Talk:Bank War/Archives/2014

Other sources

I am not well versed in how to use Wikipedia, so if anyone out there is and wants to contribute to this page you can visit [1]. Britannica has some good information, and whoever started this article might want to copy and paste it and then cite it (or anyone else who wants to add to the article). If copy and pasting violates copyright, then just paraphrase the information and still give Britannica credit. ((Subst:unsignedip2| 02:41, 3 October 2006‎ (UTC)|70.112.66.120}}

JSquish revisions to Lede, Bank War

I've reverted the major edit that JSquish has made to the Lede, not because I object to the substance of the changes - it's rather well written, and an improvment in a number of ways - but because the changes have been "piggy-backed" on existing footnotes. General Jackson deems "piggy-backing" a capital crime.

What JSquish has revived in performing the edit without providing sources is a reactionary method of editing - one in which an editor writes an opinion piece, then expects others to provide the mainstream, published sources to support that opinion. This wou't do.

I'll review the Lede, and the entire article, and supply direct citations from the sources listed in the footnotes, or additional ones, if required, to support the material. Fortunately, I retained the citations on which the article was built.

Further edits will then need to comport with the pop-up citations, or supply new ones to support the new edit. 36hourblock (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Intention to review

I'll review the article as it's the oldest in the queue. Will report progress in a few days. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jack, are you still planning on reviewing this as it is the oldest outstanding GAN (following the approval of Gun politics in the Czech Republic) and that it has been 21 days since your above comments. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 08:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in getting on with this but I was away from the site for nearly two months because of holidays and being too busy elsewhere. I'll try and move it forward now. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack - I'm in flux at the moment, but will address myself to your edit requests soon, probably in November. Regards, 36hourblock (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

First paragraph:

• Infobox: some kind of column header needed for each of the two factions under "Lead figures"
• Jacksonian Democracy is a redirect: please amend to article title

"With the Bank charter due to expire in 1836, the President of the Bank of the United States, acting like a central bank Nicholas Biddle, in alliance with the National Republicans under Senator Henry Clay (KY) and Senator Daniel Webster (MA), decided to make rechartering a referendum on the legitimacy of the institution in the general election of 1832".

I have issues with the above sentence:

• Link needed to Bank of the United States
• Who was the President of the Bank of the United States?
• "acting like a central bank Nicholas Biddle" needs to be rewritten or better still removed (at this point in the narrative, the reader doesn't know who Biddle was)
• Suggest that links should be provided for "Senator", KY and MA to try and clarify for non-Americans what the notation indicates
• Do you mean "referendum" or something else? Was the issue the subject of an actual referendum?
• Whole sentence needs to be revised for clarity of meaning and message; and probably split into two or more sentences to achieve that.

Third paragraph:

• As mentioned above, reader at this point doesn't know who Biddle was so a brief intro of his role is needed somewhere in the foregoing
• Also clarify that Henry Clay was Jackson's presidential opponent as is only inferred here

Fourth paragraph looks like a good summary of events from 1833 to 1841.

A general comment about the lead is that it seems to be short of useful links and an effort should be made to introduce these where possible: corporation, slavery, Bank of the United States, National Republicans, (re)chartering, Congress, veto, term of office, 1832 election campaign and outcome, deferal deposits, executive power, Senate, bank credit, financial downturn, state chartered, corporation, Pennsylvania, federal charter and liquidation are all terms that ought to have some kind of link to articles that can explain their respective concepts.

I will continue to review the main narrative and will report on that in due course but attention to the lead is needed first. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack - Just go ahead and make the changes yourself. You have sources for edits you request, do you not? Let's proceed as a collaborative effort. Keep up the good work. Yours, 36. 36hourblock (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't have relevant sources. Changes need to be made by someone who does have good sources and who knows the subject well. My knowledge of the Jackson administration is high level only. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whence does your understanding of this topic originate? Changes to the article need to be derived from histories of the events, so as to limit the edit requests to those issues addressed by secondary sources. Whether "slavery" needs to be linked is contingent on these considerations. Submitting a laundry list of suggested rewrites is of little value in itself.

If the article requires such extensive revisions, perhaps it's not ready for a GA nomination. I urge you to study the history of the Bank War - a fascinating endeavor - and make the substantive additions you've suggested. With your "high level of knowledge" on the topic, you have a head start on the rest of us.

As always, make sure to include copious citations from mainstream historians to support the edits. 36hourblock (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In England, having "high level knowledge" means I can only summarise: i.e., my knowledge of the period would suffice for an introduction only. We refer to detailed knowledge as "low level": i.e., in the lower tiers of the subject knowledge structure. I think in view of the comments to date that you are right and that I should fail the GAN. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at High- and low-level and your point is clear. If you feel the introduction to the article can be improved, and you possess sources from which you've gained high-level knowledge, then make the edits. It little matters to me personally as to whether the article is rated "good", only that it is informative, well-documented and meets Wiki guidelines. Your interest in the Bank War and your "knowledge of the period" qualifies you to make the changes to the introduction that will elevate it to GA level, with the caveat you organize your sources. It would be a shame if you failed to do so. Best of luck. 36hourblock (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)