Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William H. Seward/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) 19:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William H. Seward

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... William Seward, who in addition to being one of the most important secretaries of state, had a lengthy career as senator and governor of New York. Perhaps best remembered for "Seward's Folly"--the purchase of Alaska--he did as much as any one did to prevent foreign intervention in the American Civil War, that could have reversed the result.Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well written biography of an important figure. It's well organized and based on a variety of serious academic sources. I have a few stylistic comments:

After "United States" is used once I like to use "U.S." to minimize redundancy. I wish our country had a less clunky name, of course.
"ill-treatment" I don't think this would be hyphenated?
"illegally-cast ballots" I don't like hyphenating after an adverb.
"In that era, the annual message by the New York governor was published and discussed to an extent that only a president's would be today." I like this.

It was a very different world.

"slavecatchers" Is this even a word? I've never heard it and Merriam-Webster doesn't include it.
"former president Adams" Something here should be capitalized, shouldn't it?

I am told not to capitalize "president" when it is not used directly as a title.

Sumner attack — is this due weight? It's a whole paragraph which gives little attention to Seward.

It's one of the major events that separated the sections, and Seward played a minor role in it. I'm inclined to give it full length. People still learn about the Sumner beating in school today, even if they know nothing else about Sumner.

"Lincoln faced three major opponents: A split in the Democratic Party" Every style guide says not to capitalize after a colon.
"On Election Day, Lincoln carried most Northern states, Breckenridge all Southern, Bell three border states, and Douglas Missouri—the only state Seward campaigned in that Lincoln did not win." This sentence is pretty messy and confusing.
"By then, he was known to be Secretary of State-designate" Nice to see my cameo in this article, but most style guides would put either a dash before it, or hyphens throughout.
"he would retire, as too old to bear the years of warfare in the Republican Party that would result" I don't think "warfare" is ever the right word for intrasectional squabbles.

Stevens didn't mince words. I don't think I should tone it down. Stevens defies being toned down.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and the ultra [that is, Radical] Republicans" Nice.
"Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor" This is the first time in my life I've seem "x harbor" and it sounds weird to me. It's either a proper capitalized term or a neologism we'd like to avoid ("the harbor at Charleston"?).
"Lincoln drafted a reply indicating that whatever policy was adopted, "I must do it", though he never sent it, but met with Seward instead, and what passed between them is not known." This could live comfortably as two sentences.
"When in April 1861, the Confederacy announced that it would authorize privateers, Seward sent word to the American representatives abroad that the U.S. would become party to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856, outlawing such vessels, but Britain required that, if the U.S. were to become a party, the rectification would no require action to be taken against Confederate vessels." This sentence is much too long, although I'm glad to see "U.S." at this point in the article.
"former slave Harriet Tubman" Is there a better false title for Tubman?
"William Seward rests" I thought this was a word to avoid but I'm too lazy to check...

I've used it many times, McKinley for example. For one thng, it saves the research on the grave/mausoleum thing "buried"--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Seward remained controversial in death, dividing his contemporaries." This sentence seems wrong to me; by being controversial he's dividing someone, in death I'd assume by his contemporaries.
"One, "John Quincy Adams Seward" dreamed" Is there a comma missing here?
"The other, "Thurlow Weed Seward", cut backroom deals over cigars and a bottle, and was a pragmatist who often settled for half a loaf when the whole was not achievable." I like this paragraph.
I like the footnotes/citations division exactly as-is.
The "further reading" section seems like old Wikipedia design-by-committee style. I think you'll know what I mean. —Designate (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll work through these in the next few days. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of these except where noted. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review [Light version]

No image here can possibly have copyright concerns (Well, the medal theoretically could, but I checked, and it didn't). I haven't checked the image description pages, and it's possible one is misdocumented, but I'm quite certain of the copyright status of everything. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Robinson medal was shown by the coin dealer who's been kind enough to grant us a license, oh, a year ago, and I was just waiting for the chance to use it! Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great asset to the article, and breaks up the [largely necessary] monotony of the image types a bit, which is always good. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing in full:

Because of a screwy Wikipedia bug, converting File:Seward_full_face.tif to JPEG will make it clearer and sharper. Wikipedia only sharpens JPEG thumbnails. It's a pain, I know. Also, I'd be inclined to leave it uncropped - that's his actual signature below the image in the original.
I said I'd do restorations of a couple images. That's still happening, I just needed a wikibreak for a little bit. I've started on the lead image; think it's already a lot nicer. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Very, very minor things. I haven't reviewed text or sources, so I won't declare support, which is a positive statement, but I found no significant issues, and I see no reason why this shouldn't pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I changed that tif to a jpg.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

As usual, my focus is on references and reference formatting:

The two letters from the University of Rochester special collection don't appear to have their reference entries formatted in any way. Once that's taken care of, if these have been assigned an OCLC number or any other identifier, that's especially helpful for historical documents that aren't readily available.
The two subdivisions of the bibliography aren't formatted the same way. "Books" is indented and appears without punctuation; "Other sources" is not indented and has a closing colon.

They use the cite templates, cite web for the books and cite web or journal for the others. There was a colon missing that I supplied

You mix ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. The ISBN converter makes that an exceedingly easy fix.
My reading of the manual of style suggests that the internal quotation marks in the title of the Valone source should be replaced with single quote marks (as it appears withing the double quote marked title).
I'm not fond of this sort of expansive Further Reading section; if these other sources have novel information not adequately presented in the article, then they should be referenced, and that information included. In general, I try to avoid just listing random other material on the topic unless there's something significant about the works. That there are nearly as many sources included in Further Reading as actually cited in the article raises a concern about whether this represents a comprehensive survey of the literature.

Axed it as Designate also flagged it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the External Links. Things like the Project Gutenberg link, I find entirely appropriate. On the other hand, I'm not sure what's gained by linking to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on the topic, and so on.

Outside of referencing, I'm a bit concerned that the "Legacy" section is entirely silent on memorials or commemorations. While I realize there are quite a few, some brief overview in prose would be nice, instead of just the See Also link. That would also allow mention of things like the 1909 postage stamp commemorating Seward, issued in conjunction with the Alaska–Yukon–Pacific Exposition. Speaking of the See Also link, having a single article to cover both works by Seward and memorials to Seward does not strike me as conventional practice. I have not reviewed the prose at all, and remain neutral on promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to these. I intentionally excluded the various memorials because if you include them, there is no end to them and you open up a loophole that people drive road trains through. I speak from long experience here. Without begin the total bad guy, you cannot prevent such a section from growing indefinitely. If I have a KB to work with it, I'd rather spend it on something relevant, rather than there's a statue of him in some small town. They have a sub article. I'll work through the others later. I'll have a word with the stamp people, otherwise I will finish these up within a couple of days. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done what you asked, or objected to it! Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk)

Support – Wehwalt has had to put up with occasional muttering from colleagues about excessive length, but this article is superbly concise yet comprehensive, and meets all FA criteria, in my view. Top-notch stuff! Tim riley talk 20:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As an assiduous peer-reviewer of this article I had my full say there. I have one caveat here: all my dictionaries, including OED, OD of E etc, give "ill-treatment" as a hyphenated word. Unless there is a specific AMEng usage minus the hyphen, it should be restored. Otherwise, this is another sterling contribution to WP's account of 19th century political American history. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that change Thanks for the review and support,--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

On Election Day, Lincoln was elected, carrying most Northern states. Breckenridge took the Deep South, Bell three border states, and Douglas Missouri—the only state Seward campaigned in that Lincoln did not win. Lincoln was elected. Isn't this last sentence a bit redundant?

Mildly, but the reader should't have to do the math. Rephrased slightly.

Better, but no math is involved since you've already told the reader that he was elected and then break down the voting. Tell the reader that Lincoln was elected either at the beginning or the end; not both.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<rant>I believe that the 10 vs. 13-digit ISBN issue is a "foolish consistency" in the Emersonian sense and that it's a waste of time, even with the tool, to standardize on one format alone. So long as the number works to locate the material referenced, I don't care what length is used and see no need to convert perfectly valid 10-digit numbers to the 13-digit format.</rant>

Especially since they are unique ...

CSS Alabama was not an ironclad, merely a ship with an iron hull, and was one of a number of steamships ordered or purchased for conversion into commerce raiders.
the son Frederick "His" son.
Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All tweaked, many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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