Talk:John Silva Meehan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hiya! I'll take on this review. I hope it's alright if I take a few days to get started; I'd like to do the first round of review this weekend. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Just want to flag that I haven't forgotten about this. Sorry about not getting to it over the weekend as I said I would. I meant to read a couple of the sources and review the Wikipedia article. I hope it's alright to ask for a couple more days for that; thanks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: Did you have a chance to read through the sources? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I think I've progressed from "can do relatively 'mindless' Wiki tasks" (like source compilation) to "able to focus, read, and review". I wasn't able to sleep through last night though so I'm still out of sorts, and I don't expect to get the review out today, but I'm on the mend and look forward to reading some of the article-length sources and rereading the article to do the review. Sorry again about how slow this has been. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh no worries at all, I'm sorry you've been going through some hard stuff :( Take all the time you need! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Thank you for bearing with my inconstancy and tardiness; my first pass at the review follows below. Overall, what a well crafted article! Most of my comments are either minor technical fixes (typos, grammar, citations that seem misplaced) that I think will be simple fixes. There is one fix to a matter of verification that I consider mandatory to make before passing, but I think it'll be as simple as replacing some misplaced citations with a citation note to the right source. I also make one relatively macro-level suggestion, that I think is pretty clearly flagged, but if you aren't up for making it at this time, I don't consider it mandatory for qualifying for GA status (I suggested it as something to put the article over the top for potential Featured status). Overall, thanks for this contribution to Wikipedia!

• @Generalissima: Thank you so much for such a thorough review! I think I have responded to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead

On the whole, quite good! Just a couple points I'd like to flag:

• Born in New York City, Meehan served as a printer in his youth, before a brief period of service in the United States Navy during the last stages of the War of 1812.: I think this sentence and comma may constitute a comma splice, as the latter clause isn't an independent clause but the former is a complex sentence with a dependent clause ("Born in...") that reads as if it's being strung to the latter dependent clause. Could it be revised to avoid this? Something like "Born in New York City, Meehan served as a printer in his youth. After this, he briefly served in the United State Navy..." etc.?
  • Good idea, fixed. - G
• Returning without seeing combat, he begun work: I believe this ought to be "he began work". "Begun" is the past participle used in the perfect tense whereas this sentence calls for the past tense, "began".
  • True! Fixed. - G
• The firm moved to Washington, D.C., in early 1822, and Meehan begun: Another case of "begun" used where "began" should be. Additionally, is a comma called for after "D.C"? I know it belongs before it, between "Washington" and "D.C." but I'm not sure why you have it afterward here.
  • MOS explicitly marks a comma after Washington, D.C. when it's used in running prose :((((( I do not like it, but mos is mos
    • How—interesting! ^^; Well, I guess we'll leave that as it is. – H
• Largely unbothered by this, he retired gracefully, and died suddenly in 1863: I think there is an inadvertent comma splice here, as the last clause is a dependent clause. This could either be "he retired gracefully and died suddenly in 1863" or "he retired gracefully, and he died suddenly in 1863".
  • Fixed. - G

Early life

• In Burlington, he met Margaret Jones Monington, and married her in 1814: This is cited to McDonough (1976); however, the source doesn't seem to verify that Meehan met Monington in Burlington; only that Monington was from Burlington (McDonough's language is Monington of Burlington).
  • Ah, fair point. Fixed. - G

Publishing career

• Anderson left the partnership in early 1823, and Meehan became the sole publisher of the Luminary and Star: While I see how you arrive at this I'm not sure McDonough (1976), who you cite here, quite verifies this. According to McDonough, by 1824 Meehan was publishing it [the Luminary] alone (3); meanwhile, Early in 1823 Anderson's name was dropped from the paper's [here meaning the Star's] masthead and Meehan alone appeared as the publisher (4). While it's plausible to conclude from this that Robert Anderson left the Luminary at the same time as leaving the Star, McDonough himself doesn't seem to make clear whether that was the case or if Anderson left the Star later. Is there a way to articulate this differently to avoid any inadvertent implications?
  • Makes sense, split that up a little. - G
• It declared this in violation of "the most sacred principles of the Constitution,": While I gather the intended meaning is that the newspaper declared the election of John Quincy Adams and appointment of Henry Clay violated constitutional principles, this initially read to me as saying that the newspaper's opposition to the election of John Quincy Adams violated constitutional principles (i.  'X did so in violation of "the most sacred principles" ' etc.). Perhaps rephrase to something like "It declared that these violated..." etc.?
  • Fair point, lol. Rephrased. - G
• As editor, Meehan heavily critiqued the system: Here "criticized" may be better than "critiqued", as while the latter can have the meaning of criticize it also often carries a tone of review/analysis/assessment, e. g., academics critiquing a paper may probe the strengths and weaknesses of the argument while affirming and praising it rather than criticizing it. But here, it seems clear what Meehan did was criticize the system.
  • Fixed. - G
• He published several editorials in the paper, and offered to purchase the paper after strong rebuttals from the National Journal: A comma splice here. I think this should either be "in the paper and offered to purchase" or "in the paper, and he offered to purchase"
  • Fixed. - G
• Meehan additionally served as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Columbian College: Appended to the end of this sentence are two different citation notes to Smith (1981); I think you could actually trim the one to page 26, as it doesn't seem to correlate with any information in the paragraph.
  • Oh yeah, good point. - G

Librarian of Congress

Appointment

• Any particular reason to render the quotebox at full width rather than as a sidebar? I often use a value between 30% and 50%. This isn't make or break, but this formatting took me off guard.
  • I wanted it to prevent it from being excessively tall, but that's a fair point. Put it at 50%. - G
• the incoming administration begun: as in another comment above, I believe this would be "began".
  • Fixed. - G
• via the spoils system, likening the removal of incumbent officials to the cleaning of the Augean Stables: Again, not make or break, but I'm not sure the Augean Stables clause is entirely necessary/due for this article as a biography of Meehan, since the Augean Stables metaphor is more about Jacksonians and the spoils system.
  • Fair enough! - G
• was later described as "librarian of one side of the isle": Minor typo of "isle" for "aisle" (and in the source cited, McDonough, the spelling is "aisle"). I might also suggest rephrasing the set-up clause as "later described as having been" to clarify that this later description was of how Watterston discharged his then-past appointment as Librarian of Congress.
  • Fixed. - G
• Jackson originally intended to replace Watterson: minor typo of "Watterson" where it should be "Watterston"
• recommending Meehan as Watterson's replacement: minor typo of "Watterson" where it should be "Watterston"
  • Fixed both of these. -G
• A later biographer described the letter: Was this biographer Nappo or someone Nappo quoted? In either case, would it be possible to include that name here since it's a direct quotation?
  • Included the name. - G
• , via a commission exalting his character: I'm not sure if this portion of the sentence is entirely necessary or if it's a clean non-WP:OR read of the source, as it requires assessing the quotation of the commission as something that exalted Meehan's character (a reasonable interpretation to be sure—but an interpretation all the same).
  • Fair enough; and I guess it's sort of a given that a commission would be positive towards its appointee? - G
• Questions of Meehan's suitability for the role were immediately raised by some anti-Jacksonian press outlets and politicians; unlike his predecessor, he was a monolingual English speaker: While a semicolon isn't as strong of a separation as a period, it's still a separation; would it be possible to replace the semicolon with phrasing like "on the grounds that Meehan was a monolingual English speaker" (or "such as on the grounds" if that is just one reason they offered for him being unstuiable)? I also would encourage revising to use active voice, which generally reads better as prose (i. e. rather than 'questions were raised by some anti-Jacksonian press outlets', instead 'Anti-Jacksonian press outlets and politicians immediately questioned Meehan's suitability for the role" etc.?
  • Rephrased. Passive voice has a nasty habit of being used by me! :D - G
    • Passive voice is so sneaky at being used by us all! XD – H
• Meehan remained a relatively apolitical librarian, and even Whig administrations were unwilling to replace him: I think this "even" is inadvertently misplaced editorializing. A clean summarization of McDonough (1976) here would rather be that "even Whig administrations were unwilling to restore Watterston to the office of Librarian"—that's to say, the 'even-ness' in McDonough was not about replacing Meehan but about restoring Watterston (in McDonough's words, Watterston used cajolery, threats, and flattery, particularly when the Whigs came to power, but in vain [6]). For this sentence about Meehan, could it be rephrased to simply report the circumstances more plainly? Something like, "Meehan remained a relatively apolitical librarian, and he retained his position through multiple Whig presidencies" (or "multiple Democratic and Whig presidencies" or simply "multiple presidencies").
  • That's a good suggestion. I wanted to point out that Whigs weren't willing to replace Watterston, but I feel most readers of a topic like this would know that there were more Whig administrations.

Tenure

• A steady appropriation of US$5,000 a year for the purchase of books, plus an additional US$1,000–US$2,000 for law books, was allocated to Meehan throughout his career with occasional exception: This sentence either needs its own citation note to page 8 of McDonough (1976), or the citation note appended to the end of the subsequent sentence needs to be revised to be 8–9 (as currently it only points to page 9, but this information about appropriations appears on page 8).
  • Fixed. - G
• Meehan steadily acquired books, although was criticized for prioritizing the acquisition of popular books over scholarly concerns. Journalist Anne Royall rebuked his purchasing habits, claiming he had failed to "anticipate the research needs of legislators or scholars", and criticizing the acquisition of a number of books intended for Sunday school students: These two sentences don't seem to depend on content on page 9 of McDonough (1976) as near as I can tell, so I presume it's all citing pages 33–34 of Nappo (2016). If this is the case, you could remove that note citing to page 9 of McDonough (1976) (and thereby just have a note citing to page 8 of McDonough for the preceding sentence about appropriations).
  • Fixed. - G
• In 1840, French actor and ventriloquist Alexandre Vattemare: Would it be possible to revise this to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE? Perhaps "In 1840, French ventriloquist and actor Alexandre Vattemare"?
  • Good idea, fixed. - G
• describing the documents as poor quality and incomplete: Appended to the end of this clause are two citation notes, but both are to Gwinn (2010), and the citation to Gwinn 20–21 doesn't make sense, as the source doesn't include a page 20 or page 21. It seems that was made in error and you can safely cut it.
  • Ooh, yeah. Fixed. - G
• a frustrated response from Meehan and the return of his shipment, unopened: Consider revising this to "the return of Vattemare's shipment" to avoid pronoun–antecedent confusion.
  • Good idea, fixed. - G

1851 Library of Congress fire

• Architect of the Capitol Thomas U. Walter: Another case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; I'm less sure how to avoid this one.
  • Stuck a the in between there. - G

Collaboration with Pearce and rebuilding

• From the outset, Meehan collaborated: Since this was from the outset, this (particularly the Everett collaboration in the 1830s) seems strangely placed as a subsection that comes after the 1851 fire. I realize this would be a big change, but would a reorganization that redistributes these two sub-subsections (the fire and the collaboration) so they're integrated with the rest of the Tenures subsection? As is, I'm not sure if there's really a need for separate 1851 fire and Collaboration with Pierce sub-subsections separated out. The separation also causes the Collaboration sub-subsection to end oddly, since the last paragraph (that ends also reaffirmed Meehan's position as librarian seems not really about him and Pearce and rebuilding the library; instead it's a prelude to Meehan's removal as Librarian under Lincoln, via Meehan's anxieties during the Pierce administration.
  I will grant that this is a bigger ask than I expected to make and not one that I think is necessary for Good Article status, but I could see it as being a way to put the article over the top for Featured Article status, if that makes sense.
  • Was able to just split the Pearce paragraph in twain and get it flowing right.
• By March 1852, temporary facilities for the library had been finished. The construction process faced numerous delays, irritating Meehan. While Walter had promised in March that the work would be completed in three months: Is there a way to clarify that the "construction process" mentioned in the middle sentence was the construction process to rebuild the main library? As is, I was wondering what the irritation about delay was from if the temporary facilities had been finished, since it seemed as if the construction process referred to the temporary facilities (it's sort of like a pronoun–antecedent confusion).
  • Ah, fair point. Fixed. - G
• His purchasing efforts were critiqued: Similar to an earlier comment, I think "criticized" fits better here than "critiqued".
  • Fixed. - G
• an agent should be sent overseas to purchase books, and that the Library of Congress should attempt: I think this should be "should have been sent" and "should have attempted", as this is a sentence describing the past describing the past/a past counterfactual (describing the National Intelligencer writing about how Meehan went about replenishing the library).
  • Fixed. - G
• he reassured Pearce that he sought to return to the previous system and did not intend to expand his control over book acquisition: Consider revising to "Meehan reassured Pearce", since the Joint Committee intervenes as an antecedent (one that wouldn't be called "he", granted, but the confusion is still generated). I'm also not quite sure if this content captures what McDonough (1976) reports about Meehan.

McDonough states, Meehan, stepping back gingerly from any notion that his role in the acquisition of books was to be expanded, assured Pearce that since the resolution did not specify that the Librarian was to exercise judgment in determining which proposals and offers should actually be accepted, then "the power to make that decision rests, as it did before the resolution was adopted, with the Chairman of the Committee.". I don't quite see where Meehan would be calling for a "return", as the Wikipedia article text states, to an old system; rather, Meehan seems to effectively be denying that the system has meaningfully changed, taking umbrage more with what the resolution implied while taking refuge in a gap in what it laid out. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise on how to read McDonough here, though.

• Ooh, you have done a deep dive here. Yeah, I agree with your analysis there. Rephrased. - G

Removal

• Indiana physician John Gould Stephenson was able to convince Lincoln to choose him for the position through shared political sympathies.: While this seems like a reasonable conclusion, it doesn't seem as if McDonough (the source cited for this sentence) actually makes it. McDonough (1976) states that Lincoln, with a myriad of distractions before him, reacted by asking Secretary of State William H. Seward on May 23 to send him a commission for Stephenson (23). No mention is made of shared political sympathies, and McDonough makes it sound as if the appointment was an afterthought on Lincoln's part (since he was preoccupied with a myriad of distractions). Perhaps just trim that last clause so the sentence instead reads, "Indiana physician John Gould Stephenson was able to convince Lincoln to choose him for the position"?
  • Oh, you're right. I added more context from a source I used for Stephenson's articles to flesh this out. - G

Legacy

• Later historians would call into question Meehan's abilities as Librarian, critiquing his inability: Perhaps "called into question" and "criticizing his inability"? Not a make or break suggestion.
  • Good idea, done. - G

Personal life

• Margaret died during childbirth in July 1826, alongside the infant later the same day: Since the infant died later rather than coterminously, I'm not sure "alongside" is the right transition wording. Perhaps "in July 1826, as did the infant later the same day"?
  • Good idea, done. - G
• Only three of Meehan's children would outlive him: Consider revising to "Only three of Mehan's children outlived him"; as the entire matter is well in the past, I'm not sure the conditional/future tense is needed.
  • Done. - G
• His son C. H. Warton Meehan would continue his role: Similar to the above
  • Done. - G

Image review

• Seems like all images are comfortably public domain on grounds of author's life + 70 years or other determinations (NYPL statement they are aware of no copyright, etc.)
• Have you considered adding ALT text for File:USS Firefly 1815.jpg, File:Columbian Star October 22 1824 (cropped).jpg, and File:Capitol of the U.S. at Washington 1825 (cropped).tif?
  • Oops, forgot to. Added! - G

Other spot checks

• McDonough (1976)
  • the purchase was likely directed by Eaton using notes endorsed by John Peter Van Ness: citing to page 4; verified
  • From the outset, the paper was immensely partisan, strongly opposed to the election of President John Quincy Adams and the appointment of Secretary of State Henry Clay: citing to pages 4–5; verified
  • An offer in 1844 to acquire the Durazzo family library, containing over 10,000 volumes, was rejected for largely containing non-English literature: citing to page 9; verified
  • Increased annual funding for the library, on top of various special appropriations, enabled the rapid growth of the library over the following years: citing to page 18; verified
• A December 1861 report commissioned by Stephenson (possibly written by Spofford) noted large numbers of uncleaned, miscataloged, and misplaced books: citing to page 24; verified
• Ewing (1978)
  • John C. Calhoun sought a supportive newspaper in Washington D.C.: citing to page 128; verified
• Smith (1981)
  • Through allies William B. Lewis and John Eaton, the Jackson campaign indirectly purchased Jonathan Elliot's City of Washington Gazette: citing to page 9; verified
  • He attacked the appointment of an Anti-Jacksonian postmaster in Jackson's hometown of Nashville: citing to page 83; verified
  • although he continued to serve as Green's editor until 1829: citing to page 134; verified—it's a bit tricky to parse, as "1829" doesn't seem to directly appear in relation to Green's appointment as Librarian (and thus the end of his time as Green's editor), but the page places Green's contact with Andrew Jackson as the year of the latter's inauguration—in other words, 1829.
• Gwinn (2010)
  • Meehan provided Vattemare with 700 volumes of congressional documents: citing to page 109; verified
  • Meehan grew increasingly upset with the poor condition of shipments received through the program, describing the documents as poor quality and incomplete: citing to pages 111–112 and 20–21; not verified. Meehan's irritation with Vattemare doesn't appear on pages 111 and 112, and this article doesn't include a page 20 or page 21 (it begins at page 107 of the volume). I checked pages 120 and 121 in case those were intended but it seems unlikely, as those are just the endnotes and don't include discursive notes verifying this content.
  • Ah, this was supposed to be a McDonough cite. Fixed. - G
    • Looks great now! Happy to say that this source spot check is verified. – H

Last pass

@Generalissima: Excellent resolutions to my comments! The adjustment to the Pearce section to make a fire and aftermath section is particularly elegant. Thank you for your timely and skillful revisions. I notice just two remaining spots for revision—just some grammar/wording:

• Anti-Jacksonian press outlets and politicians raised questions of Meehan's suitability for the role were immediately raised on the grounds that he was a monolingual English speaker (italics added): This sentence just has some words leftover from its passive voice version.
• Watterston himself was indignant at his replacement, and repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempt to reclaim the position (italics): Ah, I missed this—just needs to be attempted rather than attempt.

With these resolved, I'll be happy to wind up the review. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: there we go! Fixed. :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Concluding the review

Assessing the article based on the Good Article criteria, the article is:

• Well-written: The prose is clean and understandable to a broad audience. What few errors of grammar there have been have been minor and corrected. The article text accords with Manual of Style guidelines.
• Verifiable: References are readably sourced in accord with layout guidelines and are to reliable sources, and original research and plagiarism/copyright violation are not present. The references are across the board to sources that are reliable and appropriate for the topic: publications in refereed periodicals for history and bibliography, a book from the academic publisher Rowman & Littlefield, and a PhD dissertation (which falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP).
• Broad: The topic, John Silva Meehan, is covered across all notable and relevant aspects of his life, with appropriate weight given to his career as a newspaperman and later Librarian of Congress, those being the aspects of his life most emphasized in reliable sources. The content included is of reasonable and due interest.
• Neutral: The article avoids partisanship or puffery and uses an encyclopedic tone.
• Stable: No apparent ongoing content disputes or edit wars. The most substantial changes recently have simply been in response to comments in the GA review.
• Illustrated: Relevant, captioned images appear throughout the article and are tagged with their copyright statuses and appended with ALT text. No non-free content claims have been made, so no non-free content rationale are required).

As the article meets the Good Article criteria, it passes this review. Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia! Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.