Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899/archive1

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899

6 articles

Taylor v. Beckham

This good topic nominee chronicles the events and candidates associated with the Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. It includes FA William Goebel (the Democratic candidate), GA William S. Taylor (the Republican candidate), and John Y. Brown (1835–1904) (nominated by a dissident group of Democrats). It does not include Populist candidate John G. Blair, who garnered only 0.7% of the vote. Blair does not meet the notability criteria contained in WP:POLITICIAN, and an article about him would not survive WP:AFD.

Although Taylor won the election, the results were challenged and enough votes were invalidated to give the governorship to Goebel. However, Goebel was shot before being sworn in and died shortly after being sworn in. Consequently, Goebel's lieutenant governor, J. C. W. Beckham, is also included in the topic. Beckham won a court battle against Taylor to retain the governorship after Goebel's death. The article on outgoing governor William O'Connell Bradley is also GA if the community opines that he should be added to the topic, but he is only tangentially connected to the election. I believe these articles together represent Wikipedia's best work and fully cover the topic of the Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty complete to me; a great and unique Good Topic topic. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very cool topic, one question though. Is the case Taylor v. Beckham notable enough to warrant an article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not at the national level, as the Supreme Court refused to hear it. At the state level, I've only found passing mentions to it, except for the official legal documents. I'm not sure any scholarly analysis has been done on it, but then again, I don't have access to many law-related resources. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:55, 14 June 2010 (UT
~~Oppose~~ The series is missing the article Taylor v. Beckham (as stated above) and currently does not even exist. Can you write an article on that and get it to GA status and try again? Afterall this case is a big part of the 1899 election....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a jump to assume that a) this case necessarily warrants its own article, b) enough material has been published about it in reliable sources to allow the article to achieve GA status, and c) its absence necessarily represents "obvious gap in the topic". We know the outcome of the case; we do not know for sure that it set any meaningful legal precedent, that any unique line of argumentation was used in the proceedings, that the legal counsel on either side was notable, etc. It may be sufficient to the topic and indeed to Wikipedia to have this passing mention of the case. I'll do some initial research, but I've never written an article about a law case before, so I'm not even sure what qualifies as encyclopedic content about such a thing. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always model it after Bush v. Gore. There are several former lawyers here that can help you write an article like this one. And remember one of the ruels for GTC, it must emcompass all of the related articles that deal with the subject; no cherry picking the best ones. I ran into the same issue at my nom for the German Type UB I submarines a few months ago. It failed and I was forced to go back and promote two B-class articles that were of the same class but owned by Austria-Hungary instead of Germany.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's an article, will Taylor v. Beckham be brought to GAN soon? Let me know if/when you are so that loose end can be resolved. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is presently awaiting review at GAC. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it there; I went and put it in with your sig though, so this FTC is on hold until that is taken care of (hopefully soon, GAN's in poor shape though) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I lied. I nominated it at WP:DYK, but forgot to list it at WP:GAC. I intended to and thought I did, however, so I appreciate your listing it for me. I also hope it gets a review soon, but you're right about GAC, unfortunately. Also note that Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 is currently up at FAC. If it is promoted, this becomes a FTC rather than a GTC, as it would have half of its articles featured. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Taylor v. Beckham is now a GA (I reviewed and passed it), and with that, it appears the topic is complete. Great work! Ucucha 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and good luck with the FAC (note to closer that this will be a Good Topic if closed before Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899/archive1 is successful, or if that FAC is unsuccessful, but a Featured Topic if that FAC passes). Bencherlite ^Talk 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will hold off on closing until the FAC concludes. It will then be passed as a GT or FT depending on the outcome. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all of my concerns have been addressed. Good job!--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That was fast work on the case-article! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 has been promoted to FA: [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be officially closed with consensus to promote sometime Thursday UTC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]