Talk:Joseph Kinnicutt Angell

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Joseph Kinnicutt Angell

• ... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"? Source: [1]
  • ALT1: ... that "no intelligent lawyer could well practice without" the books by Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured)? Source: [2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Why We Sleep

Created by Kavyansh.Singh (talk). Self-nominated at 14:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC).

• The first hook and the article needs to contextualize James Kent for a lay audience (who is he/why is he important?). The ALT hook sounds like the quote is coming in Wikipedia's voice, so I'd steer away from that. The article looks good and the source is being accepted in good faith, as I can't access it. Earwig says that a copyvio is "unlikely." With the hook tweaks, this should be good to go. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi @The ed17: Thanks for the review, much appreciated. I have now specified that he was a 'jurist' and former chancellor of New York (in the article). To keep the hook brief, I have just mentioned 'jurist' in ALT2. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2: ... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), jurist James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"?
    • ALT2a: ... that writing of the books of Joseph Kinnicutt Angell (pictured), legal scholar James Kent asserted that "No intelligent lawyer could well practice without them"?
    • @Kavyansh.Singh: Could you go with "legal scholar"? That's also a descriptor from Kent's article, and I think that's better understood than jurist. Sorry for the nitpicking here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @The ed17: Sure; done in ALT2a. And I think it is supported by the LOC source as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Kavyansh.Singh! This is good to go, accepting the source on good faith. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

Mainly 14:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Kinnicutt Angell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The image is appropriately tagged.

• What makes The Ancestral Dictionary a reliable source? The author says the data in it was "partly furnished by other persons". Genealogical data is infamous for its inaccuracies; I know nothing against this particular book, but I don't see a publisher which makes me think this is self-published.
  • We have 'E. L. Freeman & Sons' as the publisher. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    I took that for the printer, not the publisher, but looking at some more old books I see it's not always a clear distinction so struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Incorporeal hereditaments, Limitations of actions, and Corporate tax": do these need the uppercase initials? This is in both the lead and the body.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• "During his childhood, Angell had an interest in studies": vague; can we be more specific?
  • The source does not specify further. Should this be removed? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    I think we might as well remove it. It doesn't tell the reader much as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    • Removed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• "He soon developed a reputation as a conceptual lawyer": what is a conceptual lawyer?
  • Rephrased – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• "Angell returned to Rhode Island before rendering the decision": presumably this should be "before the decision was rendered"?
  • Rephrased – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• I looked up the Law Intelligencer in Mott's history of American magazines and have a little more information for you: "The Law Intelligencer, founded at Providence in [1829], was, after a single volume, [...] moved to Philadelphia, where it published a second and third volume, 1830-1831." There's a footnote that adds 'It added the words "and Review" to its title when it was moved to Philadelphia. The titles given are those of the half titles and captions; title-pages say United States Law and Intelligencer Review.' From this it's apparent Angell continued to edit it in Philadelphia.
  • Will try to research about this in few other sources as well, and will get back to this in a few days, if that is fine, Mike Christie? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    Sure -- no problem. I'll check back in a week or so if I haven't heard from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Kavyansh.Singh, just checking in -- I know you wanted to look for other sources, but I think if you want to pass this, just removing the vague sentence and incorporating the info about the journal from Mott would be enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi! So I researched about this last week in the Google books], Internet archive, and other online sources. From what I saw and read, it is indeed apparent that he continued editing it, so I've just rephrased and added a bit. Didn't add about "and Review", as it is not too related to Angell. Does it work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That works; passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Source title

Kavyansh.Singh, I realized after I promoted this to GA that I should have been doing spotchecks. I've done them now, and there were no issues, but I did spot a source title issue that I think needs to be fixed. The citation to Hopkins gives a link to a Google Books scan, with page numbers, but that scan file has multiple books so the page numbers repeat. I would suggest using the title of the actual book, not the Google file. As far as I can see that's Rhode Island Historical Tracts No. 11. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, just following up on this. I'll probably change it myself if you don't respond, but I didn't want to mess with your citation in case I was misunderstanding something about the source file. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Christie: Sorry for the delay, IRL commitments have made me pay less attention to Wikipedia, so I missed your ping. I have now fixed the title of that source; thanks for pointing that out! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem -- thanks for fixing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)