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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 March 2023 [1].

Albert Levitt[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about... A must unusual but undoubtedly talented individual (though, perhaps, a bit unhinged) about whom I started this article 14 years ago as part of my research on Nixon's early elections. One can focus on the religious obsessions of his later years, or his being a perennial fringe candidate in multiple states, but still, he got a trio of degrees from Ivy League universities, married a feminist and then a wealthy widow, and got a significant Supreme Court decision named after him without either going to jail or being involved in a lengthy lawsuit. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Dugan Murphy[edit]

I'll write some out in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done.
I was trying to avoid a repetition of United States or a variant and I think the sentence is clear but I've made it explicit.
I'm inclined to leave it as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a paraphrase of the source. "in accordance with the suggestion made at that time that a tentative code be prepared by each delegate."
I fear there would be ambiguity, so I've deleted it. It should be clear he was filing as an independent inn the race he just lost.
Rephrased.
I don't see that the article is terribly applicable or helpful to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done except for one direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was fixed with this edit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased. Baldwin was on the ballot twice, as a Republican and as a Unionist. The combined total elected him, but he needed the Union Party votes to outpoll Cross. Levitt had successfully sued to get the Union Party on the ballot. I can't say with certainty that Levitt's lawsuit elected Baldwin, because those who voted for him on the Union Party ticket might have voted for him anyway but there was certainly the appearance of being a kingmaker.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to Britain. Will that do?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the ambulance service was under the command of the French Army, I don't believe he had formally enlisted in military service. We do not list military service in the infobox for Ernest Hemingway, who served in Italy under similar circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of citations to primary (albeit WP:INDEPENDENT) source newspaper articles looked alarming to me when I first skimmed the article. Reading through it, I didn't find any use of those primary sources that clearly conflicts with WP:PRIMARY. As far as comprehensiveness is concerned, do you think there is any scholarship you're missing here that could add some analysis to this article? There is plenty of factual detail about the doings of his life, but given the reliance on primary sources, little analysis about the impact he had or his place in history. I'm also tempted to say that there's WP:EXCESSDETAIL in this article, which plays out in a lot of play-by-play of events in Levitt's life. Do you see opportunities for summarizing more? I think the lead is an appropriate summary of the article, but to me is really wanting of some analysis, which the body doesn't have, unfortunately.

Regarding the amount of detail, the article goes into greater detail in a few portions: The description of Levitt's involvement with the ERA, something that is mentioned by multiple secondary sources on the ERA. The Connecticut battles of the early 1930s, which is where he seems to have made his mark during his lifetime as it was mentioned in most versions of his obituaries that were longer than a paragraph. The judgeship: there was more of a battle over his appointment than I spend time. African-Americans wanted one of their own, given the racial makeup of the VIrgin Islands. There's a JSTOR article I have that says John Nance Garner, the VPOTUS, wanted a Texan and thought Levitt was African-American, which he didn't want. I didn't want to spend the time on it, especially as it wasn't clear why the choice fell on Levitt.
The other area where I dwell a bit is the 1950 Senate campaign. In my view, that's worth spending time on, both because the intersection with a future president, Nixon, makes it noteworthy, and because it adds to Wikipedia's existing quality writing on the 1950 Senate election, which is a FA.
The scholarship on Levitt is minimal. As I said, there's some on the ERA. There's some on his Virgin Islands judgeship, both the source I mentioned above and the ones we use in the article. There's law review commentary on Ex parte Levitt, which is a significant case in the law of standing, but it doesn't get into him as a person. It's a fair question. I like to write an assessment section to round off an article. But here, the material to work with just isn't there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice, straightforward article in an appropriately encyclopedic voice that is mostly clear and understandable. And what a figure! Dugan Murphy (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think I've gotten to or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I approve your responses to all the issues I raised, including the items you kept the same. I am inclined to agree with your defense of the article's level of detail. Such is the fate of biographies of really busy people with long lives, especially when they're involved in events that require explanation for the average reader to understand. It's really too bad there isn't more scholarship on this interesting and impactful life, so we'll live with the lack of analysis. FYI: I just noticed inconsistent use of US/U.S., so I changed instances of the former to match the latter. Having done that myself, I am inclined to support this nomination on all the FA criteria but the images and sources, neither of which I looked at, though at a glance, the sources look fine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Replaced with another image and the tag does not go to date of death.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that image description. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Putting down a marker... - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of 'never the bridesmaid, never the bride', but this guy takes the prize on it!

Lead
Harvard and the ERA
Roving professor
I've made it clear he was going to law school.
Judge (1935–1936)
1950 Senate primary
The source spares us his reasoning. However, it seems consistent with his other bêtes noires, such as his commentary on McCarthy, that in attacking the communists, they were in fact aiding them.
Perennial candidate
Well, now you have two Levitts and Lilla said she was from Frederick, Maryland.
Yes, seems to me a low probability click, that in looking at what is certainly not a basic-level article on American law and politics, that a link to those offices would be necessary for the reader.

That's the lot from me; he seems an eccentric sort, forever tilting at windmills! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Levitt is, quite possibly, an epitome of misguided talent. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support All good - either in your edits, or your reasons for not picking up on the suggestions. Nice piece on someone I'd never heard of before. (Caveat: I have no knowledge on the subject, so this is a review only of the prose, and not of the completeness or reliability of the sources used.) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Could Levitt's political party affiliation be inserted in the infobox? Seeming that he ran multiple times for Congress, and that he was both a Democrat and Republican, it seems important enough to be included to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhatamIdoing[edit]

I think there should be a link to Anti-Catholicism in the United States somewhere in this article. It's a little weird to read about an anti-Catholic US politician without mentioning the broader subject.

I've piped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder whether he really opposed "the Vatican" (the city–state) per se, or if this is a sort of rhetorical metonymy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased that slightly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll start taking a look at this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because some might think "Wilmington" in the name of the paper, which is Wilmington, California, was actually Wilmington, Delaware, which is certainly more famous. Ditto 106, but Selma is more famous as Alabama.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much wrong with this, just a few formatting issues to sort out, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've gotten everything. Note the one reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good, source review passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GuardianH[edit]

Seeing as Levitt was a Unitarian minister, would it be appropriate for him to have the honorific of The Reverend? GuardianH (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean at the top of the infobox? No, I wouldn't bother. He doesn't seem to have used it in his main career. If he were primarily a minister, I'd say yes but being a minister seems to have been only a small part of his career. Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I've changed it, but it's common shorthand to say "school" in this context
Rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly in 1915, as he taught at Colgate from 1915 to 1916. As for circumstances, I've seen nothing. Ref 8 mentions several other Columbia graduates who had gone over to France and returned so it probably wasn't unusual to do as Levitt did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary in American English.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased some.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine as it stands. They were able to identify him as the Albert Levitt of Connecticut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be me, but it's the "as he had not mentioned that" that is the problem. The sentence is saying - or seems to me to be saying: "Nixon, was able to identify Levitt ... as he had not mentioned that involvement in his campaign announcement". I am taking "he" as meaning Levitt and "as" as a synonym for 'because'. In which case I can't make sense of it.
Ah. A light dawns. "As" deleted and the comma changed to a dash. That should do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. This was in obtaining the marriage license.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I believe I got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, are we good here?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looking good with one exception, noted above. I am going to be away for a few days. So if the closing coordinator is happy with however you amend that or agree with you that the sense is clear as is, they should take this as a support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with that issue now. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. A few minor points you may like to consider:

  • "He then went to seminary" – at my most recent venture to FAC a reviewer asked me to bluelink seminary, which I did. Borderline, but harmless, I think.
  • "Attorney General Homer Cummings appointed him to his judgeship" – the slight ambiguity here could be removed by turning "his" into "a".
  • "the appointment of Hugo Black to the Supreme Court" – is this the national supreme court or a state one?
  • "his romantic relationship to … Elsie Hill" – unusual preposition; one might expect "with" rather than "to"
  • "While there, in 1921, President Woodrow Wilson appointed him" – this seems to say that President Wilson was there, but I imagine it means while Levitt was there.
  • "helping America's enemies scuttle reconciliation" – unless "scuttle" is a quotation it seems a little slangy for an encyclopaedia article
  • "he the same year married Lilla Cabot Grew Moffat" – strange word order: it might flow better if you moved "he" to between "year" and "married"
  • "Levitt spent time devising a peace plan for Rhodesia" – I think this needs a little elaboration. As it stands, it doesn't tell readers much; they may wonder why Rhodesia needed a peace plan. I assume Levitt made proposals aimed at ending the rebellion of the Smith regime and reconciling the factions in Rhodesia, but a few words of explanation would be good.
  • I see from a quick dip into Newspapers.com that in 1967 Levitt is reported as "telling the senate foreign affairs committee that President Johnson's actions in Vietnam were unconstitutional, illegal and all sorts of other things" (Cedar Rapids Gazette, October 1, 1967, p. 25a). If this is correct, it might perhaps be worth a mention? Tim riley talk 09:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that, using an article which isn't quite as colorful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the promotion of this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: well and widely sourced, good illustrations, balanced coverage, a clear and consistently readable narrative and the right sort of length for its material. Impeccably neutral, too: we get no hint of Wehwalt's opinion of Levitt. Splendid stuff! Tim riley talk 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More