Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:14, 16 September 2010 [1].

Abraham Lincoln

[edit]

Abraham Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I"m nominating this because I think it meets the FA criteria. The is a co-nom with User:Carmarg4. It's been over a year in the making, with a big push in the last couple months. Also, it's a WP:VITAL article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No problems with dablinks or deadlinks. PL290 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on my calculation of readable prose, the article comes in at 81 kilobytes. This may or may not be a problem (see WP:SIZERULE) but it probably needs to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read once that only Jesus Christ has had more books written about him than Abraham Lincoln. I know I have at least 20 books on Abe in my library. For such a personage, the length of the article should not be a problem. After giving it a quick review, if there is a demand to shorten it, a lot of the military stuff the generals did could be edited out. I say this as a Civil War nut and living historian with scores of books on the military aspects of the War. After all, the article is about Abe, not what the generals did. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - very impressive work. Some things to be improved/addressed:

More to follow tomorrow. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Donald provides Lincoln's..." - who is Donald?
  • "In August 1861, Gen. John Fremont in Missouri created controversy, on the Republican side, when he issued, without consulting Lincoln, a proclamation of martial law in that entire state, declaring that any citizen found bearing arms could be court-martialed and shot and that slaves of persons aiding the rebellion would be freed" - split or reword sentence for flow
  • "To this dictatorial insubordination were added charges of ineptness, fraud and corruption" - do you mean legal charges, or just accusations?
  • "boarded the British ship Trent; Union officers boarded the British vessel" - repetitious
  • "Trent Affair" or "Trent Affair"?
  • Double-check your capitalization of "Confederate" and related terms, as it's inconsistent at times
  • "drumbeat of complaints" - I'm not familiar with this phrase; does it mean lots of complaints, loud complaints, a sudden storm of complaints, steady complaints over a period of time...?
  • "War department" or "War Department"?
  • In one paragraph you say McClellan became general-in-chief, in the next you say he was passed over for general-in-chief - which is correct?
  • What is "the Rappahannock"? Perhaps a link or explanation for those of us unfamiliar with the term?
  • "reached a crescendo" - do you mean reached a peak? Reaching a crescendo means beginning a long but steady increase; given the context, that seems incorrect
  • Rosecran or Rosecrans?
  • "The Commander in Chief was most dejected" - tone
  • "the writing was on the wall and he tendered his resignation" - clarify?
  • "Charleston harbor" -> "Charleston Harbor" or "the Charleston harbor" or "Charleston's harbor"?
  • Make more frequent use of hyphens - see WP:HYPHEN
  • "an explanation why the war with all its horrors had to continue" - reword for tone
  • "battle of Shiloh" -> "Battle of Shiloh"?
  • "The Confederacy was out of replacements" - wording
  • "backed Grant to the hilt" - what does this mean?
  • Double-check capitalization of titles, "South(ern)" and other sometimes-proper nouns
  • Are the Founders the same as the Founding Fathers?
  • "all persons held as a slaves" - typo present in original?
  • Avoid linking the same terms multiple times
  • What's your rationale for sometimes abbreviating military ranks and other times spelling them out?
  • Be consistent in using black vs African American (except where quoting)
  • The infobox states that Lincoln was a member of the Union Party in 1864, and a Republican only in 1865. What is the rationale for this distinction?
  • Union Party or Union party?
  • "And Frederick Douglas remarked..." - grammar
  • "The only known photographs of Lincoln giving a speech were taken as he delivered his second inaugural address" - did he not speak at his first inauguration? Source for this statement?
  • You jump from the appointments to the promotion of restoration of statehood to criticism of the appointments
  • Salmon Chase or Salmon P. Chase?
  • Explain what "greenback" means in this context

More later. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yeah. Whoa. This is where the "FAC isn't PR" comes in. Do you think this article needs several thorough copy edits, Nikkimaria? --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry, I could go on like that for a while...definite copy-editing needed, and a check for consistency in all sorts of things, but I'd say it also needs some attention from a non-US reader (or at least someone who's not an expert on American history) to catch stuff that needs to be explained and clarified or reworded. I also noticed some sourcing concerns, most of which are covered by Ealdgyth below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 37 (Shenk...) shouldn't The Atlantic be The Atlantic to match the rest of your refs?
  • Same for current ref 213 (North & South...)
  • What makes http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/richmond.htm a reliable high quality source?
  • Likewise http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=9&subjectID=2?
  • Need a publisher for the Boritt Book in the bibliography
  • Please make sure you spell out University in the bibliography ... I noted the Edgar book is just "Univ.", which is inconsistent with the other refs. Same note for the Handy ref.
  • Most of your bibliography entries do not give place of publication, so you should remove it from those that do to make refs consistent.
  • Please spell out the abbreviation in the Holzer ref.
  • The 2009 McPherson needs a publisher
  • Please spell out the abbreviation in the Naveh ref
  • Need a publisher for the Zarefsky ref.
  • Personally, I'd prune some of the external links - the Lincoln memorial website's a better link for the Lincoln Memorial article, you use the Lincoln Institute as a ref, so if it passes scrutiny, it should not be in the external links, Likewise you use the Lincoln Boyhood home and the Lincoln home websites, so they shouldn't be in the external links, and a link to the Project Gutenburg main search page is enough, don't need to list all the (outdated) works.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hugely important article and has been the subject of much recent work, but I believe it should not be here at this point. The article's history shows that since its delisting from FA status in October 2006 it has failed GAN four times, the last in September 2009. It has never, so far as I can see, had a formal peer review. The number of points raised in this review thus far highlight its unpreparedness for FAC. Please bring it to PR. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Definite PR needed, I'm afraid. I haven't read the article at length, but I see a few technical aspects that need to be revisited. First of all, the EL section is overblown; the general belief is that the more links are included, the less useful the section becomes. Cull what is less notable, and perhaps tone down the editorial additions; for example, what makes one link "popular" or "good early history", and the others not? Why such a long list to works listed on Gutenberg? Also, I'm surprised (what with the huge amount of sources available) that the article leans heavily on the two Donald books. Is there a reason more than half of the citations are made to these works, as opposed to the dozens of others that are out there? The citations themselves need c-e for consistency, as well: a few "Donald"s are missing the year in parentheses, and do citations end with periods or no? Such an important article, but more work needs to be done. María (habla conmigo) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm reading this together with a buddy who's a Lincoln enthusiast. I agree with above comments that this needs a PR and a thorough copy edit. I'm finding a lot of repetitive or unnecessary wording, and in several instances controversial statements presented as plain fact. Here's a sample, I can provide more later.

  • I have a problem with the word 'dedicated' in this sentence: Lincoln was a dedicated, though often absent, husband, and father of four children. He was gone 9 months of the year and fought a lot with Mary. How about 'affectionate'?
  • This is repeated in the two first paragraphs: Before his election in 1860 as the first Republican president,... and then in the second, Lincoln won the Republican nomination and was elected president in 1860. Take out one.
  • This sentence is awkward because of the word 'became': Six days after the surrender of Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee, Lincoln became the first American president to be assassinated.
  • This must be an error: He brought leaders of each faction of his party into his cabinet--he had Democrats in the cabinet too.
  • I'm finding a lot of unnecessary 'fluff' wording that could be cut out to make the article more concise and to-the-point. e.g. one of the greatest of all U.S. Presidents. → one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.
  • Thomas, financially austere, became a respected citizen of rural Kentucky. 'financially austere' sounds awkward. And it's pretty debatable whether he had general respect; a lot of people thought he was a sucker and a bully.
  • Either explain 'milk sickness' in a clause, or leave it out: his 34-year-old mother died of milk sickness
  • This sentence is awkward: he willingly took on all chores expected of him as a male in the household, albeit young, tall and thin.
  • This sentence is another example of excessive unnecessary wording. Can it be made more concise? As was the custom, Lincoln also dutifully fulfilled the obligation of a son to give his father all earnings from his work for third parties until age 21.
  • Another awkward sentence: He was not a hard worker during his teens, with family and neighbors often calling him lazy. 'with' is an awkward linker.
  • The first paragraph in Marriage and family is debatable. It might make sense to have an attribution at the beginning saying 'According to Lincoln's law partner and biographer, ...' or something like that.
  • Another awkward sentence: Lincoln agreed to a match with Mary proposed by her sister, if Mary ever returned to New Salem.
  • This doesn't make sense: Mary Lincoln worked valiantly in their home
  • Another bad sentence: One evening, absorbed in his reading at home, Lincoln suddenly was rapped on the head with a piece of firewood by Mary, who had made four requests of him to restart the fire with no response. the passive voice makes it hard to read.
  • There are a lot of controversial points that are presented as uncontested facts. e.g. committing Mary to an asylum is attributed to the deaths--that's heavily contested. You could just take out the cause and effect there and state that Robert had her committed. Also, Abraham Lincoln suffered from "melancholy", a condition now called clinical depression. Maybe you should say 'which might be the condition now called..." or something.

If you end up taking this to PR, I'd be happy to give it a thorough review for you, let me know. delldot ∇. 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Abraham_Lincoln/archive2&oldid=1148412346"