Talk:Humphrey Marshall (politician)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I've reviewed your article for GA status. I've read through it a few times, and it is excellently written, and almost good to go. It appears you've been down this path a few times, probably many times. I've already made a few minor edits. I'll edit in the GA template after I'm done with these comments. Here are suggestions for improvement, none of which is a show-stopper:

• Infobox--Residence=Glen Willis means nothing to myself as the reader, and the link leaves me scratching my head by saying "a building in Frankfort, Ky." Is the reader supposed to know that residence means some estate, such as "Buckingham Palace" or "The Hermitage"? If so, then I guess it's OK, but something like "Glen Willis, in Frankfort, Kentucky" might be more instructive or more helpful to the reader.
  • No problem with adding the city. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox--Rank="Captain lieutenant" The link refers to a naval rank, which isn't appropriate to Marshall's field rank. An online dictionary told me that the rank involves a captain's responsibilities with a lieutenant's pay. I couldn't find any appropriate link in wikipedia for this rank.
  • Unlinked. Given how active WP:MILHIST is, I couldn't believe we have a rank with no article. Maybe I should ask someone to create it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lead--the link to the word stoned refers to a form of capital punishment, which is not appropriate to the meaning in the article. If the word is left as "stoned," then I suggest it not be linked. My impression is that people threw stones at him, but that he walked away.
  • Not sure what to make of this, either. One of the sources, which I can't recall at the moment, implied that his carriage was stoned, but all the others just say he was stoned. Not sure if it was with intent to kill or not. It is possible they meant to and just didn't succeed, a la the Apostle Paul. I guess I'll unlink it for now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lead--beginning of third paragraph, "Since 1786" recommend this be changed to "As early as 1786"
  • No quibbles about changing that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Early political career, fourth paragraph. There were two positions in regards to separation, and Marshall favored the second. Which one actually happened?
  • It is a little complicated. There were actually ten conventions before separation was effected. On at least one occasion, both states approved separation, but the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation before it could be approved at the federal level, essentially restarting the process. In this instance, I guess you could say Marshall's position was the victorious one, but then you almost have to explain why it still took five years to separate the two states. Suggestions? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • No suggestions; just a question that came to mind as I read the article. I'd leave as is.

• Early political career, fifth paragraph. Jefferson County is mentioned as the only Kentucky county favoring ratification. I think it's important to mention why this county is significant--the county of Louisville, which I suspect was the largest town/city in the state then as I believe it is now.
  • Possibly, but I can't say for sure. From the article on Richard Mentor Johnson, which I also worked on, the city of Louisville was a new settlement called "Beargrass" in 1780, so I don't know how much it had grown in 7 or 8 years. Also, Jefferson County was much larger then. It was one of the three original counties in the district of Kentucky. Five counties were created directly from it, and probably several others from those. It may have contained some other major cities at the time; I don't have a map from that period to know how extensive it was, but I know it was once pretty big. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • This all makes sense, so no change is needed. Thanks for the explanation.

• same paragraph, last sentence, "beating Harris with a stick so severely that Harris retreated..." the words "so severely" conjure in the reader's mind being maimed or badly injured; recommend "beating Harris with a stick severely enough to force his retreat from the encounter."
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Early political career, second to last paragraph. The last sentence does not go with this paragraph, but it does go with the next paragraph. Recommend removing "Marshall was again elected to a separation convention in 1789" and begin the following paragraph as follows: "In 1789 Marshall was again elected to a convention for separating Kentucky from Virginia. Shortly after the separation occurred in 1792, Marshall was elected to represent Woodford County..."
  • Moved, although I left the rest as-is so as not to imply that the 1789 convention effected separation, as detailed above. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• U.S. Senate, first sentence. I've read this several times, and every time ask myself "which party?" The opening of the sentence doesn't actually refer to a party, but to members of a party. Recommend the sentence be reworded: "Partly as a result of Marshall's attacks on prominent Democratic-Republicans such as Governor Shelby, the Federalists gained influence in the legislature. The Federalist cause was also bolstered by..."
  • OK. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• U.S. Senate, second paragraph. A pamphlet stated that Marshall had perjured himself. Do we know when this happened?
  • The publication of the pamphlet, or the alleged perjury? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • This was another question that came to mind as I read the article. I was interested in knowing if it was in the recent past that he supposedly perjured himself, or in the more distant past. Not important to answer, but could bring a little clarity to the sentence.

• U.S. Senate, third paragraph. stoned--same comment as with lead
  • Unlinked. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Later life and death, first sentence. while "became more interesting in writing" could make sense, I suspect you meant "became more interested in writing."
  • Indeed. The former would be original research, wouldn't it? ;) Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I need to run a check on the images and references, and that should just about do it for me.

An excellent article, and I've enjoyed reading it.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. After reading in A New History of Kentucky about the mob that dissolved in laughter when Marshall tried to give his "experience", I knew I needed to try and write it. I'm a Baptist, after all, although I hope I wouldn't have participated in a dunking mob! It was very interesting to write as well. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, very nicely done; I'll get the ratings adjusted.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   prose: (MoS): (pending minor changes/discussion)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: