Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frances Cleveland/archive1

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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2023 [1].

Frances Cleveland

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Cleveland was first lady of the United States during the presidencies of Grover Cleveland. She became an instant celebrity after marrying the sitting president in the White House, and her popularity may have surpassed even his. I improved this article as part of my personal project to bring every first lady article to GA status, but I put some extra work into this one and I believe it has the potential to be a featured article. Note that this is my first FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Frances_Folsom_Cleveland.jpg is missing a US tag and author date of death
  • File:Frances_(Folsom)_Cleveland,_1864-1947,_full_length_portrait,_standing,_facing_right;_in_formal_gown_LCCN2005686653.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Frances_F._Cleveland,_head-and-shoulders_portrait,_facing_left_LCCN2002695293_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Frances_Cleveland_with_trowel_at_building_foundation_ceremony_-_LCCN2014680806_(cropped).tif
  • File:Review_of_reviews_and_world's_work_(1890)_(14780390264).jpg should have a more specific tag
  • File:First_ladies-cleveland.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: This is definitely not my area of expertise, and it seems there's not much guidance for these things. I've added alt text to the images, and I did my best with the tags, though I doubt I did it perfectly. I also found the author info for File:Frances_Folsom_Cleveland.jpg. I do not know where to find publication info or how to implement it to comply with the WP:FACR; the Library of Congress database the photos are derived from doesn't seem to have it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, in terms of FACR and image licensing, you need to ensure the images have tags that are supported by evidence. So for example, File:Frances_F._Cleveland,_head-and-shoulders_portrait,_facing_left_LCCN2002695293_(cropped).jpg has a tag that indicates it was published before 1928. Can you identify a pre-1928 publication? If no, then we need either a different tag or a different image. US copyright tags are (often) based on publication, so identifying the earliest publication you can find will help you select an appropriate tag. For finding publication info, the sources you've used for the article are among the best places to look, as they often include images and may include attribution for earlier publications of those images. You can also try an image search like TinEye or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Freoh I don't have time to give a full review, but I will make a comment as someone seeing this with fresh eyes: the relationship between her and Grover is kind of weird, and I think that it could be written with a smoother transition from the paternal phase to the romantic phase. This looks like a good source:

Extended content

"At what time Cleveland’s interest in Frank Folsom became more romantic than paternal is a matter of minor scholarly debate. Biographer Annette Dunlap hinted at a date as early as 1875, when Frank Folsom was eleven years old (Dunlap, 2009: 14). Historian Rebecca Edwards argued that the “romantic interest” was an 1884 political strategy (Edwards, 1997: 62–63), aimed at preventing in the future the type of scandal that Cleveland’s first presidential campaign had suffered when the press discovered that he might have fathered an illegitimate son." (p. 269)

Obviously, not a lot of details are known about how this romantic interest started, but I think that this article would flow better if this was stated more explicitly, rather than jumping into a marriage proposal to her "uncle".      — Freoh 02:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence to this effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks I've checked randomly throughout the article:

  1. Footnote (FN) 3:245: Source says: "Franks education began at Madame Brecker's French Kindergarten and continued at Miss Bissell's School for Young Ladies". Article says: "Folsom began school at Madame Brecker's French Kindergarten and then Miss Bissell's School for Young Ladies" link to source
  2. FN 3:242 - Source says: "Soon thereafter they gave two receptions, one for the diplomatic corps and one for the general public". Article says: "After the Clevelands returned from their honeymoon, two wedding receptions were held, one for the diplomatic corps, and one for the public." link to source
  3. FN 4:142 - is okay. But it goes to the next page, so should be cited as pp. 142-143
  4. FN 13: Source says: "Frankie was very attached to the servants, remembering them on their birthdays and at Christmas with little gifts". Article says: "She maintained a close relationship with the White House servants, giving them gifts on their birthdays and on Christmas" link to source
  5. FN 11:275 - Source says: "She received thousands of letters and in turn had a typewriter taken up to her office desk typing her public correspondence herself". Article says: "Cleveland received thousands of letters, and she had a typewriter brought to her desk so that she could manage her own communication with the public" link to source
  • I tried to verify one from the "Private life" section but the book isn't viewable. Noting however that most of that section is cited only to that single source.

Of the five random checks, four show close paraphrasing. Suggest withdrawal and top-to-bottom rewrite. The sourcing isn't great, because the article relies mostly on tertiary sources and the prose needs work too. Victoria (tk) 22:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, I'm curious how you would have me do it differently, especially since there are WP:LIMITED ways to write biographical facts about a person. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only to the paraphrasing issue (I haven't reviewed the article sourcing as a whole), these spot checks seem fine. It's just a restatement of basic facts in different words. Definitely not worth a top-to-bottom rewrite because of this. Larataguera (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one about the dame schools should probably be moved elsewhere in the chronology - the previous sentence is about Cleveland buying her a baby buggy. Since the family moved after her father's death, do we know where they were when she attended these schools? If so, I'd weave it together that way - something like "while living in xxx she was sent to kindergarten and later to a dame school - Miss Bissel's school for young ladies (young ladies suggests later, perhaps before high school). Alternatively I'd put all the education in one para.
The one about the receptions can be combined with the previous sentence: "The couple left the White House that evening. They went to Oak Park but much to Cleveland's irritation reporters followed their movements closely so they cut their honeymoon short, returning to Washington where diplomats and the public were hosted in separate events".
The thing is, it's difficult to rephrase based on a single sentence; it's best to use summary style based on an entire passage.
Pinging SandyGeorgia who is more steeped in this than I am these days for a second opinion. Also pinging Gog the Mild who asked for spot checks. I hadn't intended to check the entire article and don't have the time for it, so maybe someone else can take over? Victoria (tk) 03:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first example given by Victoria, there are plenty of ways that can be re-phrased (eg, Folsom completed her primary education at Miss Bessell's School for Young Ladies following her start at Madame Brecker's French Kindergarten ... I'm sure others can do better than that, but there are quite a few ways to do it).
But what stands out to me while looking at that is that there is no sense to the paragraphing around that.
  • Frances Folsom was born in Buffalo, New York, on July 21, 1864, to Emma (née Harmon) and her husband, Oscar Folsom, a lawyer who was a descendant of the earliest European settlers of Exeter, New Hampshire.[1] She was the older of two children. Her sister, Nellie Augusta, died in infancy in 1872. All of Frances Cleveland's ancestors were from England and settled in what would become Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, eventually migrating to western New York.[2]
  • A long-time close friend of Folsom's father, Grover Cleveland met his future wife when she was an infant and he was twenty-seven years old. He was fond of her, buying her a baby carriage and doting on her as she grew up.[2] Folsom began school at Madame Brecker's French Kindergarten and then Miss Bissell's School for Young Ladies.[3]: 245 
She's called both Frances Folsom and Frances Cleveland in the same paragraph. Why? I had to read and re-read to figure out who was who (they're both her?). So the first para is about her parents, birth, sister and ancestors ... it's unclear why we go from her parents, to her sister, and then back to her ancestors again, rather than parents, ancestors, sister ... or ancestors, parents, sister. Then in the second paragraph we have her future husband combined with her primary education. Why isn't her future husband introduced in the next paragraph? Some work on paragraph structure might be in order.
The second example is clearly too-closely paraphrased. But again, there's a flow problem:
  • Frances became first lady upon marrying the president.  The Clevelands spent a week in Deer Park, Maryland on honeymoon, where they were closely followed by reporters. After the Clevelands returned from their honeymoon, two wedding receptions were held, one for the diplomatic corps, and one for the public.
Why do we even say she became first lady upon marrying the president (is that ever not the case?). How about:
  • After a week-long honeymoon in Deer Park, Maryland, where they were closely followed by reporters, they held separate wedding receptions for the diplomatic corps and the public.
Similarly four and five are indeed too close. When a writer is having a hard time like this, a new approach is needed. One needs to set the sources aside and write in their own words rather than picking pieces from sources and trying to juggle the words. These four out of five examples demonstrate there is indeed a problem. Appreciation to Victoria for doing the check, and I suggest a withdrawal is in order for re-working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia if you've time for a quick question: I've been starting to follow the FA process to better understand it. I understand the concerns about flow, and also how poor flow could arise from a series of closely paraphrased sentences taken from different sources. I had commented earlier that I thought these paraphrasings were OK, because I was thinking in terms of copyvio concerns. Are your issues here purely related to flow arising from picking pieces from sources and trying to juggle the words, or would you have copyvio concerns with these phrasings? (Obviously you aren't terribly concerned or the material would have been removed?) Thanks for helping me understand this process so that I can hopefully contribute more later on. Larataguera (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2023 (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/Frances_Cleveland/archive1&oldid=1143003447"