Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Adams/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 [1].

---

John Adams

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

John Adams was one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States. Before the war, he was a fierce advocate for the rights of the American colonies against British actions. All the while, he maintained a respect for the law, condemning mob violence and successfully defending British soldiers accused of murder in the so-called Boston Massacre. He was elected to both the First and Second Continental Congresses. At the latter, he was the foremost advocate for independence on the debate floor, and served on the committee of five which drafted the Declaration of Independence. As a diplomat, Adams was sent abroad first to France and then to Denmark, where he helped convince the Dutch to recognize American independence and negotiated an important loan. In the intervening period, he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, which served as a model for the U.S. Constitution. He helped negotiate the Treaty of Paris to end the war and served as the first American Minister to Great Britain. As America's first vice president, he aligned with the Federalist Party but often felt marginalized on the political scene. His single term as the second President of the United States was consumed almost entirely by dealing with French hostilities during the French Revolutionary Wars, and trying to keep the United States out of what he believed would be a destructive conflict. He was opposed by both the Jeffersonian Republicans, who wanted him to support France, and the Hamiltonian Federalists, who wanted him to declare war on France. His retirement of 25 years was the longest of any president until Herbert Hoover. Display name 99 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

My understanding is that his popular reputation after his death was so poor that the Democrats thought it worthwhile attacking WH Harrison as an Adams supporter (allegedly) in 1840 for accepting office from Adams, mainly because of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Can there be something in the Legacy sections commenting on how the popular view of Adams has shifted over time? I intend to do a full review, but I tend to look at the legacy sections first.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wehwalt. I checked a couple Harrison biographies and couldn't verify it. If you have a source, I'd love to see it. I did add a paragraph and a lengthy quotation to illustrate how he was viewed in the decades after his retirement and into the Civil War. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's in Ronald Shafer, The Carnival Campaign, p. 128. "At this point in American history, Adams no longer was idolized. To the contrary, to be aligned with John Adams was akin to being a fan of Attila the Hun. Adams was widely reviled for presiding over an American "Reign of Terror" after backing the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts" ... Fortunately for Harrison, the first Adams was one of the few Founding Fathers with whom he'd had little contact."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by

• I would avoid "our nation" - are you only seeking reviews from Americans? With talk like that, that's all you may get. I hope the article does not carry on in a similar vein. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's something I've grown accustomed to doing in discourse outside Wikipedia. I've changed it. If you read the article and decide that it is written from a pro-American perspective, please tell me and point to the cases wherein you believe it to exist. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Consistent citations

• I see a mix of harv short form citations and regular citation templates. I think this would have to be standardized? Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, sorry, I thought I took care of that, but I did see that there were still some issues, particularly towards the end of the article. I fixed the problem in several cases, but I'm going to do another run-through to make sure it's all taken care of. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Another drive-by

• FAC doesn't observe Wikipedia's guideline on article size as strictly as it once did, but I don't think an article that's more than 18,000 words long is going to fly here. A. Parrot (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This page currently has 186,040 characters. I successfully nominated Andrew Jackson for FAC earlier this year. It currently has 190,336 characters. It's grown slightly since February, but I do know that in that time the number of characters was about the same if not slightly more. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a script you can use to count the number of words in the text ("readable prose size", which is what counts under the article size guidelines) at User:Dr pda/prosesize. I see the Jackson article was just under 16,000 words when it passed FAC and is just over 16,000 now. I wouldn't have been comfortable supporting an article that size, but it isn't quite as extreme as the Adams article is now. WP:Summary style points out something that it's easy for us Wikipedia editors to forget: "Summary style keeps the reader from being overwhelmed by too much information up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles."

I don't intend to review this article beyond making this point, as I don't have the time or the resources to delve into the enormous literature on Adams. But I recommend, at the very least, looking over the article again to see if any details can be moved into subarticles, particularly the one on Adams' presidency. A. Parrot (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

When the article was last peer-reviewed, in February 2010, it was 7067 words long; when it received GA status in September it had grown to 10,189. Its current wordcount is 18,269, way above our length guidelines, and much of the current text is unreviewed material. I'm well aware that several presidential articles have similarly breached the guidelines and been promoted to FAC, but that shouldn't be a reason for continuing this trend. How long before someone tries to justify 20,000 words? Or 25,000, or 30,000 and so on? The article should be trimmed by around 20 per cent, through the elimination of less important detail and greater use of subarticles. At 14,000+ words it would still be one of our longest articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional Comments by Seraphim System

• "That question was whether to make more with France or find peace." -- more war, presumably?

The question was whether to declare war with France. The Quasi War was undeclared and not a war in the proper sense. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Following up on the above comments about length I see some sections that could be condensed.
• There is a lot of discussion of Jefferson in the Alien and Sedition Acts section but I think that it could hone in more on the relationship between Jefferson and Adams, and leave the technical details of the Act for the main article. (Things like The Naturalization Act increased to 14 years the period of residence required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship (naturalized citizens tended to vote for the Democratic-Republicans).

I trimmed the discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts considerably since all of that can be found in more detail in separate articles. I'm wary of adding more detail on the relationship between Adams and Jefferson for two reasons. Firstly, I'm being told by multiple editors, including yourself, that I must cut considerably the material in this article, and I do not want to cancel any of that out by adding new content. Secondly, there's already a fair bit of information that one can use to track the development of the Adams/Jefferson relationship by reading between the lines. There's ample discussion given of their role in drafting the Declaration of Independence. We also mention how they toured the English countryside together in 1786, leaving the reader to conclude that they were good friends. Next, we hear Jefferson describing the titles proposed by Adams as "superlatively ridiculous" and being pitted against him in 1796. We also find him intriguing against Adams with the French ambassador and calling him "vain, suspicious, and stubborn." Finally, we read about him running against Adams in 1800 and paying Callender and other journalists to attack him. There is some information which I can think of that is not in the article, but I think there already is enough about the relationship between Adams and Jefferson so as not to necessitate going into additional detail, especially since extra detail is what I'm being told has to be reduced. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be consistent in the use of Democratic-Republicans? The section discusses Democratic-Republicans but the last paragraph discusses Republicans/Federalists. Adams was a Federalist, but the article uses Republicans in other sections - is there a reason to switch to Democratic Republicans here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've made it so that it refers simply to Republicans. Many modern historians, though not all, refer to it as the Democratic-Republican Party, but at the time it was simply known as the Republican Party. Display name 99 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The acts became controversial from prosecution thereunder of a Congressman and a number of newspaper editors" -- words like "thereunder" "heretofore" "whereof" have precise meanings that are unknown to the average reader. Please consider rephrasing.

This entire sentence has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The Acts as well allowed for prosecution of many who opposed the Federalists, even on the floor of Congress." ---The Acts also?

I removed both words and chose not to replace them with anything. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "The majority of the legal actions began in 1798 and 1799, and went to trial on the eve of the 1800 presidential election – timing that hardly appeared coincidental, according to Ferling. Other historians have cited evidence that the Alien and Sedition Acts were rarely enforced, namely: 1) only 10 convictions under the Sedition Act have been identified; 2) Adams never signed a deportation order; and 3) the sources of expressed furor over the acts were Democratic-Republicans." - this doesn't seem essential?

I'm not sure what you mean. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Republicans were outraged. Jefferson, disgusted by the acts, wrote nothing publicly but partnered with Madison to secretly draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Jefferson, writing for Kentucky, wrote that states had the "natural right" to nullify any acts they deemed constitutional. Writing to Madison, he speculated that as a last resort the states might have to "sever ourselves from the union we so much value."[219] Federalists reacted bitterly to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were to have far more lasting implications for the country than the Alien and Sedition Acts. Still, the acts Adams signed into law energized and unified the Republican Party while doing little to unite the Federalists." -- I think this needs a bit of work.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I don't want to expand it considering the direction that many of the most recent comments have been taking, especially because this had so little to do with Adams himself. Display name 99 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that the goal would be to condense. For example, his religious background is discussed both in the Childhood section and in a separate section near the end of the article. There are also some opinions from modern historians casting John Adams as a conservative. Commenting futher would require a more thorough source check, but I'm not sure how much value a blockquote like Here was a man who loved America as it was and had been, one whose life was a doughty testament to the trials and glories of ordered liberty. Here ... was the model of the American conservative. adds to the article. I'm sure there are other examples, but I echo A. Parrot's above comment about going over the article again.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done about his religious background. The "Conservatism" section was added only in the past week by another editor without involvement from myself. I agree that the quotations mean little out of context and can probably be done away with. Would you consent to me deleting the entire section? Display name 99 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I eliminated a discussion of Puritanism which I felt went too far beyond the subject of the article. I didn't find significant overlap between the two sections, and don't see the need for any more significant condensing in that area. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Now that other editors have commented, I would be ok with getting rid of the entire section. I agree with comments from editors below that it is a bit too presentist.Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Should the Conceptions of constitutional government section be in the Diplomacy in Europe section? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a little bit awkward, but it fits with the time frame. Adams wrote his Defence of the Constitutions in 1787 because of the Constitutional Convention. That happens to be while he was in England. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It could also go in the Enlightenment section you are working on - there should be a few words added about the independent judiciary. [2] Thompson called it Adams' greatest theoretical innovation Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, in the passage that you linked, the reference to an independent judiciary refers not to the Defence of the Constitutions but to the Massachusetts Constitution. The article already discusses it there as well. I decided to change the title of the section to Defence of the Constitutions to be more specific, since there are plenty of discussions about his constitutional ideas which are not in the section. I added a brief discussion of his views on the Enlightenment to the part about the Massachusetts Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the things he is best known for - I think it should be coherently discussed in a single section. There are some issues with organization and excessive detail about some aspects while other major issues are missing. Neither Montesquieu nor the "independent judiciary" are discussed in the article. The discussion of the Constitutional Convention is currently While in London, Adams learned a convention being planned to amend the Articles of Confederation. - the rest of the paragraph does not discuss the convention at all. Though he did not attend the convention his ideas and the "Defence of the Constitutions" is something we still study today because it influenced the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I would consider separating the discussion of his philosophy and theory of government from the chronological biography. It is harder to understand when his biography digresses into complex political philosophy (and why it is important today). The discussion of Paine could be condensed, and it should be mentioned somewhere that [3] he supported lifetime tenure for judges (this is separate from "no federal judiciary.")

I don't see anything about the federal judiciary on page 97 of McCullough [4] but the editor may have a different edition. I haven't done a full source check yet, but looking at the phrasing "classical republican theory of mixed government" in the Defence of Constitutions section is a bit of a problem also. It doesn't seem to be supported by the currently cited source. It is supported by some sources, but not all scholars agree [5] - the disagreement is significant. Also, Polybius should be mentioned. Perhaps this quote could be removed from the Legacy section as well? Todd Leopold of CNN added in 2001 that Adams is "remembered as that guy who served a single term as president between Washington and Jefferson, and as a short, vain, somewhat rotund man whose stature seems to have been dwarfed by his lanky colleagues."Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, thank you for your note. I'm currently at work and will have more time to deal with this during the weekend. There's a decent chance that this article will fail (something I didn't expect), but I'm not prepared to give up just yet. Would you mind explaining why you think the CNN quote should go? It seems to summarize much of Adams historiography very well. I'll consider the separations. That does seem to make sense and I've seen that done on other biographies I've worked on. I'll let you know when I've finished in the next few days. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System, I have enacted your suggestions. There is now a separate section for "Political philosophy" and I added mention of lifetime appointments to the section on the Massachusetts Constitution. p. 97 of McCullough does not mention the federal judiciary (all editions have the same page numbers). I couldn't verify it anywhere else and so I removed it. I got rid of "classical republican" because it does seem to be a bit contentious. I couldn't find anything about Polybius in either McCullough or Ferling. Can you tell me why he needs to be singled out among the many ancient writers (perhaps Cicero most of all) who influenced Adams? I see that you supported Rjensen's suggestion to trim the diplomacy section and create a separate article. I think I'll do that. Display name 99 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by RJensen

It's a very good article. In my view the two main reasons Adams deserves a long article are his work for independence and his establishing moderate conservative policies (in opposition to Hamilton to the right & Jefferson to the left)--esp peace with France. I suggest: cut the diplomacy section --or spin most of the diplomacy into a new article on the "Diplomacy of John Adams". That will allow much deeper coverage that people can turn too. Also sharply cut the VP section by 2/3 Historians of 1790s generally ignore his very minor VP role. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that his influence on conservative just isn't something that his biographers emphasize. McCullough makes no mention of Adams's influence on conservatism, nor do I find mention of it in the parts of Ferling and Smith that I've read. I don't disagree with you. However, the broad conservative themes of Adams's life-upholding the rule of law (Boston Massacre), the separation of powers (Massachusetts Constitution and political manifestos), and opposing the radicals in France are clearly illustrated without the conservatism section. The issue of "ordered liberty" can easily be worked into the monarchism section.

I agree that there might be a little too much detail on his diplomatic service, but there isn't enough just yet to start a separate article. In your comment above, you essentially state that Adams's contributions to conservatism are more important than his diplomatic service. This makes no sense. Biographers always spend significant time on his diplomatic efforts but rarely mention him as a leading conservative intellectual or policy maker. Seeing your edit history, I can understand that the evolution of conservatism is important to you. But the fact is that Adams is not recognized as significantly shaping the development of conservatism in the way that someone like Edmund Burke, for example, was. There's ample evidence of his influence on conservatism elsewhere in the article. I'll look into cutting some stuff from the vice presidency section because that had little importance to American history but I don't think it makes any sense to start chopping away at his crucial diplomatic service in favor of something that none of his biographers consider to be of comparable importance. I welcome other reviewers' opinions, particularly those knowledgeable on the subject. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The current "Conservative" section seems too presentist political and parochial, and not about his position relative to Hamilton and Jefferson. It's also not true that he was "conservative" in the most important event in his life -- he was a revolutionary, and a tenacious one, at that. But I was chagrined to see, just now, that nowhere in the article is the Enlightenment mentioned. My suggestion, change that sections focus from what modern conservative's say, to what is a broader focus on his legacy with respect to the Enlightenment. See, Burns, Fire and Light: How The Enlightenment Transformed our World. St Martins Press (2013) [6] for multiple discussions of Adams and his intellectual and personal struggle with the mechanics of "protection of human liberty against the forces of oppression" (p.76), etc.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen, I'm not sure what the Burns quote adds to the article that has not already been expressed in the section on the 1800 election. Once again, the conservatism section just seems to summarize and repeat ideas that can be found elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and either change the subsection so it is entitled "Adams and the American Enlightenment" (or some such) and talk about that as a part of his legacy, or get rid of the section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That section has been eliminated following consensus between myself and two other editors. Alanscottwalker, I will work on the Enlightenment stuff and ping you once I have concluded to my satisfaction. Display name 99 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I read the discussion of Adams in the Burns book. Burns seems to focus mainly on Adams's promotion of education as part of the Enlightenment. Therefore, I chose to add mention of the fact that in the Massachusetts Constitution, Adams guaranteed free three-year public education for all citizens, followed by a discussion of how Adams saw education as part of the Enlightenment. This can be found in the paragraph on the Massachusetts Constitution. Display name 99 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you only read page 76? Because as I said there are multiple connections to development of the Enlightenment by Adams in Burns (think government, rights, oppression, liberty), 76 is just one discussion. See also, Adams discussions in [7] and [8] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything else about Adams worth including, at least not in the parts of the book that were available online. The themes discussed in the first of the two links were already mentioned in the section on Defence of the Constitutions. Nevertheless, I expanded on them. Adams's political thought is given ample attention throughout the article. What I said to Rjensen about the conservatism section seems to apply here as well. I'm just not entirely sure what it is you want said that isn't already there in some form or another. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, and my point is the connection to the American Enlightenment should be made explicit either in its own section or in the several sections (as I said, there was not mention of Enlightenment at all, and one now limited mention is better but not full). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned in the "Religious views" section that Adams's religious views started to shift closer to the Enlightenment ideals in his old age. I checked the major biographies of Adams and they don't heavily emphasize his connection to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was categorized by deism, strong anti-monarchism, and anti-Christian themes. These did not suit Adams, and despite his role in the American Revolution and advocacy of republicanism, he was still a conservative. Ferling actually directly points out that Adams differed from Enlightenment figures Franklin and Jefferson through his lack of interest in science or mathematics. (p. 174) We must defer firstly to what Adams's biographers say, and if they don't emphasize his Enlightenment connections, neither should we. Two direct mentions is enough. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What? You said on the article talk page you have not read any biographies, except one, so it's difficult to credit your argument. This encyclopedia among others calls Adams central to the American Enlightnemnt. Finally, your understanding of the Enlightenment is cramped and borders on the absurd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Quickly typing "Enlightenment" into a Google books search of each of the major biographies yields few results. Also, Smith 1962 says, "In his letters to Benjamin Rush, Adams was caustic about the effects of Enlightenment thinking on the mass of the people." (p. 1077) You've been unable to produce a statement from a biographer portraying Adams as an important Enlightenment thinker, and yet I have produced two separate statements from two separate biographers which distinguish him from the Enlightenment theorists. True, I've only read one Adams biography cover to cover, but I've also read significant parts of other biographies which have helped me to further understand who Adams was. You seem not to have read significant parts of any biographies of him, and so in an argument between the two of us it's clear who has more credentials. Display name 99 (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'd really encourage you to start looking past material that just talks about the Enlightenment. Those sources are inevitably going to overemphasize the Enlightenment and aren't going to provide much of an understanding of Adams's life as a whole. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Your statements about me are not true, so there is nothing more to discuss, here. At any rate, this article is likely to fail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of the captions contain information that does not appear in the text and so should be cited - eg the last portrait

I couldn't verify what was in the caption for the medallion. I decided to remove it. I added a source for the last portrait. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:StatenIslandConference_By_Chappel.jpg needs a US PD tag

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, it seems most of Chappel's works were published during his lifetime in history books. Unfortunately, I cannot find one which uses this image. Display name 99 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• All images with a life+100 tag technically also need US PD tags

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Erkenning_onafhankelijkheid_Verenigde_Staten_foto2.JPG needs a tag for the original work

This image has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:John_Adams_by_Gilbert_Stuart,_c._1800-1815,_oil_on_canvas_-_National_Gallery_of_Art,_Washington_-_DSC09727.JPG: given PD-Art, CC0 doesn't make sense

Rmoeved. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• File:Alexander_Hamilton_By_William_J_Weaver.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

According to Chernow (2004), pp. 562-563, Hamilton sat for the portrait in 1799 and sent it to his friend Edward Stevens in St. Croix. I have been unable to find a reliable source indicating when it was first published. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the earliest known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I do not know. Display name 99 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with this and the other above is, if we can't verify a pre-1923 publication, we won't be able to use that particular tag. Is there another US PD tag that might apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. I've responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have no idea if another US PD tag would apply or not. This isn't something I'm familiar with. If we can't find where the images were first published, do we have to get rid of them? Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but we do need to know what is the earliest publication we can find, in order to determine what other tag might apply. I would assume that for both of these the initial publication would have been in the US, but would be nice to confirm that as well if at all possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't confirm anything. The information for both of these images on the Internet is slim and doesn't come from reliable sources. Display name 99 (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well, in that case we might well need to get rid of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. I replaced the Hamilton one with a different painting which seems to have all of the necessary material. Supposing there's nothing wrong with that, I assume that's all. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What is all this about? Paintings are not "published". The tags should be {{PD-US-unpublished}} or {{PD-old-70}}, surely? Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Published" has a technical meaning in copyright law - see copyright.gov. Use of the former tag would require confirming that publication didn't happen until after 2002, while the latter doesn't specify US status, which is not solely dependent on author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I know (about the technical meaning), but this is still bullshit. As regards the Hamilton, there are many, many versions, and the museum owning this one on Commons says it is Public Domain. But in any case a painting of c. 1800 is just not going to be in copyright. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If details are available to support a PD tag of some kind, the images can of course be re-added. While I agree it's unlikely (but not impossible) there is a valid copyright, the issue here is the lack of information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by L293D

Hey, I was driving by and so I figured I'd leave a comment. The sentence Driven by his devotion to the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence, he provided a successful, if unpopular, legal defense of the accused British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, despite severe local anti-British sentiment. could be reworded to improve the flow. Otherwise, the article's great. Nice work as always! L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

L293D, thank you for your note. That sentence has been slightly reworded. Is this all or do you wish to add any other comments or support the article's promotion? Display name 99 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's all. I changed my vote to support. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: While I appreciate the nominator's quick replies to issues raised thus far, it's clear that this is not quite prepared for FA status and would probably benefit from a peer review and more work on fit and finish. Therefore, I will be archiving it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. --Laser brain (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain, I find this decision to be extremely premature. The candidate has received one support vote and no oppose votes (AlanScottWalker's did not count as a review, he said so on the John Adams talk page). I was in the middle of responding to comments from Seraphim System and about ready to do an overhaul of the diplomacy section of the article in order to address concerns about length. The length of the article was the chief issue that was raised-and I was going to take care of it tomorrow by cutting material from the diplomacy section and creating a separate article, as two editors have suggested (see the article talk page). Wehwalt was planning on giving a full review but now does not have the chance. This is way too soon. The nominator should at least be given the chance to address the concerns raised by reviewers before the nomination is closed, and I clearly did not have that. Is there any procedure to appeal? Sarastro1, since you have monitored previous FACs that I have submitted, do you approve of the decision to close the review after one support vote, no oppose votes, and while I was still the middle of responding to the concerns addressed by other reviewers? Display name 99 (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain has given a rationale - I suggest you do more work on the article along the lines mentioned, then bring it to PR, trying to entice those who have begun reviews to join there. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.