Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas R. Marshall/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 SandyGeorgia 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].

Thomas R. Marshall

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is an article I have spent considerable time working on during the last four months. I have read three books on the subject, and did a significant amount of research on the topic. I started working on the article as part of my personal project on expanding all the articles for the Governors of Indiana. The article is comprehensive, well sourced, and has been through two thorough GA reviews, and a number of copy edits. Marshall was the VP under Woodrow Wilson and has a facinating story, and played an important role (or rather a lack of a role which was in itself a role) in the shaping the direction of the USA foreign policy following World War I. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and is worthy of the star. I will work to quickly resolve any issues that may arise and look forward to any feedback. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of correcting three small reference errors, the two about newspaper and magazine titles being italicised should be remembered for your next FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule that allowed filibusters to be ended by a two-thirds majority vote–a variation of this important rule that still remains in effect." The bit after the dash makes no sense. As far as I can tell, the "that" is superfluous, but I stand open to clarification as to what meaning was actually intended.
  • "Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials, including cabinet officials and Congressional leaders; but Marshall refused to forcibly assume the Presidency for fear of setting a precedent." Misused semi-colon.
  • Redundancy: "Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule..." (if it wasn't successful, he didn't really have the body adopt it), "...he opened a new Indianapolis law practice..." (what other kind of law practice does one open?)
  • Bloat: "...helped him later secure the nomination and win the election to serve as Governor of Indiana." (or, in succinct-speak, "helped him later win election as Governor of Indiana"), "To remedy the situation and enable critical wartime legislation to be passed..."
  • Passive voice: "Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials..."
I'm going to try to copyedit the entire article, though I make no promises, but I think it needs at least one other full copyedit as well. Steve Smith (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any copy copy editting would be greatly appreciated! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Looking back on my comments, I think I must have been in a bad mood last night. I stand by my statement that the article needs a lot of work (on the prose - the research and organization are top-notch), but I could certainly have communicated that in a pleasanter manner. My apologies, and kudos to you for graciously receiving even ungracious criticism. Anyway, I'm continuing my copyedit.

No need to apoligize! A critical review is by far the most valuable to me, my goal being the improvement of articles. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He successfully advocated the passage of a child labor law and anti-corruption legislation, but was unsuccessful in passing most of his progressive platform through the state legislature or getting the legislature to call a convention to rewrite the state constitution to expand the government’s regulatory powers." This sentence is too long, and I'm not exactly sure what the second part means (is it related to the first part?). Given that the entire next section deals with his constitutional initiative, does it need to be mentioned here?
    • I guess that is a bit confusing since it expects the reader to have a grasp of the progressive platform. The two items he suceeded in passing where part of that platform, but everythign else in the platform he failed to achieve. Most of it he was attempting to achieve through the writing of the new consitution, which he saw as a way to cirumvent the General Assembly and take the issues directly to the voters, who he was convinced to support the measure. I broke it up, and tied the two parts together better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...had it been adopted, large parts would have probably been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts." I'd suggest attributing this; without attribution, it strikes me as POV. If it's the opinion of a consensus of legal experts, and you have the sources to demonstrate that, describe it as such a consensus.
    • Point taken, I attriubted to quotes to their makers directly. Although i have not explicity read it, it does seem to be a consensus though. Had he got the consitution passed, at least two sections would have been unconsitutional and foricibly repealed by the federal court, leaving the state in a bad sitution and handicapping the government in adopting new legislation, since he delegated that to the electorate in his consitution. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a little ahead of myself with this one, but should the boxes detailing the results of the 1912 and 1916 elections include the names of the presidential nominees, maybe in parentheses? It seems a little odd to say that Marshall beat Johnson by two million votes, when it seems like what actually happened was that Wilson beat Taft. I understand the technicalities involved, and I know it's no more technically correct to say that Wilson beat Taft than to say that Marshall beat Johnson, but it seems like context that the reader might find useful. Steve Smith (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished a first run copyedit. I'll try another in a few days once I have some more distance from the article. In the meantime, I'd repeat my urging that you try to find another hitherto uninvolved copyeditor. About 98% of the work required to make this article featured has been done, and it would be a tragedy to see it fail due to insufficient copyediting. One specific issue that you should deal with is the inconsistency in the capitalization of positions like "Vice President". Steve Smith (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will see if I can find a willing copy editor. To be honest though, they are our rarest editors and frequently busy on other things, I find. I have never had much luck in getting assistance in that department. Thanks for efforts to copy edit the article! It is appreciated. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting very close. I've done another copyedit, and I think the prose is close to there, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting if another pair of uninvolved eyes looked it over, as I've become quite close to the article. A few remaining points:
    • The inconsistent capitalization of positions like governor and vice president, as well as presidency, and the inconsistent hyphenation of "vice presidency", need to be fixed.
    • "...they believed that to go through the procedure while his parents were still living would appear awkward to the public." "Awkward" seems, well, awkward. Is there a better adjective? "Questionable"? "Scandalous"?
    • The lead suggests that it was a personal and ideological rift that caused Wilson to move Marshall's office, while the body says it's because Marshall made ill-advised jokes to passers by.
      • The event that was the final trigger was the jokes to passers by, and those on top of many other such incidents. This was coupled with the the idealogical rift. I have changed the wording in the lead to better clarify this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considerably more optimistic now than I was previously that I will be able to support this. Steve Smith (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple requests and Reywas92 has made a generous offer. So hopefully someone will soon oblige. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, one more thing (it never ends...). As I understand it, the advent of infoboxes made succession boxes obsolete, but this article contains both. This obviously isn't something worth holding up an FAC over (at least, I don't think it is), but I'm wondering if there's a reason. This article might already be good enough to earn my support, and I've struck my oppose, but I'm going to way a day or two before looking at the prose again with fresh eyes, to make sure it's as good as I think it is now. Steve Smith (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree they are redundant. They are on almost every US politician article I have ever edited though, so I have always left them. (The succession boxes are about the only part of the article that is still the same as when I started editting). I have hidden the boxes for now while I look for a a guideline for this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
  • Support. I think we're there, though I'd still welcome another copyeditor's participation. Steve Smith (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Charles, for another fantastic Indiana-related article!! I'd be happy to do a copyedit, however well I can. One concern is the pictures: The lead image is just a head crop of the image under World War I. What about File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG or File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg? Reywas92Talk 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG, but I have not been able to locate a source for the image. I think it is from the Indiana Historical Society, which is a private organization. And judging by his appearance it is almost certainly pre-1923. I would guess it to be about 1902, but I need to locate something that says that before it can go in the article. File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg looks very good I hadn't seen it before. It is LoC, so we could it instead. You are also more than welcome to try your hand at copy editting! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: "On settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school for the first time." -> "Upon settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school." Use upon, and it isn't notable that it was the first time because he was only six or so anyway, right?
  • For the caption "The Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana", it should be a given that it's in Indianapolis.
  • For what it's worth, I wouldn't have been able to name the capital of Indiana (though I'd probably have guessed Indianapolis), and I think I'm more conversant than your average non-American with American geography. Steve Smith (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "senate gallery" be capitalized?
  • For the electoral history, I think the Presidential elction boxes should clarify that the first name listed is for Vice President, and that they should include electoral votes.
  • It's fine, but also big and cluttered. I was actually thinking the original template with the number of electoral votes in parentheses next to the popular, but whatever you think. Reywas92Talk 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this link, although short, be included? And can you use that portrait? I think it's old enough.
  • I thought I already had that link on there, but I didn't! I will add it. I considered the image before, but it is not a really good photograph of the portrait, it looks really dark, and you can only make out about half the detail. I am going to Indy in the winter, I intend to make a photo trip out of it, I will try and get a good picutre of the portrait. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Charles' defense, I'm the one who changed "upon" to "on". I have no particular preference for one over the other, besides a general belief that fewer syllables is better, but I've seen Tony1 recommend that change in other FACs, and I figure he's the pro. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I don't think that sounds right either. Surely you wouldn't say its converse "I found your letter on arriving home." "I found your letter upon arriving home" makes more sense, as on can also imply about. Reywas92Talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sound fine to me. According to dictionaries, both are correct; it comes down to personal preference. My preference, as well as Tony1's, is for "on" (though in cases where "on" would create ambiguity, as in the ones you cite above, I'd go with "upon"; ambiguity's not an issue here, though). Yours is for "upon". It's not worth holding up the FAC either way. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I Support. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thomas_R._Marshall/archive1&oldid=1056572593"