Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/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 23:13, 17 October 2009 [1].

Brooks–Baxter War

[edit]
Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have been working on this article for quite a while and it was just promoted to GA. I know some of the refrences need page numbers still, but I was going to nominate it anyway to get some more general feedback for what it needs to be come a FA. The_stuart (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed alt tags for images. --The_stuart (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is added (thanks), but I'm afraid it needs quite a bit of work on two main grounds. First, alt text should not repeat what's in the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. Second, alt text should contain only information that can be verified by a non-expert reader who is looking only at the image; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. For example, the alt text "Photograph of Powell Clayton, Governor of Arkansas 1868-1871" both repeats the caption (which says "Powell Clayton") and consists mostly of information ("Powell Clayton, Governor of Arkansas 1868-1871") that an ordinary reader can't verify merely by looking at the image. Pretty much all the alt text has these problems, so it all needs to be rethought. I suggest starting by reading WP:ALT#Portraits, since 3 of the 5 images are portraits. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to fix the alt text for the images. --The_stuart (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better. One more pass should do it. First, could you fix the punctuation and spelling? The usual punctuation is an optional (capitalized) followed by optional sentences, with a period separating the noun phrase from the sentences if both are present. E.g., "Noun phrase. This is a sentence. This is another." Some grammar/spelling problems include "clouds the background", "four ground", "horse back", "middle age man", "thinning hair long mustache", "viewer, he is", "In front to of", "to the viewers left" (twice), "to the viewers right", "an armed plain clothesed men". Second, please remove "Black and white Photograph of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It took almost a year to get anyone to review it for GA Status, so I doubt a peer review would ever happen. I know that the page numbers are lacking but thats the only issue I know of, if it is in fact an issue. I have been working on this article for going on 4 years. I think if I can just get a little constructive criticism this can be a featured article. --The_stuart (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed access dates, which other dates are issues? --The_stuart (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed broken ref tag. --The_stuart (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: 1c). History article with no bibliography. Reliance on primary sources. Tertiary sources cited without article written over name. Dubious that Arkansas Historical Association's publications were peer reviewed at the time. Where's the high quality reliable sources other than Driggs (1943)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bibliography although is seems redundant to me. These are not all primary sources. Driggs is probably the most peer reviewed one, it's a dissertation, but Harrell is considered the authority on the subject and is always cited as a source on this subject. There are other books in there as well that are good secondary sources. --The_stuart (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Bibliography (which I corrected the spelling on for you) has items that are not used as references, and lacks sources that ARE used as references. Also needs to be alphabetized.
I didn't include all of the newspaper articles, should I source that as just Arkansas Gazette issues x-x? --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your newspaper article sources are not easily verifiable. You should at least give a title for the article with a page number. Also, your newspaper titles should be in italics.
Those old newspapers are only available on microfilm, and somewhat frustrating to source because they don't have authors or titles to the articles. The Gazette only had two or three pages at this time. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Moneyhon ref lacks a publisher.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10 (Commentaries...) is actually a published book hosted on Google books and should give a page number. The url currently just goes to the title page of the article, and as the work is 713 pages, you need to be more specific in what exactly is being used as a source here.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picky, but relevant .. you need to be consistent in your date formats in the references. Some of them are missing commas. Along with that you're inconsistent with your capitalization and other issues in the references which makes me feel like the article wasn't copy edited well before nominating.
Please be specific, I don't know where these issues are. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 13 through 18 ... some are Month Day, Year others are Month Day Year. Also, the newspaper titles here need to be italicised. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does current ref 9 (the Green ref) not give the page number in the References section but does in the Bibliography? Same for current ref 20 (Corbin).
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Herndon ref doesn't list page numbers, which again, as the work is over a 1000 pages, it should.
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Debray ref lacks page numbers, and it's 218 pages
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 24 lacks a publisher (Elisha Baxter...)
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the publisher is run into the link title, it should be separate to conform to the rest of the references.
  • Uncited opinons in the article include:
    • "Clayton used various tactics to pay for the for the needed infrastructure changes in the state under his administration. Most of the south was in desperate need of infrastructure and was way behind the rest of the country. He raised taxes, tried to fix the state's bad credit by repaying and issuing bonds, and flooded the state with paper script. All of these tactics failed and drove up the state debt."
This is simply the lead to that section, this is all explained in the next paragraph. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the end of the third paragraph of "Mistrels.."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "So, the issue of re-enfranchisement of Confederates was central to the election."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Harrison decision also resulted in the dismissal of the Brooks case as well."
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, The Minstrels would soon turn on Baxter for not following the party line."
Foreshadowing the rest of the section, which is cited. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Baxter was about to erode his Republican base out from under him."
More Foreshadowing. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Governor Baxter was now being supported by the Brindle Tails, re-enfranchisers, and the Democrats; whereas Brooks was finding support among the Claytonists, northerners, Unionists, the Minstrel Republicans, and they began taking up his cause."
Summing up what has already been said. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, Grant's decision would soon set in motions Brooks' demise."
More foreshadowing. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The bar of the Pulaski County Circuit court also met and issued a resolution that stated that Judge Wytock had acted independently, and his decision did not represent the court. The trial had been deliberately unfair for the defendant Baxter, and furthermore the Supreme Court had already ruled that, under the state constitution, the court had no jurisdiction. They rendered Judge Wytock's decision null and void."
Fixed --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to echo the concern about primary sources, a large number of the sources used are either primary, barely adequate (from museum websites), or are at least 50 years old, with a large number being over a 100 years old. How historians work has changed a lot in the last 100 years, and relying on older works can be a concern about bias and comprehensiveness. I point this out for other reviewers to consider. The article isn't quite uncited enough for me to oppose, but it's getting close.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 1http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png6:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Wonderfully written, neutral, and most importantly, gives adequate definitions of political jargon terms. I am a bit worried about some things though.
  1. Robert Newton was mentioned as a commander in the info box and never mentioned again. This seems odd to me.
Added what I could find about Robert Newton, and referenced. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some of the word choices are a put off, such as "devious" in the section Brooks loses favor.

Nezzadar (speak) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "devious" to "undemocratic". I think a coup de ta could fairly be described as undemocratic, but will change it if there is a better suggestion.--The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. This was very interesting. Although I know there were a lot of shenanigans and a great deal of skulduggery going on... I'm not sure this article is ready for prime time, though.

:* bibliography should be alphabetized by last name of author. (I tried to do this, but my computer crashed)

Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* standardize capitalization on titles of articles and books, in both footnotes and bibliography. Yes, a bib is redundant, but it is necessary. Your teachers should have told you that.

Fixed, I think. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* standardize capitalization within the text. Northern Democrats and southern ...It has to make sense. "...still controlled by The Minstrel faction..." still controlled by the Minstrel faction. Your English teacher never told you to capitalize "T" in the in the middle of a sentence. Possibly The Bible, but even now, most copy editors will change it to the Bible. Reconstruction should be capitalized. Clayton became governor during Reconstruction. There is an MOS somewhere on this, but I always use CMS (Chicago Manual of Style). Fixed thes and other capitalization issues. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, the Gazette would be the proper way to write it within the sentence. The Gazette would be the proper way to begin a sentence.  !! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* just plain clarity. "Pulaski County exceeded the number of registered voters." How does a county exceed the number of registered voters. Perhaps: The return of votes in Pulaski county exceeded the number of registered voters by X%, suggesting voter irregularity. The registrar, who controlled the distribution of ballots, admitted that he had given ballots to voters from other counties if they could show him a valid registration certificate. Similarly, in Jefferson County, ..... In addition to significant election fraud, both sides alleged voter intimidation: armed parties had been stationed on roads to keep voters away from the polls.[citation needed] General Gillem, commander of the military district that included Arkansas, wrote to General Grant that it would take months to sort out which side had committed the greater election fraud.[citation needed]

Fixed to your suggestion, all of this info comes from Driggs, so it's sourced. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, looks good.

::*this statement needs clarification. The presence of armed troops throughout the south was part of radical Reconstruction. Arkansas was an "occupied" state.

Not sure what your talking about here? --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • this also ignores the reality of life in the South during Reconstruction. The stationing of armed troops throughout the south to guard the polls was not unusual, and their presence did not necessarily mean that there was intimidation going on. It would be important here to emphasize that these were ad hoc groups, not militia or regular army, and that they were not federally sanctioned, but were part of a broader movement of voter intimidation.
Your suggestion fixed that. Reads "Armed Parties" not troops. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* a few pov issues. "but Baxter also had support because of the devious way he was removed from office." First of all, it was very unclear to me if Baxter had support that allowed him to be devious, or because his support required his opponents to be devious. Second, devious is one of those judgment words, so if you use it, you really explain why your source says it's devious, not just that you think it's devious.

Fixed per another editors suggestion already. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* how was kidnapping the judges going to prevent the court from making a decision. Who was going to turn them over to the military, and why, and how did they lay hands on them, or were these the same people who had kidnapped them, in which case, what was the point?::

Rephrased and added another source. --The_stuart (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* " including the disenfranchised confederates and the freed former slaves" freed slaves, or former slaves. disenfranchised confederates? First, it should be former Confederate soldiers (capital C, one of those pesky capitalization problems again), and second, weren't they all reenfranchised by constitutional act with all the other former Confederate soldiers? I forget which one. If they were disenfranchised, then wasn't the election illegal. If these were indeed disenfranchised confederates (or Confederates), then this definitely needs a source.

I think you don't understand what was going on. The 1868 constitution disenfranchised those who had worked in and were associated with the Confederacy, not just former soldiers. Yes, it was illegal and that's why the Democrats boycotted the election. Baxter reinfranchised the former Confederates, who subsequently voted the Republicans out of office in the next election. This was one of the major issues and is discussed several times in the article. I did capitalize Confederates for you. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the point, isn't it. I should understand what is going on from your article.

:* governors seat. Should be governor's seat. You've got a lot of these kinds of problems.

Fixed that issue. Where are the others your talking about? --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed a few sentences in the 1868 Constitution section to reflect your suggestion to make it more clear that the 1868 constitution was illegal. Bare in mind that since the Republicans managed to do it anyway means that it's legality was is in question. It's merely the opinion of the Democrats that it was illegal, and the article reflects that. --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
from here down, not really dealt with yet, in particular the prose issues and the summary sections. You've still got some clarity issues, but it is improved. I went through and made some suggestions, up to the part on Infrastructure. As I wrote yesterday, you've done a nice job with this, but you need to crank it up a notch in terms of clarity and precision of prose. I've added some links, for example, to Freedmen, which was the term I think the Radical Republicans used. If I understand this right, Clayton was an RR, right?
The stuart -- I went through the article and corrected many grammatical errors, some spelling errors, and some punctuation errors. I also tightened some of the text, used stronger verbs, etc. I have questions about the conclusion, however. Suddenly Clayton returns. But what happened to Baxter and Brooks? You are missing some citations from a couple of paragraphs -- they are completely unsourced. Also, your concluding paragraph is weak. Be specific about what you mean to say please. `Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;dropping the ball So what?--this still needs to be addressed

  • "Note that despite this reporter's claims, not "all" African Americans supported Brooks, there were even numbers of African Americans on both sides.." This is a key point in the aftermath. It deserves more than a single sentence. It deserves also a clearer sentence, if you'll insist on only one. Even numbers? do you mean there were 100 on one side, and 104 on the other, or do you mean equal number: 50 on one side, and 50 on the other. Or do you mean, actually, that Baxter and Brooks both had the support of Freedmen? Despite the New York Times claim that all Africans supported Brooks, freedmen actually supported both candidates.[citation needed] and then tell us more, please. What does this source say about why there were Freedmen on both sides of the dispute, which I think is a very interesting feature of this political dispute? Not only why, but so what?
This part was added by another editor, and I don't know why. I will probably just remove it all together. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*well, you could summarize here, why this wasn't a clear cut case of Radical Republicans and Freedmen against old Confederates. It wasn't that simple. Your sources allow you to do this, surely. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources that exist it is very difficult to tell who or how many people were actually on what side in broad general terms. There are lots of politically charged guesstimates that I have seen that conflict widely. I have kind of avoided a lot of discussion about this because it's simply beyond the scope of the article. It would take some deep research into primary resources to see exactly what was going on. Possibly a discussion about the scarceness of reliable data on this issue might be necessary? --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • last paragraph. WOW. And so....what does this mean? Be specific. What does your source say about this? Why is it important? Is Arkansas becoming a red state? what does this mean?
I don't understand what you mean. After the Brooks-Baxter war, which was between Republican factions, there were no Republican Governors for 90 years. How can I say that is a relevant fact with using POV? --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, why did you put it in? By simply implying it is relevant, you leave it up to the imagination of your reader. Is it relevant or not?
I have changed the paragraph to try and and take into account what you've said. If this doesn't work please let me know. --The_stuart (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

;More MOS stuff

  • left aligned image under 3rd level heading. Isn't there something in MOS about this? I think it has to be at the right. I know, left right left right, but this is one of those cases....
Fixed, I think. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

:*Bibliography. I checked in Worldcat and few other places. While there are few monographs on the topic — Harrell's seems the most prominent one — there are other more recent treatments of the case: George Thompson, Arkansas and Reconstruction: the influence of geography, economics and personality, 1976. Earl F. Woodward, "The Brooks-Baxter War in Arkansas 1872-1874," Ark. History Quarterly, 1971, Winter, 315-336. Just right off, this is what I found....Otherwise, your bibliography is pretty good, considering the age of this quarrel, and its lack of coverage.

  • what is the difference between these two sources?
  • House, Joseph W. (1917). Cypert, Eugene (ed.). "Constitutional Convention of 1874 - Reminiscences". Publications of the Arkansas Historical Association: 238. Retrieved July 31, 2009.
  • House, J.W. (1917). "Constitutional Convention of 1874 - Reminiscences". The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. 4: 238–239. Retrieved July 19, 2009.
Not one, fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Support. This is a very interesting article, and I'd like to see you make improvements so that it can pass to FA. At this point, I don't think it's ready. I'll change my oppose if you can bring it up to snuff.Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Post-closing note: although Antieruth55 did not sign, the Oppose was changed to a Support after the FAC was archived.[2] Please, folks, remember to sign your declarations with a time and datestamp. The Stuart, please give it at least a week or so to resolve anything else, and bring it back! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 October 2009 (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/Brooks–Baxter_War/archive2&oldid=1078786896"