Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millard Fillmore/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) 10:08, 21 January 2017 [1].

Millard Fillmore

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... perhaps the most obscure US president. Although Fillmore is often mocked today, in his time he was clearly no small person. For one thing, he started his career by winning as a non-incumbent three times against a Democratic Party with two of the most skilled politicians of the 19th century heading the ticket, Jackson and Van Buren. He went on from there, and there is far more than comedy show mocking to Fillmore.Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • but one beyond the powers of government, in contrast to Seward, who was openly hostile towards that practice.—not sure that "contrast" is right here, since it follows a statement about government rights but appears to refer to slavery
  • The Fugitive Slave Act was a controversial part of the Compromise—it would help if the central issue was explained here. It's a key event and one shouldn't have to follow the link
  • He helped to found the University of Buffalo and serving as its first chancellor. —grammar
  • General William O. Butler his running mate—should it be "retired General" or are serving officers allowed to enter politics in the US?
They were then, apparently. Taylor didn't resign until early 1849. We're pretty loose on courtesy titles for former serving military.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albany Evening Journal. —italics for Albany
  • Captions and headings shouldn't normally have the subject's name unless it's necessary to avoid confusion, eg two people shown
Are we talking about "Plaques to Fillmore"? "Plaques" alone seemed confusing.
Thank you for the review. I think I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I made myself clear in the second bullet point. In the lead, you say that the Fugitive Slave Act was controversial, but I had to follow the link to see that the reason for that was that Free states had to return fugitives. It would have helped if there were a few words to that effect. What about "Memorial plaques"? (FWIW, if you really don't want to change that heading, it's not a huge deal) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that clearer and made the change on plaques.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The fugitive slave bit may be obvious to US readers, but that helps non-Americans. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes very possible to overlook the obvious while writing, as I suspect we all know. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maile

I've been reading through this since yesterday. Just a few minor things.

Congressman
  • "Until 1933, Congress convened its annual session in December" Is there a better way to start the sentence, perhaps with a footnote? I thought maybe you meant 1833, but did some checking through Wikipedia and got more confused. Wikipedia has all Congressional sessions being 2-year sessions running March to March until 1933. The 72nd Congress is listed as March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933, and the 73rd Congress is listed as March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935 like there was no break between 1931 and 1935.
  • "his anti-slavery views were stronger than Fillmore's" - What were Fillmore's position on this? First mention, I think.
Tragedy and political turmoil (1853–1855)
  • "The fact that he was in mourning limited his social activities, allowing him to make ends meet on the income from his investments." - not sure the limitations on his social life "allowed" him, as much his deriving income from investments was necessitated by his state of mourning.
  • "Fillmore was not himself anti-Catholic" Contrast that with the quote under the "National figure" section: "after his defeat blamed it on "foreign Catholics"." I get it both directions, in that one was about immigrants and the other his local environment. But given the times we've lived through, Fillmore comes across like, "Some of my best friends are ... " when public statements contradict personal life. Is there a way to reword either of those?
I've cut this passage. Given how far away we are in time and the difficulty of knowing how he really felt, it's best to stick to what he did.

You're right about there being more to Fillmore than the public generally knows. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well researched, well written, interesting and informative. A good read that gives us insight into a presidency that history often ignores. Good job. — Maile (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
I'd rather keep it as it is the best representation we have of how Fillmore looked in his congressional years.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can list it at the graphics lab if you like, but technical work on images is not one of my skills.
That would be great Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. They seem to work quickly over there, judging by last few requests.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we have. I'm mildly more inclined to keep it than to ax it but will if you feel strongly.
I definitely would say ax it, though only because it's hard to tell where he is in the pic Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cut the last two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, lack of known authors makes me worried, even if File:Fillmore2.JPG is in public domain
Isn't it published before 1923 in the US?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it helps to know who exactly was the original creator (which clearly isn't the uploader) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to the lede photograph, but it shows how he looked in the Civil War era, which is what is being discussed. Again, my views are not strong on the matter but I'd keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. I personally would remove, especially since there's the statue photo right below it (again, try not to overstuff edges or corners with images) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the statue with the obelisk shot, which breaks that up and also moves the statue next to where it is mentioned. On consideration, given we only have two photographs of Fillmore, I'm inclined to make every effort to keep them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all of them. I might come back later with comments on other aspects of the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get to these later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done generally as you ask. I've made a number of changes, not all of which are catalogued above. See what you think. Your comments would be very welcome indeed, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looking better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, I think I've addressed all your concerns, assuming the graphics lab performs as admirably as they usually do.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The graphics lab did quite well :). Images all set! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I fixed a couple of tiny errors in page numbering, but everything else looks OK in that regard. The sources are all of high quality, no problems there. The only thing that I would fix is that you're inconsistent in adding the publication locations in your Works Cited section. Other than that, this is good to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done that. Much obliged for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • "Nathaniel Fillmore was not a successful farmer, and hoping his oldest son would learn a trade, apprenticed him at age fourteen to cloth maker Benjamin Hungerford in Sparta, New York," is quite a mouthful, and I'm pretty sure the comma after "New York" should be a period.
  • "But Fillmore left Wood after 18 months" is a fragment. None of the words from "FANBOYS" (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) should be used to start sentences.
  • "lock the nation's limited supply of gold money away from commerce,." has a stray comma
  • You probably meant to say "Finkelman" when typing "Fillmore biographer Paul Winkelman"
  • "In September 1850, Fillmore appointed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leader Brigham Young as the first governor of Utah Territory. In gratitude, Young named the first territorial capital 'Fillmore' and the surrounding county 'Millard'." seems rather short on its own as a paragraph
  • For "He was not yet done with tragedy: on July 26, 1854, his only daughter Mary died of cholera", Mary was already linked earlier, and I'm not so sure how I feel about "done with tragedy". Maybe try something like "He was further saddened by his daughter Mary's death from cholera on July 26, 1854" or "He was also saddened by his daughter Mary's death from cholera on July 26, 1854".
  • "While in Europe, he met with Pope Pius IX in Rome. Fillmore carefully weighed the political advantages and disadvantages of meeting with Pius, and nearly withdrew from the meeting when told he would have to kneel and kiss the pope's hand. To avoid this, Pius remained seated throughout the meeting." also seems a bit short as a separate paragraph
  • "He differed less with the Democratic candidate, former Pennsylvania senator James Buchanan; the two men had similar views on slavery"..... what did he and Buchanan agree on?
  • Try not to have images leak into other sections. You can avoid this by moving them up in sections or placing {{-}} at the end so they remain more intact.

I thankfully don't see any glaring issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good. Thank you for the review. I've done those things. I've left the two short paragraphs as they stand, though, as they don't fit well into the other paragraphs and aren't worth expanding. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. One last thing: Regarding "In 1819, he took advantage of a time of little work at the mill to enroll at a new academy in the town, where he met his fellow student, Abigail Powers, and fell in love with her", saying "his student" implies he was Abigail's teacher. Did you mean "his classmate", or did he in fact teach her at the academy? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it says "fellow student". Doesn't that convey they were students together?.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, let's go with "met and fell in love with his classmate Abigail Powers", which is less wordy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done with a slight variation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support this is now worthy of becoming FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Greatly appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Coemgenus

[edit]

Overall, an excellent article, as usual. I have a few comments.

Both, apparently. I didn't want to get into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, best left alone then. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. I've taken care of those except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weed had sought to get the vice presidential nomination..." Could that just be "Weed had sought the vice presidential nomination..." or is that too old-fashioned sounding?
  • The popular vote: it might be worth writing an endnote explaining that not all states decided their electoral votes by popular election in 1848.
  • "Abolitionists recited the inequities of the law..." I'm not sure "inequities" is right here. "Unfairness," maybe? Or did you mean "iniquities"?
"recited the unfairness"? Not sure that works. I'm phrasing it that way because what they say doesn't have to be as NPOV.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's something that bothers me about the text, but I'm not sure it can be remedied while staying within NPOV and all that.
Greatly appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

[edit]
  • Support - Very impressive, especially wrt the depth and breath of research, the firm establishment of setting and historical context, an authoritative grasp of narrative, and the overall standard of writing - a joy to read. I have made some edits during a read through that you are free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Display name 99

[edit]

General

  • There are several instances within the article in which a period ending a sentence in quotation marks is placed outside of the quotation. On Wikipedia it is common practice to place punctuation that is not part of the quote, for instance, commas, or periods used to end a sentence but coming after a quotation which itself was not at the end of a sentence, outside of the quotation marks. However, I feel that should be different when a period is being used to end a complete sentence that is being quoted. Wouldn't that make the period part of the sentence, meaning that it should be placed inside the quotation marks along with the rest of it?
Can you be specific? I generally only include punctuation inside if it's a full sentence.
Wehwalt, sorry-I forgot about this. Let us take for example the first sentence under "Legacy and historical view", which reads:
"No president of the United States ... has suffered as much ridicule as Millard Fillmore".
This looks like a full sentence. Unless it isn't one, the period should go inside the quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the ellipsis. I'm happy to go either way on it, but that's why I didn't put it inside.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "the two quarreled when Fillmore earned a small sum by advising a farmer in a minor lawsuit." Why was this a problem? Did they have some kind of prior agreement that Fillmore wouldn't take any money? If so, this should be explained.
It's still an apprentice setting up shop against his master. That's frowned on in most professions. I don't know if it was specifically addressed; Snyder speaks of the two disagreed about whether Fillmore had the right to go "pettifogging" before justices of the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo politician

  • The last sentence says that he was active in the New York Militia. You might want to mention when he joined.
The sources cited don't say. I will research the matter further when I'm home on Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of my sources mention it. His letter of resignation (1830) states that he had joined some years earlier, but it was too much of a time and financial commitment.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely clear through what time Fillmore served in the New York Legislature. I first got the impression that he was elected in 1828. It goes on to say that he was elected for three-one year terms. The first sentence of the "Congressman" section says that he resigned from the legislature after the 1831 session-only two years later.
Elected in the fall but did not take office until January 1829, then 1830 and 1831. I'll tweak the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Election of 1848

  • Have you any idea how Fillmore reacted to his nomination?
I don't have anything on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a good idea to give the percentages of how much each candidate won.
Done.

Domestic affairs

  • The article mentions that Dorothea Dix wrote to Fillmore advocating asylum reform, and that this began a friendship. Did Fillmore ever act on Dix's request?
She wanted his support in Congress. Her proposal did not pass, one reason she moved on to Europe. I'll clarify.

Later life and death

  • Didn't Fillmore voice his opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation? If so, this should be mentioned in the context of his overall opposition to Lincoln.
Not as far as I know. The sources I can access from here don't mention it. I'll be home Thursday, the bigly traffic jam for the inauguration permitting, and I'll check more sources. Pierce tended to be the loudest of the ex-presidents, none of whom were very helpful to Lincoln.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in any of my sources that says he opposed the proclamation. Finkleman says he opposed emancipation, but I think that's more general.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Overall, the article looks good. I will be prepared to support it if these issues are properly addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. With the exception of the matters I need to research further, I've done or explained in all cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. Please ping me once you have dealt with the remaining matters. Display name 99 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, I've responded to the remaining points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is comprehensive and well cited. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Promoting but I noticed a few duplinks using Ucucha's checker, so perhaps check those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2017 (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/Millard_Fillmore/archive1&oldid=761256880"