Talk:Zachary Taylor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm about a third of the way through the article, but thought I'd pause here for you to have a chance to respond to some of the below. So far the article looks strong--reasonably well-sourced and covering the important points of his life. I'm concerned about the number of citation needed tags so far, however, and about one possible factual error (the Wilson claim below).

Thanks for all your work on this one! It's terrific to see a US presidential article up for GA, even a minor one like Taylor. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some tweaks as I went; please double-check to make sure I'm not inadvertently introducing any errors, and feel free to revert anything with which you disagree.
Three citation needed tags in the "Early life and family" section need to be addressed. None of these claims seem controversial, so you could potentially post a note to the talk page asking if anyone would object to their removal; obviously the ideal solution would be simply to cite this information, however.
What would you say to adding a phrase about his wife's background, like " the daughter of a prosperous Maryland planter "?
" he supervised the construction of Fort Johnson under his command" -- is "under his command" redundant with "supervised" here?
It's not necessary to meet GA's "main aspects" criterion, but one minor aspect you might include would be the maneuvering by Polk to ensure that neither Scott nor Taylor emerged from the Mexican-American War as a credible presidential candidate, several times switching the command between them for political advantage. This source covers it on pp. 33 and 40.
One citation needed tag in the "Election of 1848" section needs to be addressed.
"Taylor was the last Southerner to be elected president until Woodrow Wilson 64 years later in 1912." -- what about Andrew Johnson? I'd suggest this sentence be better nuanced/sourced, or simply cut. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this. Sorry for the delay, I've been glued to the news :) I've fixed the easy things. I'll address Polk's maneuvering the next time I get a chance. —Designate (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, me too. I'm not sure there's ever been a manhunt quite like this one--really bizarre stuff. Anyway, I have my stepson here for the weekend but will review the rest of this in detail and leave comments on Monday or Tuesday. So no rush. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

Okay, all of the above is resolved (adding Polk's maneuvers is entirely optional for purposes of this review, though I think it's worth noting as background if you do get a chance).

"inflicting around 600 American casualties at a cost of over 1,800 Mexican" -- how much do the sources vary on this? (The footnote says that they do.) The in-article text seems fairly precise, so it may be better to offer a range. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taylor was equally indifferent to programs Whigs had long considered vital. Publicly, he was artfully ambiguous, refusing to answer questions about his views on banking, the tariff, and internal improvements. Privately, he was more forthright. The idea of a national bank 'is dead, and will not be revived in my time.' In the future the tariff "will be increased only for revenue"; in other words, Whig hopes of restoring the protective tariff of 1842 were vain. There would never again be surplus federal funds from public land sales to distribute to the states, and internal improvements 'will go on in spite of presidential vetoes.' In a few words, that is, Taylor pronounced an epitaph for the entire Whig economic program" -- is it correct per the source that one of these quotations is in double qt. marks and other two in single? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Folklore holds that David Rice Atchison, as president pro tempore of the Senate, unknowingly succeeded to the presidency for this day, but no major sources accept this view." -- as contested info (even if only by minor sources or folklore), it's probably worth adding a citation--the summary of "no major sources accept this view" has a slightly original research ring to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Guillaume Tell Levalée Poussin" gets no Google hits but this wikipedia article. It looks like "Guillaume-Tell de la Vallée Poussin" is the more common spelling, as here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"although historians do not agree on his motivations for doing so" -- could you expand a bit on this point? It seems worth including the differing theories for clarity. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"(Many sources describe the event as the laying of the cornerstone, but this is wrong, as it was laid in 1848.)" -- If there's controversy over this, it would be better to source this to something more authoritative than Ken Jenning's blog. What do Bauer and Hamilton say about it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Doctors used popular treatments of the time." -- I'd suggest moving up the details from the lower section or omitting this sentence entirely; this phrasing is so vague that it's a pretty empty sentence (why would we not assume doctors used the treatment of their time?). -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Scholars believe it was a kind of severe gastroenteritis." -- so is there consensus on this? The first sentence of the paragraph implied there was more dispute. If there's not full consensus, it's probably better to qualify this and name the scholars you mean ("Bauer and Hamilton believe..."). -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sections "1991 study of remains" and "Assassination theories" should be combined. Per WP:LAY (a GA criterion), the article shouldn't have a lot of short sections, and these are a no-brainer to combine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, (backing up in the article) some of the short sections under Presidency should be combined. The four federal judge appointments might simply be eliminated if the major sources on Taylor don't discuss them; they certainly don't seem to need a whole subsection, unless there's something vital about them that's not discussed here. Compromise of 1850 and Final Days could be combined into a single section, for example. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"they do not represent academic consensus."; "None of these works has gained support." Both these sentences summarizing the controversy should be cited to demonstrate that they're not original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"recognized as an important step in [the] scaling down [of] the nation's commitment to Manifest Destiny as a policy" -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Commemoration" doesn't seem to need its own subsection--only one paragraph. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taylor was the last U.S. President to own slaves while serving in the office. Only one other native southerner, Andrew Johnson, served between Taylor and Woodrow Wilson, and Johnson never owned slaves. Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave prior to his becoming President.

Taylor was the last President to own slaves while in office." -- seems to repeat itself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The actor Paul Fix, best known as Sheriff Micah Torrance on ABC's The Rifleman, played Zachary Taylor in the 1960 episode "That Taylor Affair" of the NBC western series, Riverboat, starring Darren McGavin as the captain of a Mississippi River vessel named Enterprise.[77]" -- this seems awfully trivial-- is this covered in the major biographies, or of special cultural significance? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1995, he was inducted into the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame in Winnfield, Louisiana, as the only U.S. President to have lived in Louisiana" -- this is listed under names and places, but doesn't seem to be a name of a place. Also, isn't this an awfully trivial achievement for someone who was a president? I'd suggest it simply be cut. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" in Zachary Taylor Hall at Southeastern Louisiana University" -- again, getting a dorm named after you seems like an awfully trivial and unencyclopedic detail, and could probably be cut. I'm also not sure there's any reason to cite a Wikicommons photo of the dorm as a source.
"In contrast, Lincoln first appeared on US postage stamps in 1866, only one year after his death while James Garfield would be honored with a postage stamp only seven months after his assassination. " --what source does this comparison appear in? It looks a bit like original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments cover the remainder of the article. I realize it's a long looking list, but hopefully many of these will be quick fixes. When you've had a chance to respond/address these, I'll do another readthrough and the final checklist to see if there's anything left. Just let me know if you have any questions on these, and thanks again for your work on this important article! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's it coming along? Looks like many of the above have been addressed, though I haven't done a thorough check yet. Give me a quick update on your progress when you get a chance, and thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to try to get the rest done this weekend. Thanks for checking in. —Designate (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be done by tomorrow morning, I promise. —Designate (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I know it's a long list. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, would you like to take a look? —Designate (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did another quick readthrough and didn't see any issues. Thanks for addressing all of the points above. I'm starting the final checklist now, but this should be just about good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Zachary Taylor - Fort Harrison.jpg appears to need revision of its copyright rationales; the rationale writer claims to be the work's copyright holder, which seems unlikely for a mid-19th century engraving. File:Zachary Taylor half plate daguerreotype c1843-45.png, File:Zachary Taylor by Joseph Henry Bush, c1848.jpg and File:The Taylor Administration.jpg need US PD tags. File:TaylorFillmore.jpg needs source information.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I see some minor issues with a few of the copyright tags. Otherwise, this one appears to me ready to pass! Thanks again for all your hard work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't track down the origin of the Fort Harrison image, so I left a message for the uploader and commented out the image for now. The rest are updated. —Designate (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is good to go, congrats! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good review, thanks a lot. —Designate (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]