Talk:Merrick Garland

Note

Started quote page, with lede text from intro of English Wikipedia article at present, w:Merrick Garland.

-- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms

This article as originally submitted does not appear to be up to Wikiquote's standards. In particular:

1. Introduction – This is far more information than needed to identify the subject and why he is notable. This is not WikiBiography, and such information is better hosted at Wikipedia.
2. Remarks by Judge Garland – Five quotes from a very brief address, comprising more than a quarter of the entire speech, would appear to be disproportionate. Most of it does not appear to be remarkably memorable: there is little that would not be said in similar words by almost any senior U.S. judge.
3. Quotes about Garland – These testimonials that he is well qualified and an all-around good guy simply do not rise to the level of Wikiquote:Quotability.

On the whole, this strikes me more as fodder for a Wikinews story than material that belongs in a compendium of notable quotations. It may be better to delete the page and start over when some actual quoteworthy material comes to light. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Reply to above specific suggestions:

Thank you for these helpful suggestions, most appreciated.

I've directly implemented these specific recommendations:

1. Introduction – Significantly trimmed size of introduction = Y Done.
2. Remarks by Judge Garland – Trimmed number of quotes in this sect to those that are most obviously quotable and pithy = Y Done.
3. Quotes about Garland – Trimmed size of quotes in this sect to those that rise to the level of Wikiquote:Quotability. Every single quote in this sect is from a notable person with a pre-existing article on Wikipedia. All quotes in this sect have already be re-quoted, verbatim, in numerous other media sources and secondary sources = Y Done.

Thanks again for the specific recommendations,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion on this is that the criticisms raised by Ningauble were absolutely correct. As to how you have chosen to address them, I do believe the trimmed intro is better, and I am happy to see the quotes from Garland's speech trimmed (the quotability of them could be questioned, but I don't mind them so much). But I do believe that the third issue remains - just because the speakers/authors of these quotes are notable does not make the quotes themselves notable. None are particularly memorable and, as Ningauble pointed out, most are simply saying basically the same thing, that Garland is a pretty good judge and deserves the nomination. I fail to see anything currently in the About section that rises to the level of quotability that would warrant that they be kept here. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd reply after modifications: Thanks very much for acknowledging that my changes to the lede intro sect and latter Quotes sect improved the article and alleviated some prior concerns now since successfully addressed. As for the 3rd sect, I've gone ahead and trimmed some quotes, shortened others to make them more "pithy" — and triple-checked to make sure that yes, indeed, all the quotes selected have already been re-quoted, verbatim, in multiple other locations and thus are deemed as "quotable" and quoteworthy by numerous secondary sources. Thanks again for the feedback about my positive changes so far, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)