Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Matthew Quay/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [1].

Matthew Quay

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Matthew Quay, the powerful senator and political boss from Pennsylvania, who dominated politics there for twenty years at the turn of the 20th century. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:James_Donald_Cameron_Brady-Handy.jpg: the description is referencing an information template that doesn't appear to be the one currently present
Added a link to the image page at loc.gov.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1929 so I've added that. I don't believe that affects PD status since it was copyright 1904. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

This article tips the scales at not much short of 10,000 words, but there is no padding or superfluity as far as I can see. It is undeniably thorough, is well and widely referenced, and an excellent read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. Just three small points, none of which affect my support:

  • "he was admitted to the bar" – perhaps a link for those unfamiliar with American (or English) legal terminology? It isn't self explanatory.
  • "committed suicide" – you use the term apropos of J. Blake Walters. Fine with me but there is or was an editor going around furiously denouncing the phrase, maintaining that it is somehow derogatory. Perhaps safer to say "killed himself", though I am very far from pressing the point.
  • "implora pacem" – it is many, many years since I did Latin at school (so long ago that it was still more or less a modern language at the time) and memory may deceive me, but "implora pacem" looks like the imperative to me rather than the first person singular. I think it is bidding the reader "Beg for peace!", rather than telling us that the late-lamented is doing so.

Nothing to detain us there, and I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 12:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. The sources translate the Latin as "pray for peace" and it is in the imperative. I've dealt with the others. Thank you for the review and support."--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • The Gibbons link returns a 403 error
I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox and succession templates don't appear to be sourced in the text
I query if succession boxes are properly part of the article, but I've removed the ones unsourced in the article and added the necessary refs to the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What content are the refs in the infobox subheads meant to cover - just the position, or more? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quay influenced appointments to thousands of state and federal positions in Pennsylvania" - source?
That's from the "Appraisal" section, sourced to Blair pages 81 and 82.==Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his political machine ... continued until Penrose's own death in 1921" - source? The text supports that Penrose managed it until 1921, but not that it stopped after that
That's been rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: the homepage states that this is a student-created site - what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
The page says "The above sketch of Matthew Stanley Quay's career is an extension of the remarks of W. Scott Moore at the former residence of Senator Quay on the Historical Walking Tour of the Beaver Heritage Foundation on July 4, 1968.".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Moore, and how was it extended? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a lawyer. But I think the website of a local historical society about their most prominent historical citizen (and about whom they recently ran an exhibit) is reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think things are that clear-cut - the author is unlikely to qualify as an expert per SPS with the information we have, whatever he created has been extended through an unknown process, and the site is stated to be student-created. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get rid of it over the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn5: the full original citation should be provided - Issuu can be credited using |via=
  • What makes GenWeb a high-quality reliable source?
I think it's good enough for a point of local history. It appears to be a non-profit with review at the county level.
Reviewed by whom and using what criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source describes the author as a historian. Other google and newspaper.com sources make it clear she has written extensively on local history in St. Lucie County, and I see bylines where she publishes under the name of the St. Lucie Historical Society, and is a published author in local history. Works published by an expert are acceptable under WP:RS, and given her many publications in the field, I'd suggest it to be high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN81 doesn't need both work and publisher
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
I think that's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Ershkowitz a high-quality reliable source?
He's a professor emeritus in history at Temple who has published extensively.
Chapman has been deleted from the article except as further reading. Evans's thesis was republished by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission as a book and there are a number of scholarly reviews of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, were you intending to respond to these? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, give me a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how does this one look now? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few points pending above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt. Are Nikkimaria's pending points sorted yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. I removed the questionable Beaver County source and she didn't respond to what I said about the qualifications of Jean E. Wilson, so I assumed she was satisfied with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I’ve been away and haven’t been able to do my usual reviewing. So I’d appreciate a week perhaps to drum up some support. Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "Matthew Stanley Quay was born in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania on" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • "He was admitted to the bar October 13, 1854 in" — Missing MOS:DATECOMMA

Half article done and nothing substantial to pick, just these two points! Will continue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a deficit of about $250,000, — Could we adjust according to the {{Inflation}} value.
  • "Quay eclipsed Senator Don Cameron in the Pennsylvania Republican Party." — Fix the disambiguation link in the image description
  • " Quay's personal secretary, "There was a general feeling that Colonel Quay was nearer the people [than Cameron]"" — I think we can say this in Wikipedia's voice attributing to the personal secretary without needing to directly quote him.
  • " the New York World" — Our article italicizes 'New York' as well.
  • Suggesting to use this cropped file.

Thats all. A very well researched article, just a few minor nitpicks, none of which prevent my support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the personal secretary. Since it is from a sourced inclined to be partial toward Quay, I'd rather keep it as a quote. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

[edit]

I have a bit of time today and will try to look at this. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cameron lieutenant (1872–1879): "The maneuver backfired, as Philadelphians were resentful it was not filled by one of their own." I was expecting a little more details about the effects of it having backfired, but the narrative seems to move on immediately to other things. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic in history to have caught some of the implications in the narrative.
The sources don't go into detail on this one. McClure says "Quay soon discovered the the office he had wrung from the legislature weakened rather than strengthened his power as there was very general disapproval not only of the creation of the office of recorder but of filling it with a political leader from Western Pennsylvania." Kehl, which cites to McClure, isn't more detailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1888 presidential campaign: "Harrison credited "Providence" with his victory, a remark which prompted Quay to state that "Providence hadn't a damn thing to do with it,"[81] adding that that Harrison would never know how close to the gates of the penitentiary some of his supporters had come to make him president." <-- I wonder if there's a typo in the second half of this sentence because I had trouble understanding it. In any case, could you rewrite it to make it a little simpler? Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read this sentence again, and I guess if you remove the repeated "that" it makes sense. I don't know if there's still a possibility/need to simplify the sentence any, and will leave it to you to judge. Moisejp (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a "that". I'm trying to avoid an extended quote here in favor of describing part of it (especially since the sources are consistent on the first part, that I do quote, but less so on the second).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battles with Wanamaker; fight for re-election (1896–1901): According to McClure, "it was the desertion of Quay by Hanna in the contest for Quay's admission to the Senate that made Roosevelt the nominee for Vice-President against his own earnest protest, and thus made him President of the United States." Is this referring to Roosevelt's becoming president due to McKinley's assassination? This incident is not mentioned in the narrative until the following section (unless I missed it), which could confuse readers. I admit I was confused by that bit when I first read it. Moisejp (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems more natural to me to mention the consequences of Quay's pique against Hanna at the convention at the time (especially since the fact that TR succeeded McKinley is well known) rather than break it up and come back to it later. Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all readers will be Americans who have learned the succession of all the U.S. presidents in school. Still, I understand in this case it would disrupt the chronological narrative to mention the assassination earlier, so I concede leaving it as it is may be imperfect but still possibly the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my first read-through and will now start my second. Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished my second read-through and am happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. I believe the article to FA quality. Moisejp (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've made it through maybe two thirds of my first reading in this sitting. I hope to have little bits of time this weekend to finish the first reading at least, and a probably quicker second reading hopefully within the few days after. So far the prose seems good, and I expect I'll support, but the article is not short, and I probably won't be able to give an equivocal support within the three-to-four day window you were asking for. If the deadline could be extended a few more days or so, that would be great. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp and thank you for the ping. Given your comments, Wehwalt's request and Kavyansh.Singh's placeholder I am happy to extend the deadline; let us leave this open for now, rather than being unnecessarily precise. But I won't be relooking at this balefully for another seven days; hopefully by then archiving will be off the agenda.
I have created a separate section for this to avoid the possibility of one of my colleagues closing the nomination without noticing my comment. Could you continue your review in the section above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "After Quay's death, his political machine was taken over by his fellow Pennsylvania senator, Boies Penrose, and continued until Penrose's own death in 1921." It is not clear what continued, the machine or Penrose's control over it.
Both. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matthew was named for General Matthew Stanley, who raised Catherine McCain after her parents died, and was one of eight children and the oldest son to reach adulthood." Also ambiguous. Presumably it was Matthew who was one of 8 children, but this is not clear.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but was it usual for someone with no military experience to be made a colonel?
In the context of the early days of the American Civil War, relatively high officer rank was often given to those appointed by state governors or the people who organized the regiment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beyond personal leadership of the boss". by the boss?
I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few words explaining Robert Mackey would be helpful. You imply he was important without clarifying his role.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a letter from campaign treasurer William W. Dudley". Treasurer for which party?
  • " President Cleveland refused to sign it, letting it pass into law without his signature." So what was the system? Did legislation not need the president's approval?
Under the US Constitution, if the president does not sign or veto a bill within ten days (not counting Sundays) of when it is presented to him, it becomes a law without his signature, although if Congress has adjourned during that time, it does not become a law. Presidents have often used the device of not signing a bill to indicate some level of dissatisfaction short of actually vetoing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In recognition of his efforts towards New Mexico statehood, there is a Quay County in New Mexico". If these were significant enough to have a county named after him, should the article not have more infomration about them?
I'll write a few sentences about it. It may not be until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really certain myself. It seemed worth including though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete if you cannot clarify what it means. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that part of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for the article, not my typical topic. I normally make minor changes, but was offline when I wrote it two days ago flying to NJ. Things may have changed since, and - on vacation - I have no time to check again right now, nor read the comments above.

Infobox

  • do we need the two "vacant" positions?
    Yes, since he was the senator on both sides of the vacancy. The alternatives would be to show him as continuously senator from 1887 to 1904 (not true) or show himself as his own predecessor or successor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familar with these succesions, - wouldn't it be possible to just omit the line, as "vacant" being the default then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

  • I normally have references under notes.

Early

  • I wonder if we might first learn about where the father's family came from, then about their children
  • I don't think we need the mother's full name two sentences in a row, "his mother's" would do the second time
    I've played some with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd get the "he" away from the Penney quote, because it's ambiguous could mean Quai until you read further
  • In the sentence following the quote, it should be Quai, as Penney was the subject before

Politics

  • no idea what "Ways and Means Committee" means but may be the only one

Cameron

  • I'd prefer the image a bit lower where it wouldn't displace the text

Rise

  • I don't get the connection of the quote in the box to the financial scandal

1988

  • I'd make the pic a tad larger, or see nothing

Cleveland

  • comma needed after Ohio

Final

  • comma needed after Penn

Family

  • the pic should be smaller to not displace the next header
  • comma after Oklahoma

All these are minor points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if I haven't commented on something, I've just done it. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (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/Matthew_Quay/archive1&oldid=1122511872"