Wikipedia:Peer review/Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders/archive3

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status soon. The reviewer should be someone familiar with FA criteria, and willing to nit-pick the article. One particular issue that needs special attention is: Does the article have the proper amount of detail on legal/constitutional matters? Too much? Too little? Should some legal detail be moved into the associated legal articles Dennis v. United States, Yates v. United States, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Or vice versa? Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments - not an expert by any means on the subject matter but hopefully can provide some nit-picks...

• Second para of lead, the word "trial" is used five times in three sentences, perhaps consider a minor rephrase to avoid repetition. [Done - Noleander]
• "of communism: The ..." new to me but just checking that you should have a capital T after the colon... (I know Americans tend to do this after semi-colons so just checking it's the same for a colon). [Yes, that is the convention for this article: caps after colons. - Noleander]
• "The USSR detonated its first atomic bomb" is it worth reinforcing that this was a test? [Done - Noleander]
• The Yates case is linked twice in the lead. [Done - Noleander]
• "the communist revolution in Russia in 1917, communism gradually " mildly repetitive, could you not just have "revolution" pipelinked? [Done - Noleander]
• You link Russia, why not Nazi Germany? [Done - Noleander]
• In "Background", you link USSR on the second occasion. I'd also prefer to read "Soviet Union" than USSR throughout. [Done - Noleander]
• "it made at Yalta Conference" should there be a "the" before Yalta? [Done - Noleander]
• The Daily Worker seems to be The Daily Worker according to our article. [Done - Noleander]
• Midway through the "Start of the trial" section we go "trial" wild again. [Done - Noleander]
• Now I am confused about this capitalisation (or not) after a colon or semi-colon, since you have "progress; the University of California required..." Perhaps you could explain it to me! [The convention is commas and semi-colons are short pauses, and dont lead to a capital; periods and colons are long pauses and get a capital. My understanding is that the MOS is flexible on this and only requires that an article pick a convention and stick to it consistently. - Noleander]
• What is ACLU? [Done - Noleander]
• "over 140 persons" why not "140 people"? [Done - Noleander]
• "Prosecution witness Angela Calomiris " no need to repeat the first name. [Done - Noleander]
• "the seven years Calomiris was " she rather than repeat surname. [Done - Noleander]
• "Another important witness for the prosecution was Louis Budenz, a former communist,"->"Budenz, a former communist, was another important..." [Done - Noleander]
• "Budenz also testified " -> "He also testified". [Done - Noleander]
• "F. McCabe.[46][23] " not sure it's mandated but I always try to put refs in numerical order. [Done - Noleander]
• " and writes that " surely "wrote"? [Done - Noleander]
• The Washington Post appears to be The Washington Post. [Done - Noleander]
• "[65]). " would have thought that ref should go after the period. [I agree. But that is using a template to automatically calculate present-day dollars; and the template puts the footnote before the parenthesis. Nothing can be done at the article level to change that. - Noleander]
• "sentenced to three years in consideration " vs "to two years in prison" why the discrepancy? [The sentence was nominally 5 years; the judge subtracted 2 yrs to get a 3 yr sentence; the defendant is commenting on the 2 year reduction. - Noleander]
• "was provided by Civil Rights Congress, a non-profit " you've already explained what CRC was above and already linked it so this isn't really necessary. [The prior mention does not mention "non profit" nor "bail", both of which are introduced in the 2nd occurance. So, I think readers benefit from the extra detail. Or, I could move "non profit" & "bail" up to the first occurrence ... but that may not be optimal. - Noleander]
• Our article seems to capitalised the Berlin Airlift. [Done - Noleander]
• Vinson caption needs a period. [Done - Noleander]
• Dashiell Hammett has two l's and two t's. [Done - Wow. Good catch! - Noleander]
• "Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2385, remains on the statute b" that inline link seems odd, we don't normally do that do we? [That is common in legal articles. Prior reviews of this article pushed hard to have more legalese ... so I'm reluctant to undo that, since it would go against a prior reviewers recommendation. - Noleander]
• Be consistent with how you refer to Benjamin Davis, either that or Benjamin J. Davis or better still, Benjamin J. Davis, Jr. In any case, use one format throughout. [Done - Noleander]
• Ref 25 for instance doesn't appear to be a reference, more a footnote. [ WP:LAYOUT permits informational footnotes & citations to be placed into a single section, named Footnotes or References. Or they can be in 2 sections; this article uses a single "Footnote" section. - Noleander]
• Ref 27, second Time needs to be italicised. [Done - Noleander]
• "The Hiss-Chambers Case" shouldn't that be an en-dash? [Done - Noleander]
• Refs 94, 117 need an en-dash also. [Done - Noleander]
• Ref 92 and 101 and 117 and 121 and 123(and there may be more) are online refs so really need publisher/author/publication date/access date information wherever possible. [Done - Noleander]-
• "Budenze's " suddenly an extra e in his name? [Done - Good eye! - Noleander]
• "- Black quoted by Mason" should be an en-dash. [Done - Noleander]
• Is it New York Times or The New York Times? Be consistent. [Done - Noleander]
• Ref 133 should be a pp [Done - Noleander]
• Birdnow title needs an en-dash. [Done - Noleander]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you help with a big issue: please take a look a the three related articles Dennis v. United States, Yates v. United States, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and then give some input on whether the level of detail on legal/constitutional issues in this article is appropriate? In other words: should more legal/constitutional material be moved from those articles into this article? or vice versa? Another editor has suggested that the level of detail is not quite right, and I've improved the article to address their concerns; but I'd like a third party's opinion to ensure it is okay now. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from DGG

• I was asked to comment.

first, there is no improper overlap with the article on the First Amendment,; they are both general articles, and the free speech issues in these trials are just one of the many free speech issues discussed in that article. I see no problem here with respect to the Yates and Dennis articles This article is for the general issues,and would be incomprehensible without some degree of detail on the appeals cases. I think it's approximately right as is. On the other hand, the two other articles are both insufficiently detailed for decisions of their importance. They need to discuss much more deeply the arguments and the decisions, and the subsequent judicial and legal history.

Thanks for that assessment: it is important that this article not have too much or too little legal detail, since other articles already exist for that purpose. After I finish getting this article through FA, I'll go back and work on the other articles and bring them up to standards: there is a lot of work to do on them, for sure. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I made one or two changes to avoid drawing conclusion or oversimplifying. I'm goingto look through it once more for that. How to handle lede paragraphs in articles like this is very trick: some things cannot be summarized fairly in a few words, and may need to be left for the body of the article

Thanks for the changes, they look good. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As a technical issue, I think the references would be best changed to a 2-column format:the resulting columns in the 3-column format are too narrow.

Done --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike mixing content notes with bibliographic references. This is particularly important here where many of the content notes have long quotations. There are techniques for separating the lists.

Not done - The FA criteria permits either approach to footnotes: it is considered an aesthetic decision. In principle, I dont mind separating them, but it would be a rather error-prone process at this point, so I'd rather just leave them alone. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The later history of only 8 of the 12 is given. The others need it also. Carl Winter has no individual article; one could easily be written from just the material here. The attorneys need articles also. Their participation in this trial is sufficient for notability.

Done - Added other 4 defendants to Aftermath section. Regarding other articles: I agree that articles could be written on some of the participants, but I only have so much time  :-) and absence of other articles is not a bar to FA status, per WP:RED. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Robeson portrait is of very peripheral relevance & should be removed even though it is PD. A photo of the judge would be more important; he is sufficiently important that a fair use justification could be written.

Not done - The article already has tons of law-oriented photos. The whole point of the Robeson pic is to show that the world outside the trial was also interested in the trial. Granted, it is the least relevant pic in the article, and if space were limited, it should be the first to go, but it does illustrate fund-raising & the peekskill riots. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN or OCLC numbers are needed for some books.

If a book is missing an ISBN number, that means that there is no ISBN number. Was there a recent book missing a number? --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the Scales decision can be summed up as "the only case in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction based solely upon membership in a political party." The SC upheld it based only on that charge, but in concert with the evidence for personal involvement. It needs to be reworded.

Done --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a harder issue: The section on the people in the second string trials is inadequate. They were covered individually in some detail in newspapers at the time. This should probably be done best in a detailed spin-off article. Perhaps at least one could be started in skeleton and linked. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done - There are several excellent secondary sources on this topic, and they do not cover the second string persons very much at all. The 1949 case gets about 20 times as much coverage as the second string trials. If I were to hunt down and find primary sources (e.g. contemporary newspapers) I'd be engaging in WP:OR, plus there would be WP:UNDUE issues (since I'd be placing more emphasis on the 2nd string trials than the historians do) as well as cherry-picking issues. The bottom line is that modern historians just dont devote much attention to the 2nd tier trials (relative to the 1949 trial), so this article follows that pattern. Granted, an entirely new WP article could be created on the second string trials: but that is a whole other can of worms ... one article at a time :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Now here's the really hard part: a section is needed for opinion about the trials from both right and left wing sources, in the US and especially abroad, at the time and later. It would be interesting to see some comment from Communist papers in the USSR and other countries. There might also be some need for a section on the use of these trials in literature, etc., though I do not have any immediately in mind. I really should do this myself, but it is a multi-day project (unless it is covered in one of the books cited). I don't think this meets the fundamental FA criterion of covering all aspects without it.

Great suggestion. I'll create a section like that ... there is already a small start ("public opinion was overwhelmingly against ...") but that can be expanded a lot. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

... in progress .... --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I finally finished this new section ... actually two sections. They are:

Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Public_opinion

Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Public_reaction

They are fairly broad, and include responses from foreign nations. Let me know if you think more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Lots of good feedback. I'll respond to the suggestions individually. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)