Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franklin Knight Lane/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Franklin Knight Lane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because this guy's one of the more underrated Cabinet secretaries, but he was quite a man in his time, and he originated one of the best putdown lines about New Jersey ever, "Nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went." (still used when New Jersey newspapers are in bad moods about the legislature) (I grew up in New Jersey, so I'm allowed to). Seriously, I think it meets the FA criteria. Note that I'm going away on Saturday, and my internet is likely to be spotty, but I'll respond as quickly as possible. Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concern (not an oppose at this point): The article seems to rely extremely heavily on de facto primary sources. The Google Books link in the article to The Letters of Franklin K. Lane actually goes to The United States in the First World War, so I haven't been able to verify this firsthand, but I assume from the name that it's a collection of his letters, rather than a fact-checked secondary source. If this is the case, I'm not sure it's suitable as an FA's primary reference. The prose looks pretty good, though, and it's an interesting and comprehensive article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is part bio, part collection of his letters. It's on Google books in full. Most of the refs to it either say "Lane wrote" or refer directly to the biographic parts, most usefully a chronology of Lane's life (ref name = "outline"). I will change that link, give me a minute.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was brought up rather quickly, let me cite the relevant language from WP:PRIMARY

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

A published book of letters by Lane, with an outline of his life and some biographic detail, qualifies. I should note that this was a major publishing event of 1922, and was very favorably reviewed by the NY Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that it's acceptable for use as a primary source, but I don't believe that any primary source, even one covered by WP:PRIMARY, should be used to support the bulk of material in a featured article. That said, from what you've said so far there's a (presumably secondary) biographical element to the book, which might address my concerns; I'm looking into it via Project Gutenberg, which I'm finding rather user-unfriendly (but I'm also kind of incompetent). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the google books link.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - After reviewing the book on Google Books, I can confirm that a huge portion of this article is sourced from primary sources (i.e. letters written by the subject during his life) in contravention of WP:RS, which states that "articles should be based on reliable secondary sources" and of WP:OR, which states "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Most of what isn't is sourced from contemporary media reports (i.e. from the 1920s or earlier) or from the non-letter portions of his book of letters, also published in the 1920s. Has he not been the subject of any recent scholarship? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unaware of any recent scholarship on Lane, other than passing references in bios of Wilson and other figures of that era, and in books on specific subjects that involved Lane, such as national parks and the like. The biographical details inserted in the book of letters seemed strong enough, after all, they are not primary sources. Very little is taken as fact from Lane's letters, it is mostly "Lane wrote" or "Lane stated", which I think is good, because it gives a picture of the man himself. I would submit to you that it does meet the FA criteria. If there are specific things in the article which are sourced to a letter of Lane and which needs secondary source backup, let me know, and I'll look around for it. But I don't agree with you, with respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be acceptable as a RS? Here is the info on the guy who wrote it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my delay in responding; I had somehow failed to notice this question. In my view, that would be an acceptable secondary source. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the edits done at the behest of BuddingJournalist, I'm going to ask you to review your oppose. I'll drop a note at your talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the single issue that I raised has been addressed. I hope to have time to conduct a more thorough review before this closes, whereupon I will either support or reinstate my oppose with a new rationale; for now, I've just struck it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead seems unbalanced to article and unclear in wording:
  • "Despite his support for the controversial Hetch Hetchy Reservoir project in Yosemite National Park, which flooded a valley esteemed by many conservationists, he presided over the establishment of the National Park Service." - I don't get the meaning of "despite" in this context.
  • Why is the bankruptcy of the newspaper mentioned in the lead, especially as the newspaper apparently continued to publish. But even so, is this lead material about a man that was presidential material?
  • "Friends of Lane said after his death that had he not been born in what is now Canada, he would have become president." - I can accept that he did great things, but the information in the body of the article does not seem to support the premise that he had great fame and a popular following, or that he had a huge amount of charisma, or whatever that "he would have become president", if not for birth.

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Death brings hagiography, of course, but the extensive coverage in the Times makes it clear that he was very well thought of. The Times, apparently unaware of the 12th Amendment, was perfectly willing to buy that he was running for VP when he had that meeting in Austin, even though he had held no office above the municpal level at that time. I'll strike the bankruptcy (and honestly, I didn't put in that pipe and will not vouch that the Tacoma News he edited was the pedecessor paper of the periodical piped to). I'll rework the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the lede a bit and will continue to. I should add that the ICC was IMPORTANT, it regulated the railroads, and basically everything depended on the railroads. The Republicans held up his nomination for six months (of course, Congress didn't sit that much in those days, but even so) because they weren't happy about giving the Democrats an equal voice on the Commission. He went around holding these high profile hearings all over the country as commissioner. This was serious stuff, in the context of the times. After all, his main competition for the nomination in 1912 would have been Champ Clark and some Princeton professor no one had ever heard of. I can see him winning the nomination. And given how split the Republicans were ... --Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until relatively quite recently, "running" for the nomination for VP was acceptable. Last I can think of offhand was JFK in 1956, he was definitely pushing Stevenson to dump Kefauver. But, just by way of example, TR declined to give the 1904 Republican Convention any guidance as to the choice of VP (what did he care, he wasn't giving the poor slob any power). Conventions would often take two or three ballots to decide on a VP candidate, especially considering the Dems still had the "two thirds rule" which really bit them in 1924.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you know more than I do. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I simply have Wikipedia on the brain (beta version, soon to come to a cerebrum near you).--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving concerns. They are struck out above. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me. I've been there twice, wanna go again.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • I echo the concerns about how much of the article is sourced to the letters of the subject.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cites to the book of letters are sourced to the considerable biographic information that is included in the volume, which is a valid secondary source. For the most part, citations to the letters themselves are either quotes or else are clearly labeled, "Lane wrote" or the like. Not all, but in most cases. If someone will let me know what they say is sourced to the letters that needs additonal citation, I will look at it. I will take care of the italics issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just making it clear, since there haven't been any edits here for almost three days, that I stand solidly behind the nomination. I am waiting for guidance either here or at the RS noticeboard regarding the source I asked about, and also here regarding the Letters issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll undertake a source check in the next day or so and give my thoughts. BuddingJournalist 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some information missing from some of the sources. Web sources need retrieval dates. Books (The American Year Book, for example) need page numbers. If an author is known, s/he should be included as well. BuddingJournalist 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is going to be several days, possibly a week before I can get to the pages issue. Google Books is not letting me look at the books in full because I am presently in Colombia, which has a 100 year copyright rule. The major one is the Secretary's report for 1913. Incidently, most NY Times articles of the era did not have bylines. I've added access dates because as a matter of routine I go through every source before nominating for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, cites to the specific pages of the Interior Department report will be done next week. I've taken care of everything else, I think. I understand the concern about the cites to the Letters but I think it is misplaced. Only one fact is cited to an actual letter of Lane--that Wilson did not announce his Cabinet choices at first. I guess I could troll bios of Wilson for a secondary source to confirm that, but the fact that the NY Times only had a complete list on March 3 confirms that anyway. Every other cite is either to the biographical information regarding Lane in the book, which of course was not written by him, and which is fairly detailed (and may be verified if you want to pull up Google books) or is clearly identified as a statement by Lane and not taken as a fact. I'm just going to await additional comments by reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update...after a bit of source checking. Many of the citations to the Letters book are, as Wehwalt states, to biographical notes written (presumably) by the editors, not actual letters or other primary sources. I do wish there were more contemporary, higher-quality secondary sources to use though; it's sometimes not clear what the editors are basing their observations on.
    • I did come across one trouble spot in my random spot checking so far: the 1906 earthquake paragraph in the Interstate Commerce Commission section. The entire paragraph is sourced to pp. 59-61, and heroically presents the deeds of Lane as fact. I wonder whether this presentation is misleading. The source for this is a story written by Will Irwin who apparently heard of Lane's deeds through a friend. Who is Irwin? What is the nature of this story (was it published somewhere)? I think an attribution "according to Will Irwin, _description of Irwin_, Lane..." might be best here.
    • Will continue to plug away. BuddingJournalist 22:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Unfortunately, I seem to be Lane's best quality biographer since Letters was released, even the sketch which is on the Cal website which you approved of above contains errors. It is a pity, he deserves better, and his letters have proved a gold mine for biographers of other figures of the era, according to Google books searches. I've tried to make up for that by letting Lane speak for himself, to let the reader get a sense of the man, and with the other secndary sources, the Times article, the books, that at least touch on Lane. But we have to deal with the sources we have. Anyway, I will inline mention that the fire story is according to Lane's friend Will Irwin, and go on from there. Irwin was an author and poet from California, today just about unknown, but I find he has a very brief WP article and have linked. Thanks for your help so far. I knew this one would be a challenge, but I'm determined to see it through.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update
    • Non-source related: "In an era when political conventions were far more free to make their own choice for Vice President than they are today" The personification of conventions reads oddly to me. No doubt the delegates to these conventions, no?
    • "Lane was offered the support of the New York delegation, which he declined" Sourced to a letter. Potentially problematic since Lane states that he heard of the offer of support through a letter from a friend who heard it from a Senator. This offer through telephone should be verified by secondary sources.
    • "While returning to California from a trip to Washington, D.C..." Can this not be sourced to the New York Times article rather than the letter?
    • "Lane 1922, pp. 48–50" Should that be 49–50 instead? pg. 48 is a letter that doesn't seem to contain anything that's being covered by that citation.
    • "He declined, preferring to remain a commissioner." Sourced to a letter.
    • "In 1910, Taft designated Lane as a U.S. delegate to the International Railways Congress." Sourced to a letter, although rather uncontroversial. Is it 1910 though? This date seems to have been extrapolated from the date of the letter.
    • "After hearing of the abuses of the express system..." Sourced to pages 100-1. What is this long quotation from James S. Harlan? What's the context?
    • ""I don't want to deal with a clerk or one..." Quotation with no attribution or context.
    • "Lane supported New Jersey governor Woodrow Wilson for president, but refused to make speeches on the Democratic candidate's behalf, feeling that ICC commissioners should act in a nonpartisan manner." Sourced to a letter. A few problems with this. First, while I have no reason to doubt that Lane is being sincere, extrapolations like these are best left to scholars. There could be other reasons why he refused to go to California to make speeches other than what he stated in the letter. This brings us to the second problem: "refused to make speeches on the Democratic candidate's behalf". This is a generalization that cannot be made. The letter only gives evidence of Lane's refusal to travel to California and make speeches on Wilson's behalf. Much safer to say something along the lines of: "In a letter to Democratic National Committee Chairman William F. Combs, Lane refused to travel to California..."
    • On a note unrelated to this FAC, the way citation templates are being used decreases editability (is that a word?). Lots of extraneous parameters that can be eliminated.
    • All I found for now (I may have missed some though). While not debilitating, some of these issues are troubling and need attention. BuddingJournalist 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article doesn't say Lane was going back to California, so I can't. If necessary, I will simply say he visited Austin and lose the ref to the Letters. I've taken care of the other things. Harlan was his fellow ICC commissioner for six years and became chair in 1914, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the only unresolved thing I'm aware of is the page numbers for the Secretary of the Interior's report, which I will do tomorrow or the next day on my return to the States. I am happy to read and act on other reviews. Right now we're kind of in sleep mode. I continue to stand behind the article and welcome comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update The page numbers for the Secretary's report for 1913 have now been inserted, apparently Google Books will only let you look at it if you are in the US. Go figure. Anyhow, all concerns and suggestions have now been addressed. I'm a bit concerned, we are running a bit late in the FAC process. Still I await all feedback. I am presently at home until Tuesday, and again, internet access could be a bit spotty after that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The prose needs work. I copyedited the lead and the first section, and found quite a bit that needed changing. A couple of recurring problems:
    • Lane is mentioned by name far too often, and
    • Quite often sentences begin with "In 19XX," and then go on to describe events that did not occur in that year (examples that I corrected: "In 1905, Lane was appointed a commissioner of the Interstate Commerce Commission by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt and was reappointed in 1909 by President William Howard Taft., "In 1893, Lane married Anne Wintermute, and they had two children". I'll try to get to the rest of the article, but if somebody else could go through and do a copyedit, looking especially for those problems, it would be helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to use a name in preference to a pronoun, perhaps to excess. They taught me in junior high always to use the name when the person is mentioned for the first time in a paragraph, for example, and then again if you have mentioned another person of the same sex, or if there has been a gap since you mentioned the name last. Anyhow, I've gone through it, changed some of the Lanes to "the Secretary" or "Secretary Lane" or the like. I found one other example of what you mention, events that didn't happen in that year, (the tributes to Lane) and adjusted it. Thanks for the feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own rule of thumb is to use the name on the first occurrence in each paragraph and on other occasions only when to do otherwise would be ambiguous. Anyway, I've continued my copyedit, and here are a few more points I've noticed:
  • The article relies too much on direct quotations.
  • The article tends towards sympathy for its subject: "The conservative city had no intention of electing a Democratic, reform-minded mayor", "Lane had battled [the railroads] in his law practice", and that sort of thing all give the impression of Lane as the good guy, fighting powerful forces beyond his control. I've had another look at the Letters source, and I think it suffers from much the same problem.
  • The underuse of pronouns does not only apply when talking about Lane. That said, this last issue is one that I should be able to fix on my own. The first two are likely to require some attention from you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The conservative city" thing is not there to drum up sympathy for Lane, it is to make the reader think how times have changed if San Francisco can be described as conservative. The railroads thing is in there because according to the Times, Wilson appointed Lane to the Interior Department because he had fought the railroads and was on the outs with Hearst. But I'll tone it down. I haven't found any source which foams at the mouth against Lane. The closest is Albright's book, which suggests that Lane really didn't care much about National Parks, and the ensuing blockquote makes it clear that Lane's mindset was to pave Paradise and put up a parking lot, if it furthered human progress. As for the direct quotation thing, we're pretty much at the limit of secondary sources regarding Lane. I'll see if I can get rid of a couple, but there's nothing in the barrel to replace them with. I've been thinking of buying articles from the Washington Post archives about Lane, but am reluctant to do so until I know what points are at issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out the "conservative city" thing, and rephrased the railroads thing. It has to be left in as background, so when the reasons for Wilson's appointment per the Times are put before the reader, the reader doesn't wonder why this hasn't been mentioned. I cut back four quotes by Lane I felt were dispensible. There's still, I think, five from the letters. Two are brief, in the ICC section. The third is his views on the wilderness, and that's important because it accords with Albright's view of Lane. Lane's quote before World War I is important because it makes it clear to the reader that he was beating the drum for war. The other is the lengthy quote to Cox (from what is a very long letter) which I think aids the reader because it was written less than a year before Lane died, and it is rather a valedictory speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I should say that there are also 2 quotes from Lane in the NY Times in there, plus some quotes from other people about Lane, or the famous Muir quote about Hetch Hetchy. I don't think it is excessive as it stands now. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. I just did a count: the article currently contains 4423 words of readable prose. Of those, fully 632—more than 14%—are direct quotes. These are included in eighteen different quotes of varying size. It was even worse before your recent cull. I have a hard time believing that there's another biographical FA with anything approaching that; I doubt there's one with more than 10% quotes, actually. I think this also goes back to my concern about the reliance on primary sources: this winds up looking more like a secondary source that the tertiary source it's supposed to be. This is above and beyond the prose issues (and the continued overuse of Lane's name: even after you did your sweep, there were still things like "...Lane pushed for a government-built railroad, which Lane believed..." in there). I'm going to step away from this for a while before finishing my copyediting and then coming back to have another look, but I'm not sure there's an FA there. Hopefully in the meantime some other reviewers will have a look at my comments and either agree or disagree with them; I certainly don't want to single-handedly scuttle an FA review, here, which I hope is obvious by the time I've spent copyediting. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it. I suspect that if I omitted the one long quote in the later life section, I'd bring that down to 10 percent, but darn it, I'm starting to dig in my heels and mumble things about editorial judgment. That letter to Cox was very much his valediction, summing up what the man had believed in and learned in a lifetime of service. I believe this meets FA criteria. Oh, I could take out a couple of quotes at this point, and disguise others, but I think you are right, we really need to hear from other reviewers. I don't want to gut the articles by removing the quotes, have it fail FA anyway, and then be left with an article which is (in my view) worse off without the quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed seven of the eighteen quotes, either by total removal or paraphrase. I'm reluctant to go any further. I've found references to a book which draws on Colonel House's diaries, that supplements the info we had on how Lane came to be appointed SecInt. Lane's letters were excerpted as well in The World's Work with bio info that is not the same (not contradictory, just different and more complete in some ways) than that in the book, which gives us an independent secondary source. I'm using it lightly though. So after a hard couple of hours work, I think your concerns are being addressed. We need some quotes in there, and the Letters have proved an important source for biographers of Wilson and other figures of the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

Fixed. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. DrKiernan (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uneasy feeling, possible Oppose. Must go to bed now but have fears about NPOV and possible 1(b). More in 12 hours. The "would be president" sources look very very cuddly if you actually go look at them... Gotta go more later Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The would be president is from this, an account of Lane which is hardly hagiographic. It is backed up by the reference to Villard which, because he is so laudatory towards Lane, I use only for that and put in an inline cite mentioning who said it. Standard practice. I think I tried for a portrait of the man which would interest the reader, but hardly a hagiographic one. For example, I highlighted Hetch Hetchy, which in a lot of ways is what he is remembered for. Getting a valley in a National Park flooded is hardly a good thing by today's standards. The quote I end the Department activities section with makes it clear that he would have been happy to hook up Old Faithful to a steam heating system if it would have benefitted mankind to do so. Lane is a mixed figure, like most. Intriguing in a lot of ways, but mixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by this, I don't think we will hear anything more from Ling.Nut on this. I hope his concerns were addressed by the subsequent copyedit, and I also hope his comment won't now be held against the article, since I have no idea how to deal further with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The prose is just okay in many places. I ran through and made some simple changes, but I'm afraid someone needs to dig in a little deeper and root out many of the "Lane this", "Lane that" repetitiveness. This feels fairly rushed to FA, as I don't see any evidence that a peer review was obtained or even that you got a second pair of eyes on it before bringing it here. It desperately needs a fresh, effective copyeditor to spend a couple intimate hours with it. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you care to be more specific, I'll try to address your concerns. I'm unclear what you mena by Lane this, Lane that. It is the man's name, it is the same number of syllables as saying "he". Were his name "Zarablowkonski", I'd see your point a bit more clearly perhaps. However, I did some editing and now very few paragraphs begin with the word Lane. I did ask Mattisse to take a look at it before I nommed, Mattisse did a little work but really wasn't interested in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are too many issues to delineate here; hence my request for a copyedit. I implore you to get someone other than yourself, as it becomes very difficult to copyedit our own writing after a time. The "Lane" issue is a perfect example—you're too close to the text to recognize that a fresh pen is needed to phrase things in different ways so they don't all have to begin with "Lane" or even "He". The number of syllables is not the issue, it's that we've not reached "compelling" or "brilliant" yet. --Laser brain (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your opinion. With respect, I'd also like to see what other editors think. I understand that you have prose concerns, but if you see other issues that need to be addressed, I'd be grateful if you would mention them, that way they can be fixed regardless of the outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you do not intend to seek a copyedit? --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that. I had asked AuburnPilot to look at the article more generally to give me advice, as the article had been sitting here for almost a month without much activity. I will ask him if he can copyedit as well. Obviously, the more feedback the better, so I am asking you for yours on non-prose issues, if you have any. I'm just not sure how long Raul and Sandy will let this sit open, it is now the oldest active FAC and Tuesday, the day on which they often promote/not promote, is almost here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I'm sorry about the late feedback, but there is a dearth of reviewers and a sizable backlog. If this gets archived, feel free to contact me for a peer review before bringing it back. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, and thanks for the offer. And I'm an abysmal reviewer or I'd help out with the backlog. If this gets archived, I'd probably nominate Rudolf Wolters next, which is a GA and is a colloboration among myself and two other editors, and spend the time while it is on the page getting a review as you suggest. I'm still strongly behind the Lane article though, and I think this nom can succeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already copyedited, and changes like this one: [2] make the grammar worse to my eyes and ears. DrKiernan (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck. BuddingJournalist 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a subjective matter. Most modern professional writing and style manuals (including CMOS) have abandoned the archaic rule about ending a sentence in a preposition. Why the twisted "for which he was responsible" when one word can be eliminated while making it easier on the reader? --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ending sentences in prepositions isn't something up with which I shall not put. But in that particular case, to my ears, "to oversee the parks for which the Department was responsible" sounds much better; avoids the issue of "the _noun_ the _noun_" and places the preposition closer to the object in question. BuddingJournalist 22:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was doing some copyediting and stumbled across "In 1882, Franklin Knight Lane was hired to work in the printing office of the Oakland Times, from which he was promoted to reporter, while becoming actively involved in the Prohibition Party." Wanted to break this up and eliminate the awkward "from which", so I checked the source only to find some inconsisties.
    • No year is given in the source for when he was hired for the paper.
    • Source does not use the word "promoted"; it's unclear this was indeed a promotion. Seems more like a horizontal career move. Newspaper printing offices are separate from the reporter's bullpen, and we're not given what his duties were with the printing office.
    • "while becoming" is inaccurate. Source doesn't say that the campaigning happened while he was working for the Oakland Times. BuddingJournalist 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it. He was a "printer's devil", not an office of high responsibility and trust. Reporter would certainly be a promotion from there, but I've taken out the word anyway. I think some material from another source had sneaked into here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I went and looked at Alexander Hamilton as the first US gov't official I could think of born outside the US in a political subdivision that has since changed, and basically followed that. I've done the things that you suggested, Tony.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 28 February 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/Franklin_Knight_Lane/archive1&oldid=1138461076"