Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James K. Polk/archive2
- 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 [1].
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is about... a president who greatly expanded the United States, but who is controversial for a number of reasons, for example he was a slaveowner. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Image review
- White House caption shouldn't end in a period
- Done.
- Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use a fixed pixel size - use upright to scale instead
- Done.
- File:James_Polk_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:White_House_1846.jpg
- Done.
- File:James_K_Polk_and_Sarah_C_Polk.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:State-dining-room-polk-cabinet.jpg
- One cut, the remainder I've added on the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:Oregoncountry2.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Mapa_de_Mexico_1845.PNG, File:Mexican–American_War_(without_Scott's_Campaign)-en.svg, File:Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo.png, File:United_States_1845-03-1845-12.png, File:United_States_1849-1850.png
- I'm not quite sure how to respond. Presumably the creator of the map obtained the data. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Suggest adding sources to the image description page to confirm the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've added supporting information with links. I can't swear to every jot on the map but these seem to contain the same information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Suggest adding sources to the image description page to confirm the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how to respond. Presumably the creator of the map obtained the data. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:James_Polk_Grave.jpg should include an explicit tag reflecting the copyright status of the monument. Same with File:James_Knox_Polk_Statue.JPG
- Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:Polk_Place.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
- Swapped for a better image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:JamesKnoxPolk.png: given the dates, the author could not have released it under the claimed license
- Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- File:Standard_of_the_Governor_of_Tennessee.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Support All my problems were addressed in the Peer Review. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Much obliged for that, and for your thorough review there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comments from SchroCat
- IB
This is a monster of an IB and on my screen the log cabin picture actually breaks the line into the Early political career section, which is something to avoid. There is flexibility to remove the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields from the appointments, which may be worth considering, although I leave the decision to you (the Preceded by/Succeeded fields tell us absolutely nothing about Polk himself, and are of extremely limited benefit).
- Instead, I've shortened by merging the two congressional districts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Early life
- "Samuel Polk died in 1827; his widow lived until 1852, surviving her oldest son by three years.[6]" This slightly jarred when in the next sentence we drop back to Samuel in 1812. Would it be better in a footnote?
- "Polk opened an office in Maury County and[3] was successful": odd place for a footnote – I would have thought it would follow "County" or the end of the sentence.
- Tennessee legislator
- "time for campaigning,[16] Already" full stop or lower case A?
- "Her grace, intelligence and charming conversation": as this is opinion in Wiki's voice, I'd be more comfortable with "according to xxx" as part of the sentence.
- "Polk, though much of his political career": through?
Done to the end of "Jackson disciple", and will continue soonest. Enjoying this – well written and engaging, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments and the kind words. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ways and Means chair and Speaker of the House
- "Polk, with Jackson's backing, became the chairman of Ways and Means". Is that the Ways and Means Committee? If so, it should be the full name and the link moved up from later in the section
- It is linked in the previous section. I've removed the duplicate link and rewritten it slightly.
- "June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson": link speaker of the house?
- "assuring his disciple in a letter he meant Polk to burn that New England would support Polk for Speaker": its been a long day and I'm quite tired, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here
- Governor of Tennessee
- "a Tennessee afire for White and Whiggism" poetically put, but perhaps a word or two in explanation: my first thought was 'who's White?'
- Third paragraph of previous section. Do you think the reader needs more of a reminder? Your reaction suggests "yes".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- No change needed - my error. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Third paragraph of previous section. Do you think the reader needs more of a reminder? Your reaction suggests "yes".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Election Day": do we normally capitalise like this?
- Yes, in AmEng
Done to the end of the '44 election, and it's riveting stuff – reminds me of the politics I studied at school and university. More to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am glad you are enjoying it ... if I haven't addressed it above, it's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Final batch...
- Transition
- Bancroft "became U.S. minister to Britain": is it minister or ambassador (I've not re-read the previous text, but is this the first mention of the post, in which case formal title and link would be better).
- It was then minister to Britain, ambassador came in in 1893.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Course of the war
- "Polk offered Major General Winfield Scott, the position of top commander" is the comma needed after Scott in AmEng?
- "Americans at the gates of Mexico City. Trist negotiated" comma rather than full stop?
- Development of the country
- "draft a sufficient veto message, so Polk signed the bill": you could get away with "he" here
- '48 election
- "He did remove some Van Buren supporters from federal office." Maybe it's the 'did remove', but this reads oddly to me and lacks flow from the previous sentence. Semi colon it into the previous sentence, or perhaps redraw as "canvass for votes, although he removed.." (unless you think we're in comma splice territory)?
- I've clarified it a bit, and feel it stands better on its own. I've made it clearer he was playing politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's it. All very nit-picky as it's up to the usual high standard – and no deal breakers in any of my observations. I look forward to supporting this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - all happy with me, and this meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources review
[edit]A few minor formatting points:
- Ref 16: space required after p.
- Ref 17: why "Page" not "p."?
- Ref 114: requires pp. not p.
Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I greatly appreciate your spending your time on it. Thank you. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments by Display name 99
[edit]I've made 47 edits to this article, but I don't think it's quite enough to call me one of the major contributors. As another side note, looking at the way this article was in 2005, it's amazing to see what counted as a featured article back then, and helps us to appreciate how much we're progressed.
Early life
- "His mother Jane Polk named her firstborn after her father James Knox." I would add a comma after the word "father." Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do we have any idea what the political views were of Polk's mother? In the John C. Calhoun article, for example, we noted that Calhoun's father was a devoted advocate of states' rights, and that this probably influenced his son. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Siegenthaler concentrates more on the father and grandfather, who were pro-Jefferson and anti-Federalist Party. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- ". While there Polk joined the Dialectic Society where he took part in debates, became its president and learned the art of oratory." What subjects were debated and what was his position? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I"ve added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Tennessee legislator
- For the first caption, does "in 1849" really need to be in parenthesis? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Can you find some more details on the courtship between Polk and his wife? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there are, but they really aren't confirmed. For example, that Jackson urged Polk to marry, and stated who he should marry in such terms that it was very clear Sarah Childress was meant, and Polk picked up on it and said he would propose to her. I'll see if I can find something beyond doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at it. All the stories, of Jackson as matchmaker and of her not marrying him until he ran for the legislature, I don't feel are solid or illuminating enough to be worth including in an overlong article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Jackson dispute
- Link to 1832 presidential election. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see you did this. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the Nullification Crisis, it may be helpful to briefly present Polk's view not only on secession but on the right of a state to nullify federal law. That was, after all, what the crisis was originally about. It was not until Jackson resisted that the agitators began to talk of secession. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- This looks a little better now. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for more info.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Overall, well done. More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Governor of Tennessee
- "...Johnson was disliked by many Southern whites for fathering two daughters by a biracial mistress." That's not why he was disliked. Many other southern statesmen-Jefferson, for instance-had children with slave mistresses. The difference was that Johnson made the female slave his "common law wife" and gave the daughters his surname. There's a difference, and that should be clearly stated. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Johnson would make for an interesting project...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Do you think we could mention something about why Tennessee switched to being a Whig stronghold? It's something I've never really understood. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Still looking for information on this. One of the biographers speaks of an anti-Jackson backlash, but doesn't get down to cases. I suspect it has something to do with internal improvements, but haven't found anything yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Still looking for information on this. One of the biographers speaks of an anti-Jackson backlash, but doesn't get down to cases. I suspect it has something to do with internal improvements, but haven't found anything yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I made some edits adding content. Please feel free to look them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Partition of Oregon Country
- In the second paragraph, the article links and defines Manifest Destiny, even though it has done so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to keep the second link for the convenience of the reader, as it is the definition of Manifest Destiny.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Annexation of Texas
- The annexation resolution-do you mean the one signed by Tyler on March 1? I'm not completely clear. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, clarified.
Road to war
- From my understand, the U.S. claimed the border as the Rio Grande, while Mexico claimed it as the Nueces. I don't think that's ever explicitly stated or elaborated upon. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is in the Annexation of Texas section, I've now emphasized it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to link to the Mexican-American War at the end. You do so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- delinked.
Course of the war
- If Scott really had that much baggage, do we have any idea why Polk decided to appoint him at the beginning anyway? If we know anything of what led Polk to choose Scott-other than, say, Taylor-I think the article should say so. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Didn't Polk explicitly order Taylor not to march any further, only to have Taylor go to Buena Vista? Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes he did. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Added.
- Yes he did. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Mexican casualties were five times American" Rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed.--00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've read through "Development of the country." It's excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think I'm up to date with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
To finish out:
- The "States admitted to the Union" section should be cited. This is especially true if these states and dates aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. I could be wrong, but I think Texas is the only one that is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Was his wife Methodist? That might explain why he decided to join the Methodist denomination. We should mention it if so. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've cut the states. His wife was not Methodist, but he had long considered himself a Wesleyan Methodist, though he often accompanied her to her church.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support A comprehensive and well-written article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Much obliged both for the most thorough review and for the support. It is always good to hear from people who know the material.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments by Brianboulton
[edit]Support, with a few minor suggestions. For anyone interested in American political history this is a fascinating, indeed a gripping read. Particularly arresting is the two sides of Polk: the serious, determined statesman in successful pursuit of his stated goals, and the venal slaveholder, casually trading in lives for his personal profit. A man of his times – no doubt the same dichotomy occurs in many of the "great men" of the day. My one reservation concerning the article is that its length may deter potential readers from tackling it, which would be a shame.
- "People liked Polk's oratory, earning him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump." It was the oratory, not the people, that earned him the nickname. I suggest "People liked Polk's oratory, which earned him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump."
- Done.
- "Polk won re-election [to Congress] in 1827" – wouldn't the election have been in 1826?
- Unless there was a special session, the congressmen wouldn't be needed until December, and Tennessee held congressional elections in August. This was not uncommon at the time. Presumably they had a procedure for an early election in case there was a special session.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- The "but" in "Polk has been described as the first "dark horse" presidential nominee, but..." is misused, since what follows does not qualify or counteract the initial statement. Perhaps "although"?
- Fixed.
- "Perhaps the most important event of Polk's presidency was the Mexican-American War." This reads as an editorial opinion, and could be deleted without effect.
- Cut.
- "Similarly, other than the Gadsden Purchase and that of Alaska (1867) there was no major U.S. expansion until the 1890s." Those are pretty big "other thans", especially that of Alaska. A possible rewording: "The Gadsden Purchase, and that of Alaska (1867), were the only major U.S. expansion until the 1890s."
- Done.
Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding length, most of the trouble is in the war-related sections and I think it would be dificult, given Polk's close management of the war, to cut very much. Other than reviewers, I've come to believe people rarely read articles in full ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS
[edit]Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
---|
More to come later. Currently up to the "General election" subsection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That should do it. Thankfully there are no major issues with this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
|
I can now safely support given the article's improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Coord note
[edit]Pls check over duplinks (some may be justified in an article of this size), but won't hold up promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.