Jump to content

Talk:Benjamin Harrison/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

I am reviewing this article. I will leave a preliminary list of issues within 24 hours. You will have ample time to respond, and to resolve any matters that arise thereafter. (I also did the William Henry Harrison review). Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary GA review

[edit]

Before I start my detailed review of the text, there are some general issues which I would like to raise.

  • Images: I believe that the article is over-imaged. You have five separate depictions of Harrison, not counting the postage stamp or his cartoon appearance. That is way too many. I suggest three as the maximum. The two to go, I would suggest, are Come on, boys in the Civil War section, and the seated portrait in the Presidential firsts section. You may also want to consider whether both the cartoons are necessary. The Raven image is not referred to in the text, and beyond the too-large hat its meaning is not obvious - there is clearly a Poe reference here, somewhere, but will your readers pick this up?. It may be better to lose it. Also, the two images in the Civil war section violate WP:MOS#Images in two respects: position of left-hand image under a second-tier subheading, and having text between two directly-facing images, and your recent shifting of the "football" image to the left creates a similar violation.
  • Organisation of references: There are many opportunities to combine references. For example, [5] and [8] are to the same page of Calhoun; [25] and [35] are to the same page range in Calhoun; [10], [11] and [14] could be combined in a short page range, pp. 26-28. There are lots of similar examples. In addition, individual formats are inconsistent. [3] should read "Moore, p. 19"; [7] should read "pp. 11-12 and p. 23"; [9] should read "pp. 27 & 29". And so on.
  • Further reading: Why are your Further reading entries described as "sources"? If they are sources for material in the article, they should be listed as sources, and cited. "Further reading" means related works that have not specifically been drawn on in the writing of the article. Also, what distinction are you making between "primary" and "secondary", and why are secondary sources listed first?
    • This is OK now. But I've just noticed an unusually large number of External links. Are all of these necessary? If they are all good links, someone may ask the question why they weren't used as sources. It's not a major point, but I'd consider reducing this list to two or three of the most useful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Namesakes: This information needs to be rendered into text, not bullet points. I also have grave doubts about its existence as a section on its own. My present feeling is that the information needs to be shortened, and added as a paragraph to the post-presidency section, but I'll reconsider this when I go through the text.
  • Presidential firsts: This is a trivia section under another name. The information in the first para could go into the Presidency section, that in the second para into the 1888 campaign section. The rest isn't notable enough to keep.

Perhaps you would respond to these concerns. I am starting now to go through the text in detail, and will report again when this is done. I will deal with typos amd minor fixes as I go along. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I have removed several images as yoru suggested. I had already removed several, so there are about 6 images or so that could be placed back on the page. Would a gallery section be ok for this, or would you suggest leaving them out altogether? I have also removed the non-notable presidential firsts and namesakes and integrated the rest into the article, I was unsure what to do with them, I had already pared them down quite a bit and only kept what I could reference. I merged the further reading subsections together, the difference was the secondary sources where written by third parties, whereas the ones listed as primary where written by harrison himself or his campaign staff, none of them are used in the article though so they were not really sources anyway. I will try to organize the references as you suggested a little later today. Thanks for you initial review! Charles Edward 15:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::I have finished moving the images about and also fixed up the references as you pointed out. Charles Edward 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number of images is just about right, now. The brigadier-general is still in violation of MoS (left-aligned directly under a subheading) and should be moved to the right side. I have slightly changed the left-aligned football cartoon to avoid a similar violation. I am troubled by the awkward placing of the stamp image, and will try to suggest a better site for it. My personal preference is against gallery sections; the main focus should be on the text, the images merely illustrating aspects of the text. Galleries of pictures tend to distract; my advice is, stick to the images you have. On Further reading, you need to format all the entries in the same way, i.e. surname first, then first name. I see you are doing as I suggested with regard to Namesakes and Presidential firsts, which is good. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review Part II

[edit]

Here is the rest of the review, a detailed look at the prose.

  • Lead

**"Legislation", in the sense that you are using it, is a mass noun that can’t be pluralized. You can’t have a "series of legislations". You can have a series of laws, and I suggest you amend to that.

  • Early life

**The term "Englander" is never used - say Englishman

  • Lawyer

**This heading is a bit abrupt. I suggest changing it to "Legal career"

**Washington DC needs linking on first mention.

    • Last paragraph: This account of the Knights of the Golden Circle episode is seriously inaccurate. Harrison did not defend the conspirators; his role in the affair was entirely different from what you describe. Please revisit your sources and redraft this para in accordance with the facts.
      • Checked source and changed section. Seems less notable now though, perhaps it should be removed? Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have the right facts, but in far too much detail and too little emphasis on Harrison's role. I think this incident is worth mentioning because of its effect on Harrison's public profile. I have replaced your paragraph with a much shorter one, which focuses on Harrison's part. I hope this is consistent with what's in your reference, which I have left. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Politics: This section lacks information as to Harrison’s political career. Here are some additional points you might mention – I’m sure you’ll find them in your sources:-

**It doesn’t make much sense to say that "After returning from the war, he was an unsuccessful… candidate for governor", since this was 11 years after he war.

  • Policies

**It would help if you subdivided this section into domestic policy and foreign policy subsections.

    • "For Harrison, civil service reform was a no-win situation". This sounds like opinion, unless you cite it. If the informal language "no-win situation" is in the source, put it in quotes. Otherwise I suggest you don't use it.
    • "Harrison was proud of the vigorous foreign policy he helped shape". Who said he was proud? Who called his foreign policy vigorous?
    • Who said the most perplexing domestic problem Harrison had to face was the tariff issue?
    • Some short paragraphs, e.g. 3 and 4, should be combined.
      • Done Charles Edward
        • The one outstanding matter, in the Foreign policy section, is that the first Pan-American Congress meeting needs a citation.
  • Reelection campaign
    • "…party leaders decided to abandon President Harrison". They may have considered abandoning him, but clearly they decided not to. You should reword accordingly.
      • I added a statement to clarify. They party leader, like Sherman and McKinley did stop supporting him during the primary, and blamed alot of the problem on him as a scapegoat of sorts.
        • Yes, but the word "decided" is wrong. They obviously didn't have the power to make such a decision. Instead of "decided to abandon" you could say "wanted to abandon".

That’s it for the present. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you to respond to these points. I am confident you will do so, and that Benjamin will soon be joining his uncle in the GA category. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed most of your points. Please let me know if there is anything more. I have also moved the images you suggested deleting, along with others I had already removed, into a gallery at the bottom. If you think that is unnecessary it can also be removed. Charles Edward 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I will re-read and check things out tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would respond to the relatively small number of points, above, which I have not struck out. Note: this includes one point in the preliminary review. There is one other issue that might need looking out, namely repetitive linking. Terms should normally be linked at first mention and not thereafter, though it is sometimes OK to repeat a link when the term is mentioned at a key point in the text. Since this issue was raised at the last GA review, can you go through and check that you are not repeatedly linking? After your responese I will proceed to the final review. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just 4 things left
1. your rationale for so many external links, 2. a citation for the first Pan-American Congress meeting, 3. a citation for Harrison's 1887 senate defeat and 4. your assurance that you have checked for any overlinking. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the two refs added, i also removed a couple links and combined four into one, since they all pointed to the same site. I have also went through and removed the duplicate links that i noticed. Charles Edward 19:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA final review comments

[edit]

The article has been improved considerably during the course of this review, and in my view now meets all the Good Article criteria. The one possible weakness, not actually raised during the course of the review, is the reliance on a very limited set of sources - three books, one of them published 120 years ago - when there appears to be a wealth of Harrison stuff available on the web. I haven't examined the reliability of these web sources, but I imagine that some are good. One or two of the Further Reading titles looked to me as though they could have been used as sources. But I don't want to spoil the moment, so congratulations on your second Good Article relating to the Harrison family. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In regards to the sources, a large part of the article was wrote when I began with it, but there where no in-line citations, so it is likely that one of the further reading books was used. The two books I used were also part of that section but I looked them up to use for in-line citation . Thanks again! Charles Edward 01:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Harrison/GA2&oldid=229681766"