Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Redding
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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 PrimalMustelid talk 14:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Joseph Redding
1895 sketch of Redding
- ... that The San Francisco Examiner. November 22, 1932. p. 1, 11.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Itutumba Ka ng Tatay Ko, Template:Did you know nominations/Head Harbour Lighthouse
- Comment: Article was previously a redirect to a different person. This is a brand new article on a new topic.
Created by 4meter4 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 72 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.4meter4 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC).
- ALT1 ... that opera composer and librettist Joseph Redding (pictured) was also a chess polymath and lawyer who won a landmark decision before the United States Supreme Court?
- Source: Spinrad, Jerry (April 2012). "The Untold Talent of Joseph Redding: Profiling a Polymathic Chess Expert". Readex Report. 7 (2).
Will be claiming this for review and hope to finish it within the next few days. For what it's worth, the conversion from a redirect is confirmed. My preference for the hook is ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article is confirmed to be new and long enough. QPQs have been provided. I did not find close paraphrasing. As stated earlier, ALT1 is the more interesting hook, but I would suggest delinking chess to limit the number of links in the hook and because chess is already well known. I also don't think the link to the Supreme Court is necessary either. As for ALT1 itself, it is sourced to a mix of accessible and offline sources. However, the link you provided in the nomination does not mention his involvement in Kagama, and while I'd normally assume good faith it would probably be nice to include a quote or excerpt on this pace confirming his involvement. In addition, the part about him being a chess polymath, while mentioned in the article, lacks a footnote in the relevant sentence. This should be good to go once those issues have been sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 Actually the source does allude to Kagama which is clear because of the details it gives which match the case. Spinrad says, "At age 23, he was a rising legal star. Before he turned 30, Redding won a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, which had important legal ramifications on limits of Federal Laws. Redding defended an Indian accused of murder on his reservation, arguing that reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that the matter should be decided by tribal law. Winning a case before the Supreme Court put Redding among the elite lawyers of California." Regadless if you looked in my cited references list you would see an entire source with a highly detailed account of Kagama with particular discussion of Redding's winning argument: Sidney L. Harring, The Story of United States v. Kagama, in Indian Law Stories 150 (Carole Goldberg, Kevin K. Washburn, & Phillip P. Frickey, eds., 2011); Weiner. I also point you to the FA class article on United States v. Kagama where Redding is discussed. If people want to learn more on the case and what Redding did they can always go to that page. There's not a viability problem here.4meter4 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't suggest I was doubting the source, I was merely asking for clarification since I had no access to the source (even the Worldcat source is inaccessible to me) and I just wanted to be sure. However, the issue with the chess polymath thing will still need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 I unlinked chess and United States Supreme Court as you suggested. I added a redundant citation after the sentence for the polymath fact; although I think it was pretty clear the entire paragraph was cited to that one article. The hook fact was also cited earlier in the lead with inline citations after each sentence. 4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 Did i make all the needed changes?4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Almost, but you made a typo with that edit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 Fixed. I agree Alt1 is better. I hope you found the article interesting. 4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Almost, but you made a typo with that edit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 Did i make all the needed changes?4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 I unlinked chess and United States Supreme Court as you suggested. I added a redundant citation after the sentence for the polymath fact; although I think it was pretty clear the entire paragraph was cited to that one article. The hook fact was also cited earlier in the lead with inline citations after each sentence. 4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, I didn't suggest I was doubting the source, I was merely asking for clarification since I had no access to the source (even the Worldcat source is inaccessible to me) and I just wanted to be sure. However, the issue with the chess polymath thing will still need to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 Actually the source does allude to Kagama which is clear because of the details it gives which match the case. Spinrad says, "At age 23, he was a rising legal star. Before he turned 30, Redding won a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, which had important legal ramifications on limits of Federal Laws. Redding defended an Indian accused of murder on his reservation, arguing that reservations were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and that the matter should be decided by tribal law. Winning a case before the Supreme Court put Redding among the elite lawyers of California." Regadless if you looked in my cited references list you would see an entire source with a highly detailed account of Kagama with particular discussion of Redding's winning argument: Sidney L. Harring, The Story of United States v. Kagama, in Indian Law Stories 150 (Carole Goldberg, Kevin K. Washburn, & Phillip P. Frickey, eds., 2011); Weiner. I also point you to the FA class article on United States v. Kagama where Redding is discussed. If people want to learn more on the case and what Redding did they can always go to that page. There's not a viability problem here.4meter4 (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that should be good to go now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
