Talk:Teresa Bagioli Sickles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Teresa Bagioli Sickles has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 3, 2006. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Wording
The wording of this article relies rather heavily on the assumption.edu source.--TurabianNights 15:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rating
I think this article is a B and I plan to submit it to GA shortly. But I'm biased, I started this article. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] category suggestions
Would these categories be applicable, as you already use Category:Law?
- Category:Landmark cases
- Category:Legal history of the United States
- Possibly one of the sub-categories of Category:Crime?
~Kylu (u|t) 23:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think it's in Category:Law already or anyway wasn't when I last checked. I added the other two. As for the subclass of crime, I went with Category:Criminal defenses, that seemed to fit best. Thanks for your suggestions! ++Lar: t/c 20:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Date contradiction
The date of marriage to Daniel Sickles on this page is 1853, but on Daniel Sickles' page it is 1852. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Offensive (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is that the reason for the Contradiction tag? The above post is unsigned so I can't quite be sure, but the timestamps seem to match. Sources are hazy, if I recall correctly. I have no big investment in either date, to be sure. Anyone have a problem with just changing the date to 1853 and removing this tag? I think the work done elsewhere to tighten up some of the sequence of events (which is great!) is far more important than this particular thing. ++Lar: t/c 00:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA
I see nothing to prevent this article from receiving GA status. It meets all requirements. Passed it. Da54 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Explanation of 5/22/07 edits
Explanation of 5/22/07 edits--In the "Affair and murder" section I added detail to the sequence of events concerning Key's murder. I removed the inaccurate statement that Sickles "lay in wait" for Key. Instead he sent a friend to delay Key while he armed himself. Per trial transcripts, one of Sickle's shots struck Key in or very near his groin. This caused a sensation in the courtroom when revealed at the trial but was not reported in the press (likely either is was too graphic for readers or too damaging to Sickles). For transcripts, see Felix G. Fontain, reporter, "Trial of the Hon. Daniel E. Sickles: for shooting Philip Barton Key, Esq. U.S. District Attorney", 1859
In the "Trial" section I added detail about Sickles leaking Teresa's confession to the press. It's probable that one of Sickle's defense team did this but probably Sickles approved it. This is an assumption. Also, I added detail as to why the public was offended by Sickles reconciliation with Teresa after his acquittal. I clarified slightly Sickles' so called "withdrawal" from public life, which was more along the lines of Sickles' keeping a low profile for a short time. Rob043055 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel Sickles
A good part of this article appears to be about the subjec't husband, Daniel Sickles. His trial is given extensive coverage. We have a category on the article that applies ot him. I suggest better coordination between the two articles, and more focus on Teresa in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
