Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles H. Constable/archive1

Charles H. Constable

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been expanded and updated. It also has received an excellent copy edit from WP:LOCE. Currently, the article is still rated as start class, but it seems that classification no longer applies.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Per WP:JOBTITLES, I don't think "lawyer" or "judge" should be capitalized, unless you were saying something like "Judge Charles H. Constable".
• Not sure what the MOS says on it, but the Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition, 8.84) says that academic fields (such as law) aren't capitalized either.
• Mentioning Thomas S. Hinde twice in two successive sentences seems redundant. You can probably eliminate the second interjection after "father-in-law" and it would be fine.
• "This anger was unfounded, since there was legal precedent that supported his decision, and all charges were dropped in Federal Court." This seems like an NPOV issue to me. If you want to say they were angry despite the fact that he was cleared of all charges, that might be better, but let the reader decide if it was unfounded or not.
• If the overdose idea is only from one source and/or is in doubt, that source needs to be named, rather than saying "one source".
• Capitalize "Illinois constitutional convention" the first time, especially since it's capitalized the second time.
• Same thing about the "one source" thing in the "Attempted government appointments" section
• There are a number of things here that you could wikilink here if you wanted: Zachary Taylor is a prime example. Not mandatory.
• In Lincoln's quote, "democratic party" would be capitalized.
• "Lincoln was President" <- "president" not capitalized here.
• "their was little to no" <- "there"
• There are a number of references that you need to put a space after, so that the next sentence doesn't abut the reference number. Let me know if you don't see what I'm talking about.
• The "Additional information" section should be merged with another section, or more probably renamed to something like "Legacy" and then expanded. This is a good opportunity to talk about the effect of his case on modern law or the effects he had on his own court.

These are just a few brief notes, but they're a place to start. I would probably review the copy edit, based on some of the errors I saw that were still in the article, and go through it with a fine-toothed comb. It's definitely better than a start class article, though, so clearly you've put some work into it. Runfellow (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)