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) 14:14, 12 August 2016 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that employees are protected in this situation. I'd also like to acknowledge Daniel Case, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree for all their efforts in getting the article to this point. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively.": Something's wrong there.

As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Actually, I ultimately decided to move those sentences to the "legal background" section, where I think they belonged (once we get to Heffernan's case, we don't need details of a precedent unless they are specifically discussed by a judge to distinguish it from the instant one). And I did some prose-tightening as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Section 1983", "section 1983": consistency.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, I want to apologize to Wugapodes for not posting this review sooner. I completed DYK and GA reviews for this article, and I am very happy to see that it was nominated for FA status. I think this article is very close to satisfying the FA criteria, but I have a few recommendations for improvements:

• In the "Legal background" section, for the sentence that begins "These protections not only prohibit the government ...." I think you should include a citation at the end of the sentence. Although the assertions in this sentence are unlikely to be challenged, the incorporation doctrine has been the subject of substantial debate in academia (see, e.g., this Yale Law Journal article), and I think it is generally good practice to provide attribution to any idea or concept that you found elsewhere.

I think I addressed this? Take a look and make sure. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. Thanks for adding this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the legal background section, I would consider creating separate subsections for (1) the discussion of the first amendment and cases; and (2) the discussion of section 1983.

I'm hesitant to do this because the current discussion of section 1983 is only one paragraph and I think subheadings for a singular paragraph are overkill (the TOC quickly becomes overwhelmed). If by this you mean to expand the discussion, then that's another matter. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after thinking this over a little further I think this is fine the way it is. The arrangement of the paragraphs gives this section a nice flow; I am generally biased toward including more section headings (rather than fewer), but I think this section is good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When discussing the majority and dissenting opinions, make sure all descriptions are in the past tense (the Justices made the arguments when the opinions were published; they are not currently making those arguments at this very moment).

I think I have corrected the problem with the tense. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This section looks good. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point in the "Opinion of the Court" section, you should explain that the case was remanded to the Third Circuit for further proceedings.

Wow, duh. Added. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the citation to the slip opinion, is there a reason why you provide a link to the Justia page for the article rather than the PDF of slip opinion? I would recommend linking the citation to the PDF of the slip opinion, since errors occasionally occur when articles are posted on Justia. In a few years, when the case is published in the United States Reports, we will need to update citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, but we son't need to worry about this now.

Yes, the citation is produced by ((ussc)) which links to the Justia text by default. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. In that case, I would leave it as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the sources written by Trelease, and Blum & Urbonya books? If yes, these citations should use smallcaps (see this guide).

Fixed. The guide you linked said to put the whole citation in small caps, but that seemed weird to me, and the guide I looked at only said to put the title in small caps. I coded ((bluebook book)) to only put the title in small caps, but if that's incorrect let me know and I can adjust it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it done both ways (and I have been inconsistent in my own writing). However, most law reviews will place an author's name in smallcaps. See, for example, footnote 6 in this article and footnote 13 in this article as examples where the author's name is in small caps (cf. citations to chapters with separate authors, such as the citation to Bennett in footnote 13 of this article). For the purposes of this article and this reivew, I think it is okay to only place the book title in smallcaps. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the Hudson article published in a journal (called First Reports)? If yes, the name and volume of the journal should be included in the citation.

Fixed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if any of these comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your fantastic work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notecardforfree: Addressed all of them. I have addressed of them one needs your attention and one might? The two citation problems I will look into, I think it's a problem with the citation template I wrote so I need to take a closer look in the morning. The first item on adding a citation will likewise take a day or two; I need to look at the sources again because I forget where I got it (if I got it? a number of people helped on this and I forget what I wrote and what others wrote). And don't apologize for the time, there's no deadline and the fact that you took the time to, again, read through the article and give feedback more than makes up for any perceived delay. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citations. They were apparently manually written rather than using a template (probably because the template didn't exist until a few minutes ago) which explains the problems. They should be fixed now. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Many thanks for your excellent work. I am proud to give this nomination my full support. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In order to adequately discern the limits of the government-as-employer's discretion, the Court developed a framework": I'm not sure "discern" is the right verb here -- it implies the framework was constructed so that pre-existing limits could be seen. How about "distinguish"?
  • I went with "Delineate" as I feel like that might be closer to the meaning I was going for. Though I am still open to suggestions. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the department acted on the belief that he had, and the department should have demoted him on the basis of that erroneous belief": surely "should not have"?
  • Awkward. It has been fixed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if this is important, since I have no background in law, but when you mention some of the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs, wouldn't it make sense to indicate which side they argued for?
  • I added all the amici, as two were left out, and specified who they argued in favor of. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• In the last paragraph of the "Oral arguments" section, I don't understand the relevance to the case of the distinction between apathy and neutrality. For this to be relevant, wouldn't Goldstein have to argue that Heffernan was apathetic, rather than neutral? I don't see such an argument mentioned in the article. Or am I misunderstanding this?
  • The source and wording are admittedly a little vague and confusing. Goldstein made the distinction and then went on to argue that Heffernan was apathetic, not neutral, and thus not protected. It's more clear in the argument transcript (p. 31), so I've tried to clarify that in the prose. Let me know how it reads. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Because employees thinking of engaging in protected activity will be equally dissuaded by an incorrect dismissal as by a correct dismissal, both reasonings should be considered in violation of the First Amendment" is uncited.
  • Pin point added. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "For the dissent, even if the dismissal was for the wrong reason and harm was suffered, the dismissal cannot infringe upon rights he never exercised" is uncited.
  • That and the preceding sentence are both from the same page, so I moved the preceding citation to the following sentence to avoid using the same citation twice in a row. I think this makes it more clear, but if you'd prefer both sentences be cited, let me know. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I will read through again tomorrow to see if I can spot anything unless before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reread the article and have made some minor copyedits; please revert if necessary. I'd suggest getting rid of the volume 578 link in the "See also" section; it's already linked from the infobox. That's a minor point, of course, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- reviews for image licensing and source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support—I don't feel qualified to judge citation formatting in the style used in the article, so I'll have to leave that to others. I personally believe that the style in use conflicts with provisions of our MOS, but mine is probably a minority view. In terms of reliability, nothing fails my basic sniff test.

  I did read the whole article, and everything was clear to me, and nothing stood out as needing copy editing at this time. I will note that there is a bit of a formatting discrepancy as both "42 U.S.C. 1983" and "42 USC 1983" are in use; either use the dots or not, but not both please.

  As for images, there are basically only 4 in use: the SCOTUS seal and two portraits of justices fall in the public domain, and the city photo has a Creative commons license. The caption for the Thomas portrait is a complete sentence, but it's missing its terminal punctuation. Should these minor issues get fixed, and should someone appropriately versed in the citation style in use clear it as consistent, then I see no reason why this should not be promoted. Imzadi 1979 → 04:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tks Imzadi. Nikki, could I trouble you to complete the source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Imzadi1979 (and sorry I took so long). I changed all USC to U.S.C. since the reporter is cited as U.S.. I fixed the caption. Please let me know if I missed something or you have other concerns. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Eight years later, this protection from dismissal was extended to cover partisan political ideology and affiliation in Elrod v. Burns .[8][8]" - is there meant to be two different citations on this?
• Should use colwidth rather than fixed number of columns in ((reflist))
• Should use a consistent date format
• FN4: what kind of source is this?
• FN28: why the time here?
• Sometimes you're using block caps for publisher, sometimes for work title - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: the sources are in Bluebook style, so some titles (or names of secondary sources) will appear in small caps. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've been able to tell, that doesn't apply to publishers. Do you have a Bluebook ref? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: By publishers, do you mean the name of a website or a journal in which an article was published? Bluebook usually requires that the names of websites, journals, and books be placed in smallcaps (see this guide). I also made a few other formatting changes per your first two bulleted comments; also, footnote 4 is a book and I removed the time from footnote 28. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, website names and journals are both work titles. If FN4 is a book, it needs page(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am pinging Wugapodes, who I think added the citation to the book in fn. 4. If we add a page # citation to fn. 4, we should do the same for fn. 6. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, on vacation with limited internet and only got emailed about the ping. Thanks to Notecardforfree for picking up what I completely dropped and a big thanks to Nikkimaria for doing the source review. Anyway

-I think I fixed all the date formats.

-FN4 is a book. Smallcaps is used for publishers so I'm not quite sure why the title is capitalized (most likely something I thought was a good idea a few months ago then promptly forgot). I'll look into that.

Should be fixed now. Still not sure why that was there in the first place but at least it's fixed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Re: page numbers: I don't have the books with me to look up the specific page, unfortunately, and probably won't for another week unless my vacation plans suddenly involve a library (knowing me though, they might). However I actually found this book from the footnotes of the Second Enforcement Act of 1871 article so it's probably around pg 387 if someone gets to a copy before me and wants to check that.

I think that's everything NCFF didn't fix already. Sorry to have given so little resolution here. I'll do my best to find that page as soon as possible. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got to a library, it was pages 378 and 388 that specifically detail how Grant asked for the second enforcement act: "Finally Grant went to the Capitol himself... Grant called for pen and paper...he called for whatever additional power Congress judged necessary to secure life, liberty, and property and the enforcement of law...Republican leaders in Congress soon produced a new Ku Klux bill." I have edited the page as such. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.