Talk:John Eaton (politician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my first GA review, so if I mess up, or do something els wrong, please do tell me. I expect to have finished this review within a week and a half. Additional comments are welcome. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• I might put a link to John Eaton in the lede

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• You link to Major (United States) in the lead and in the body. Is the second link necessary?

It's not uncommon to link things in the body even if they've already been linked in the lead or infobox. Generally, we don't link more than once in the body unless perhaps the two things are separated by a significant amount of text in a very long article. However, linking something once in the lead and again in the body doesn't seem to me like a big deal. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• do you need to link to Scotland Neck, Halifax County, AND North Carolina?

Why not? Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• the use of semicolons seems to be a bit excessive.

Can you point out an instance where you think a period would do better? Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Eaton became active in the Tennessee militia, and attained the rank of major." It might be nice if there was a year included in this sentence.

Yes, it would be. But unfortunately, I've been unable to locate it. He's referred to often as "Major Eaton," with no mention of when he attained the rank. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is no mention of what happened to the first wife in the marriages section.

It says she died in 1815. There isn't really anything written about her that I've been able to find that isn't already covered in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Eaton was allowed to serve in the Senate if it is known that he was too young. The explanation you give "personal details including date of birth were not always well-documented" would be adequate, but for you make no mention of there being any doubt about his date of birth.

What you quoted really says about all there is to say. Today you can look up when and where a political candidate was born whenever you choose. You can demand that a candidate produce a copy of his birth certificate if you have doubts about whether or not he meets the qualifications for office. None of that existed in the early 19th century. More than likely, he just flew under the radar, along with the handful of others who managed to pull the same trick. McKellar (1942) mentions that a biographer of Eaton said that he was born not in 1790 but in 1787, without giving an exact date. This would have made Eaton 31 when he entered the Senate instead of 28. It's possible that Eaton told certain people that he was born in 1787 in order to cover for himself. But no source available has speculated that far, so we can't discuss it in the article without violating Wikipedia policy. It's a weird but interesting situation. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

this confirms your point.

But here It calls him "Youngest senator ever"

Added that he was the youngest senator ever known to have served, with source from Politico article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• " He was a close personal friend of Jackson" do you need to repeat this?

Good point. Changed to "remained a close friend." Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe link to University of North Carolina?

It's linked in the first paragraph of "Early life." Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• A minor caveat. Is the only thing that Eaton did as Secretary of war manage Indian affairs and then resign? and no mention of what he did as ambassador to spain is mentioned. These two things may not be necessary, but it seems that if there is more, it might merit adding.

He was only in office for two years, most of which was consumed with the Petticoat affair. There wasn't much else to do besides manage Indian affairs. I haven't been able to find anything on what he did as Ambassador to Spain. I added that, per Meacham (2008), his time there was "undistinguished." Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The obituary in Washington's Daily National Intelligencer spoke warmly of him, and noted that the chief justice had announced adjournment of the Supreme Court for the afternoon of the eighteenth in order that the justices, members of the bar, and officers of the Court might attend the funeral." This part I found in NCpedia, while it may not be reliable, could merit some mention of.

I added this citing Powell (1986). NCpedia seems to have copied off of it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• here it talks about Eaton as being much more involved in the Indian removal, doing a lot more, whereas our article speaks of jackson appointing Eaton, and Eaton just following what Jackson told him to do

I'll deal with this later. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• from the Dictionary of American Biography "Committee on District of Columbia (Twentieth Congress)" Eaton presumably led this in the Senate.

you might consider adding the infobox on the left

John Eaton (politician)/GA1
Chair of the Senate Committee on District of Columbia
In office 1827–1829
Preceded by	Ezekiel F. Chambers
Succeeded by	Ezekiel F. Chambers

Interestingly enough, the first chair was none other than Armistead Mason

I added Eaton's position to the article, but I didn't think it was worth including in the infobox. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• From Here "[Eaton] lost Jackson's friendship until just before the former president's death in 1845" Again, not sure how reliable, but this is in clear contradiction with our article.

It's reliable because it was written by John F. Marszalek, a professional historian who wrote a major book on the Petticoat affair. It makes for an interesting contradiction. We have a 21st century historian claiming that they did reconcile. The source used in the article that explicitly says that they did not is Volume 3 of James Parton's biography of Jackson, published in 1860. According to Remini, "factual errors occasionally interlude" in his work. This seems to make Marszalek's version more reliable. However, after doing some more research, I failed to find any mention of a reconciliation in Marszalek's book on the Petticoat affair. Remini and Meacham say nothing of it, though both mention Eaton's betrayal of Van Buren and Jackson's subsequent anger. I also tried to find any letters between the two men in the Jackson papers dating from after 1840, and was unsuccessful. I did come across a mention from Remini in an endnote that Jackson accidentally ran into Eaton while campaigning for Van Buren in 1840, and that "both men behaved properly." That hardly counts as a reconciliation, but I added it anyway. I found it safer to mention in the article that, while Parton claims that they never reconciled, Marszalek claims that they did. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• The Legacy section seems to have only negative things to say about eaton.

The obituary mention should balance out this well enough. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• From here "[Eaton] became a speculator in Florida land...advocated compensation upon discharge for soldiers who served honorably; made the Topographical Engineers a separate bureau"

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• From the JSTOR article "The Eaton Affair Reconsidered" "Duff Green was angry because Eaton had tried to force him into a partnership with Amos Kendall" it should probably be made clear that his maritial status was not the only reason he had critics.

Thanks for doing the review. I've responded to everything you've said so far above. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gotten some more stuff done. Much of my time was sidetracked following up on leads that I had gotten while researching other things. Thank you for providing all these links and encouraging me to look deeper into certain areas. It has significantly helped expand the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

All my issues have been resolved. Passing Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)