise it looks like OR. The rest is perfectly fine.

You should of seen that part before I edited it down! The user made a sentence for each census count. I agree that it wreaks of OC and will delete it unless I find something in my research. Muttnick (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No concerns. I'll run the article through Earwig's copyvio detector at some later point.

3a - This is my main concern. While you describe some interesting cases that he decided as circuit justice, you say hardly anything about his opinions on the Supreme Court itself. I would absolutely devote a paragraph to his concurrence in Gibbons v. Ogden. That concurrence was cited in a landmark Supreme Court case just two and a half years ago - it is clearly still significant. His dissent in Ex parte Bollman (related to the Burr treason case) also deserves at least a mention. You could take a look at his concurrence in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, in which he "added that the 'rules of nations' would regard 'Indian tribes' as 'nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither rules nor government beyond what is required in a savage state.'" (That one didn't age too well.) There was a partial dissent in Fletcher v. Peck and a concurrence in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee that might be worth noting. Urofsky found Johnson's opinions in Green v. Biddle, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, and Ogden v. Saunders noteworthy. The other major cases in which he participated, even those in which he simply joined the majority, should also be included. Surely you should at least mention that Johnson joined the majority in such landmark cases as McCulloch v. Maryland (which Jefferson vehemently opposed), Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Worcester v. Georgia, and Cohens v. Virginia. Of course, you needn't include every case I've mentioned, but including some of them would seem to be necessary to "address the main aspects of the topic."

3b - Not a concern.

4 - No objections.

5 - Definitely no problem here.

6a - You might try to track down the source and year of the official portrait. (Don't spend too much time dealing with this.) The other picture is perfectly fine.

checked box (Checked off as in I attempted to find information but there wasn't anything out there to find) Muttnick (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Meets the criterion. Although it's not required, alt-text on the pictures would be a good idea. (It only takes about thirty seconds.) If there's a picture of either his book or his statue available, you might consider adding it as well, although it would be just gravy.

checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musings: (These comments don't necessarily pertain to any particular criterion, and some of them may not require any action at all.)

  • It might be prudent to explain in-text what seriatim opinions are: I imagine the general public wouldn't be familiar with them.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might note that the Court of Common Pleas was the highest court in South Carolina at the time. (The name sounds like that of a trial court.)
checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might mention that Johnson was confirmed by voice vote.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnson joined the Court at the age of just 32. Is that mentioned anywhere? It certainly seems noteworthy.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite two "major cases" that Johnson authored: US v. Hunter and Mechanics Bank v. Bank of Columbia. I recommend explaining the holdings of these cases, as well as wikilinking Hunter. I'm somewhat skeptical that Mechanics Bank is a major case - it seems very short and fact-sensitive, and it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Feel free to take it out of the article.
checked box I explained the holdings for the two "major cases." Mechanics' Bank appears to have been a major parole evidence rule case that was cited over 150 times (according to Shephards) until Erie killed it. For that reason, I kept it in. Muttnick (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gilchrist case is fascinating, and you might consider going into some more detail about it. I dug up the text of the case, here. The situation here is interesting: the "strict-constructionist" Jefferson used a very broad reading of the Constitution to impose the embargo, which was then struck down by his own judicial nominee. (Apparently, the port collector himself opposed the embargo.) According to this, a Federalist judge in Massachusetts later upheld the embargo, relying on a broad reading of the Commerce Clause. In a later case (this one), Johnson ruled for a unanimous Court that writs of mandamus like the one he issued were actually illegal! Good grief. You may not be able to include very much of this in the article, but I found it fascinating.
  • I also found the text of the Elkison case (here), and it seems to have been before the Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, not the 6th Circuit. I believe the 6th Circuit back then was simply a geographic area, not a court. In any event, the link to the contemporary 6th Circuit (which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) isn't too helpful.
    • checked box This one was rather embarrassing. Muttnick (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stumbled across this lengthy article on Elkison (here), which also includes some biographical information about Johnson.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph on the Vesey rebellion is a bit confusing - I initially misunderstood Johnson's position. You might specifically note that Johnson opposed the proceedings.
    • checked box I have touched this section up for now but will expand even more in due time. Muttnick (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea as to what was wrong with Johnson's jaw? A reader might be curious.
checked box The best I could find was a source that said it was a jaw infection. I have no idea how that occurs but it sounds brutal. Muttnick (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I haven't created too much homework for you. My main priority here is to make sure that this article covers the most important part of Johnson's life - his Supreme Court tenure - in sufficient detail for the reader. I'm glad to hold this nomination open - for a few weeks, if necessary - to enable you to work on the article. If you'd rather, I can close the nomination as a fail to give you as much time as you'd like to work on it. (I don't think that's necessary, but I'll leave it to you.) Ultimately, my suggestions are just that: suggestions. Not all of them are dealbreakers, and they certainly do not diminish the hard work and thorough research that have gone into this article. Do let me know if there is anything that needs clarification or if I may otherwise be of further assistance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for this! There is no need to hold the nomination open or to fail it. I work fast and should be able to finish it in a week. (Otherwise, it won't get done until the Summer due to law school shenanigans.) I will address some of the easier things first and move onto the bulk of the criticism afterward. Muttnick (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention one thing (sorry) - the first of the external links doesn't link to anything at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist of 3a suggestions and requests[edit]

  • Gibbons v. Ogden checked box Muttnick (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ex parte Bollman (1807) checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
  • Fletcher v. Peck (1810) checked box Muttnick (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green v. Biddle (1823) checked box Muttnick (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC) , Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), and Ogden v. Saunders (1827) checked box Muttnick (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819),checked box Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)checked box, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and Cohens v. Virginia (1821) checked box
Good work on Gibbons. I would note that there are logical groupings for most of these cases: Gibbons, Saunders, and McCulloch under Commerce Clause; Fletcher and Dartmouth College under Contracts Clause; Cherokee Nation and Worcester both pertain to Native Americans; Martin and Cohens involve federalism (specifically SCOTUS review of state-court rulings). By the way, do any of your sources mention whether Jefferson's view of Johnson deteriorated? I can't imagine the former could have been very happy with the latter's positions in McCulloch, Gibbons, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checked box Thank you for the heads-up. I figured there would be some sort of logical grouping once I read up on the cases. From what I've seen, Jefferson was disappointed and there was a temporary rift between the two. But their friendship remained. I will touch on this! Muttnick (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the article through Earwig's copyvio detector, which found no problems. It did, however, find this website, which seems to have pretty shamelessly plagiarized this article without the required attribution. I just wanted to document this here for the record since anyone who checks Earwig's tool will see what looks like a violation on your part. Of course, this plagiarism infringes upon your copyright, and so you could potentially send the site's owner a nasty letter, issue a takedown notice under the DMCA, and even take legal action. (That would be a fun project.) See WP:MAF. But my main purpose is simply to note that the copyright violator is not you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. That is quite annoying. He should of at least waited until I made it better! Muttnick (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review[edit]

It looks like you've taken care of most of my concerns, and the article seems to meet the broadness criterion. (I note that you've added 20 kilobytes of prose in just the last few days, which is no small feat. Good work.) I shall now work my way through the article's text, looking for any issues with content, prose, formatting, references, etc. This will probably take at least 24 hours, so feel free to work on these things as they come in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In light of the additional content, I would add a second paragraph to the lead, perhaps summarizing his jurisprudence and legacy.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am required to require conformity with MOS:EUP, which requires replacing "passed away" with "died."
  • You sometimes refer to the Supreme Court as "the Court" and other times as "the court." Choose one or the other; most sources generally capitalize it.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ:, thank you! I have a bit more work I plan on doing today. But, I plan to finish it up soon so you will have the time needed to check everything over without having to worry about additions. 18:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ:, I am done adding content. Muttnick (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "by President Thomas Jefferson when he was 32 years old" - could be read to mean that Jefferson was 32 years old. You could move the "when he was 32 years old" clause earlier in the sentence, or you could try "at the age of 32."
    • "while sitting as a circuit judge" - most people would probably understand that to refer to a lower-court judge. You could try changing it to "circuit justice" and wikilinking that term.
    • You use the term "nationalist" once in the lead and twice in the Gibbons v. Ogden section. You might try to find something else since that term usually refers to nationalism in this sense and not in the sense of supporting strong federal power.
    • You might summarize his pre-SCOTUS work somewhere in the lead.
  • Early life - Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first sentence of this section is a bit long. You might break it up into two separate sentences.
    • "Three years later in 1793" - this is repetitive since the previous sentence gives a date of 1790. Either "Three years later" or "In 1793" would do.
    • "Later that year, he was also appointed..." - This sentence is a bit long also; you could make "which included service..." its own sentence.
  • Supreme Court career (through "Contract Clause jurisprudence) - Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I think of seriatim opinions, I think of cases like Chisholm v. Georgia, where every Justice wrote an opinion. Is that what you're referring to, or are you just talking about Johnson writing a separate opinion? I haven't seen many Marshall-era cases that could be categorized as seriatim. Feel free to correct me.
It is almost universal in the William Johnson historiography to equate his dissents and concurrences with seriatim opinions. From my understanding, the only thing differing the two is the in seriatim, you'd have at least a third justice delivering a concurrence or dissent. Either way, seeing as how you raised a good point and that the historiography is mostly based on one book for that topic, I will edit accordingly. Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to explain what a common-law crime is, perhaps with a wikilink to Common law offence.
    • "While in Mechanics Bank..." - this is a fragment. "However, in Mechanics Bank" or something like that would work.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "President Thomas Jefferson enacted the Embargo Act" - Presidents don't enact laws. You could use "Jefferson signed into law the Embargo Act" or "Congress passed [and President Jefferson signed] the Embargo Act."
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to note that district judge Thomas Bee joined the Gilchrist opinion. (Was Bee a Federalist? Being a Washington/Adams appointee, he probably was, although I don't know if it's mentioned in reliable sources.)
    • I'm not sure how helpful the quote from Gilchrist ("the collector's actions...") is. It might be easier just to summarize it: Johnson held that the detainment was illegal because it exceeded the President's authority under the Embargo Act. ADDENDUM (00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)) - Perhaps somewhere you could include Johnson's quote "The officers of our government, from the highest to the lowest..." This helps explain the significance of Gilchrist - a rebuke of Presidential overreach.
    • "Johnson wrote a partial dissent in Fletcher.." I would break this sentence up into two - it's a bit too long.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at the Green v. Biddle opinions, and I don't think that Johnson dissented from two majority opinions. The case went like this: 1) Story delivers an opinion for a unanimous Court (including Johnson). 2) Kentucky moves for rehearing; the motion is granted. 3) The Court rehears the case the next term. 4) Washington delivers a majority opinion, and Johnson issues a partial dissent from that ruling. If that's correct, you can use the singular "majority opinion."
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, by 1823..." - this makes it sound like Johnson had generally stopped writing separate opinions between 1819 and 1823. I would just say something along the lines of "However, when the Supreme Court decided the 1823 case of Green v. Biddle, Johnson wrote a separate opinion."
Johnson did stop writing separate opinions during 1819-1822. I edited it down for now. Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supreme Court career (continued) - Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first few sentences of the "Federalism jurisprudence" section are a bit confusing. I would first explain Fairfax and its holding, then note the VA Court of Appeals's defiance, and then explain Martin.
    • Your block quote from Martin doesn't seem to exactly match Johnson's text - there are a few differences in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Make sure to copy and paste directly from the source. Also, check the page numbers on the quotes from SCOTUS decisions - some of them don't seem right.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might add Barron v. Baltimore to the federalism section. It only needs a sentence since it was just a Marshall opinion that he joined. (Sorry I didn't mention it earlier.)
    • "in a series of letters" - were there more than two? I've only seen one from Rodney and one from Johnson, which isn't really a series.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information about the Denmark Vesey trial probably belongs under the same heading as Elkison since the two are inextricably tied. Perhaps they could both be under the subheading "Denmark Vesey trial and Elkison v. Deliesseline (1822)".
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The act enraged..." - use a different word than act. Otherwise, it looks like you're referring to the Negro Seaman's Act. "Decision" or "ruling" would suffice.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "outmarshalled Marshall" - How is this styled in your source? It seems to me that it would be "out-Marshalled Marshall," just like "out-Herods Herod."
checked box It is an exact quote. Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "held in Gibbons...that the Commerce Clause...gave the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce." I don't think that was ever in dispute. The question, at least as I understand it, was about how broadly that right should be interpreted, i.e. whether it included the right to regulate instrumentalities of commerce. I would also include somewhere in this section (either in the text or as a hatnote) a link to the article Dormant Commerce Clause checked box, which discusses the issue presented by Johnson's concurrence.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Instead Marshall held that a federal..." and subsequent sentence: I found this a bit unclear. The question is whether states can regulate interstate commerce in the absence of federal regulation. Marshall declined to reach the issue since Congress had in fact already regulated. Johnson argued the states could never regulate interstate commerce and that the power was reserved for the federal government. Perhaps you could clarify this?
checked box
    • "As did his view" - this is a fragment.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnson laid out his views on legal construction" - this is less of his views on interpreting statutes and more of his views on interpreting the Constitution. That's why he refers to the Constitution's "simple, classical, precise, yet comprehensive language".
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if the heading "views on the judiciary" is best. These are more of his views on the law than anything else. Perhaps "judicial philosophy" would be better?
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you provide an inline cite for the sentence beginning "Johnson was a pioneer of judicial restraint"?
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Ex parte Bollman belongs where it is. Perhaps you could take it and Osborn and put them under their own heading? You might need to expand Osborn, explaining what precisely Johnson's view was and how it differed from Marshall's.
  • Career as author/Death and historic appraisal Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnson became a social pariah..." - could you explain why? In the lead, you attribute it to his opinions as circuit justice, but you don't mention it in this section.
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While historian Fred Rodell..." - this is a fragment. Perhaps you could also explain why Rodell thought that?
checked box Muttnick (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry if this is a lot. At least most of these issues are little things that can be easily corrected. If you disagree with any of these suggestions, feel free to ignore them. Since you now have all the content that's required under the GA criteria, the only issues pertain to making it clear enough for the reader. You are close! I look forward to passing this article soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ:, do not worry one bit about the length. I appreciate you doing this. I have completed 90% of your requests. Unfortunately, I need for this review to come to an end. My cat was diagnosed with FIP last night and I have a lot of research I need to do to help him. I will leave the article as it stands. I will incorporate most suggestions I have not yet completed at a later date, most likely when I try and get this article to FA status later this year. (That is if it passes your review, of course). Thanks for fixing all of my grammar mistakes and take care of yourself. Muttnick (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Muttnick:, I'm so sorry to hear that, and I sincerely hope that the situation resolves itself. With regards to this article, I am now satisfied that it meets the GA criteria, and I will therefore pass it for the reasons elucidated below. Again, thank you for your work on this article: I have greatly enjoyed reviewing it and, in doing so, enlightening myself about the fascinating man that was Mr. Justice Johnson. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

While there are still improvements that can be made, this article in my opinion meets the good article criteria.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    As is often the case, a thorough copyedit from WP:GOCE/REQ would likely be helpful in further improving the prose. I am nonetheless satisfied that the article is clear enough to be easily understood by the general public.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    The article is thoroughly cited to a wide variety of scholarly sources.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The article covers all the topic areas presented by the cited sources, so I am satisfied that the article meets the broadness standard.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All images are free-use.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 SL93 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Muttnick (talk) and Extraordinary Writ (talk). Nominated by Muttnick (talk) at 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • New GA, no copyvio, fully cited, over 1500 prose characters, all hooks verified and below 200 characters. I think ALT1 is the best as it mentions the USA, which is not the only country to have Justices or a Supreme Court. QPQ done. T8612 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Johnson_(judge)&oldid=1207845840"