Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hayden English/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 10:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William Hayden English

[edit]

William Hayden English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a significant expansion and passing a GA review, I believe it meets the criteria. English was an Indiana politician of the middle nineteenth century who made two brief appearances in the national scene: in the 1850s, during the Kansas-Nebraska debates, and in 1880, as the Democrats' nominee for Vice President. -- Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "He was elected that October and joined the 33rd Congress when it convened in Washington in March 1853" - source?
    • I cited the election being in October. That the Congress convened in March isn't explicitly stated in the source, but they did convene in March following every presidential election. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948." - source?
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • What makes the thesis a high-quality reliable source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair question. I've never used a thesis before in an FA, but I've never written an FA about such an obscure figure. A thesis is, I think, as reliable as a journal article. Both are peer-reviewed -- if anything, a thesis is more highly scrutinized, since the student's degree depends on it. I don't think the one fact for which the thesis is cited is that incredible or weird that it merits excess scrutiny. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was recently an extensive discussion here, which raised concerns about the reliability of even PhD dissertations; a master's thesis would seem to be less scrutinized than a PhD, barring exceptional circumstances. However, you're right that in this case it's not citing anything too remarkable, so...let's see if anyone else wants to comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used a master's thesis once, but as the guy went on to be a notable historian, when Nikki questioned it, I explained why I felt it was reliable (United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898). I think you just have to take each one as it comes and look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Support Very well done. Some quibbles, of which this is the first group.
Lede
  • I"d like to see some statement of this guy's significance high up in the lede. A politician from Indiana? So? I would give his highest office and the fact he ran for VP in 1880.
  • Done.
  • "working most notably to achieve a compromise on the admission of Kansas as a state in the 1850s." Admitted 1861. Rephrase?
  • Done
  • "English and the presidential nominee" Given that you use the term "nominee" shortly before, suggest change in this phrase to "running mate".
  • Done
Family etc.
  • What did Elisha do for a living?
  • The source says he was a legislator and "prominent ... in business circles". I've added words to that effect, but it's not exactly clear what business he was in.
  • "tutelage" What did he study?
  • I meant more like Bright was his political mentor. I'll change it.
  • I think it needs to be made clearer that these were patronage appointments. It isn't a question of the political involvement giving him a leg up in a competition which he "win"s. He was a Democratic activist, his party won, he got the job, end of story.
  • That's certainly what I meant, though I can see that might not be clear to the modern reader. I changed it, with a link to spoils system.
  • "attended the Democratic National Convention in 1848" needs a link to 1848 DNC. Also, was he a delegate? Spectator? Where was it?
  • Linked, with the city (Baltimore). I haven't been able to discover his exact role there.
  • "With the change in parties following Zachary Taylor's election to the presidency," I know what you are talking about, I'd make this a little clearer to ensure the reader does.
  • I think it should be more explicit now.
  • Congress
  • "of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The Act, " wasn't an act yet, and watch capitalization here. Possibly "of what would become the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The bill …"
  • Good point. Fixed.
  • I am not sure what is meant by "timing of the bill"
  • The source says "...he did not concur with the majority of the committee in the propriety and expediency of bringing forward the measure at that time, thinking its introduction unfortunate and ill-timed...." I took that to mean he didn't disagree popular sovereignty, but didn't think it necessary to disturb the sectional peace by introducing the bill right then. I think the change I made conveys that better.
  • "The speaker, James Lawrence Orr, " you have earlier capped Speaker, and I would agree with that.
  • Done.
The remainder:
  • Congress
  • " including Bright (now a Senator), " lower case on Senator, I think.
  • Done.
  • Since English remained in Congress for the remainder of the Buchanan administration, and things were rather dramatic during both sessions of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, I'm curious to know more. Did he take any positions on the major pieces of legislation, such as the Crittenden Compromise, or the Morrill Tariff? The major battle to elect a Speaker in 1859 in the House is not mentioned, did English have any role in that? The admission of Kansas, as a free state, while English was still in Congress--goes unmentioned. I think you have to give the reader more detail here, even if English was deeply involved in none of these things.
  • I found nothing except vague assertions that he discouraged secession. (Comm. Bio. p.12) I suppose I could dive into the Congressional Record, but that seems like it approaches original research.
Business etc.
  • "He did, however, support Morton's policies" I think, more to the point, what were his views on Lincoln's policies. The reader will be more interested in the latter I dare say.
  • Fixed.
  • "investment strategy to real estate. By 1875, he had already ordered construction of seventy-five houses along what is now English " Hmm. Maybe "investment capital.
  • Good point. Done.
  • "English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948.[24]" Dad or kid?
  • Dad. Fixed.
Wannabe Veep
  • " Democratic campaign coffers having been quite depleted." I don't like the quite. Maybe change to, "as Democratic campaign coffers were low".
  • Fixed.
  • A few words of explanation that national elections then were really fought in the midwest and mid-Atlantic as being the states most in play, and that tickets tended to have a New Yorker and a Ohio/Indianan whenever possible. And one reason why H/E expected to win in the South, were at the African-Americans were being disenfranchised.
  • I added a few lines to this effect.
  • "Hancock and English lost the election by only 39,213 popular votes." Well, perhaps "Hancock and English lost the popular vote by only 39,213 ballots." Can anything be said about what he did during the campaign? Did he make any speeches? Did his speech of acceptance say anything interesting?
  • Fixed the wording. As to his participation in the campaign, it seems minimal. The Commemorative Biography, maddeningly, hardly mentions 1880. Jordan's bio of Hancock mentions English only a few times, and I added a bit more to the article based on that. Clancy's book on the 1880 election doesn't add much, either, about English. He was present at the convention, so gave a brief speech accepting the nomination (one paragraph, nothing interesting. His letter a month later is longer, mostly about Hancock. I'll see what I can glean from it to add to the story. I added some. It gives a good look at the Democrats' platform. Don't know why I didn't do that before.
  • "English resumed his business career after the election." Did he ever give it up? Hobart stayed at work most of the time, sixteen years later, under similar circumstances.
  • I only phrased it this way because he sources mention him shifting control of the opera house to his son. They don't talk about the real estate ventures which, likely, he continued to manage. As passive investments, he likely didn't need to do much once things were built.
Post etc.
  • Two kids, mentioned earlier in the article, and one notable grandson, mentioned at the end. Should the kids go in the infobox, too? I'll add them. As to religion, I never saw a word about it. Don't even know if he was baptized. I'd guess he was vaguely Protestant, like Lincoln and Grant and other midwesterners, only because any other religious affiliation would've been mentioned and would've likely barred him from the VP nomination. But I'll double-check the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you already supported, but I wanted to follow up on the religion question. None of the sources mention it. The college he attended is Presbyterian, but that's not necessarily his faith. He was buried in a non-sectarian cemetery. His funeral was officiated by a Baptist minister, his cousin, but held in a Masonic Lodge. I'm going to guess he wasn't a member of any church. Certainly there isn't enough evidence to add anything to the article about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

[edit]

I'm going to give the article some general feedback—some of it is just my preferences or comments, and not necessarily required for FA, so feel free to disagree with anything.

  • Alt text would be nice for the images
    • Done.
  • "They would have two children": or just "had", if it's now an established fact
    • I like the "would have" language because it indicates that, at that point in the narrative, it's still a future event.
  • "believing that "each organized community ought to be allowed to decide for itself." ": I realize the period is likely in the original quote, but I believe the logic of the sentence demands it be placed outside the quotation marks
    • "promised a "sound currency, of honest money," the restriction": ditto
    • "and a "rigid economy in public expenditure." ": ditto
    • "platform endorsing "a tariff for revenue only." ": ditto
      • I actually thought the MoS dictated the opposite (i.e., periods inside quotes.)
        • No, you have to look at the logic of the sentence. If you were quoting: "The economist said, 'The economy's revving like a well-oiled engine.'", then the period would be inside the quote. If you wrote: "The economist stated the booming economy was performing 'like a well-oiled engine'.", it would be outside. If you want to take the "logical quotes" thing to an inelegant extreme, there are those who believe the first sentence should have a period both inside and outside the quote, one terminating the quote and another terminating the sentence in which it's contained, but that sort of thing hasn't gained any traction here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a 6:1 vote": is this a ratio of six to one?
    • Yes. I clarified it.
  • "interested in the theater": in American English I thought it was "theatre" when it referred to live drama (or are the buildings exempted?)
[edit]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: thank you for the nbsp edits. I didn't know you could use that inside a link like that. I'll take a look at your comments and address them throughout the day as I have time (working this weekend!) --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I'd still like to see something done about "constituitional convention", but I do think this article reads well and meets the FA criteria. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

[edit]

This is a very strong candidate. It is well organized, and the prose is excellent. (Thanks, previous reviewers!) I made a few copyedits; if you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss. I've identified issues below. – Quadell (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues (including further comments)
  • The lead is a little short, isn't it? I feel like its expansion by a couple sentences would be appropriate. (It does cover each section of the body, though sometimes with only a portion of a sentence.) Perhaps his Civil War actions, or more info on the English Bill, or the opera house, or his presidency of a bank?
  • Consider this list: "increasing the number of elective offices, guaranteeing a homestead exemption, and restricting voting rights to white men." These aren't actually "views". Should it say "their proposals were included in the new law"?
    • Good point. Fixed.
  • H and R are appropriately capitalized in Indiana House of Representatives, but I don't think they should be capitalized when referring to a "state house of representatives". (By the same token, we refer to the Governor of Indiana, big-G, who is a governor, little-g.) Wikipedia articles seem to apply this inconsistently, however, and I'd be obliged if someone were to let me know if I'm wrong about this.
  • The parenthetic "(many in Congress did not agree they were so bound)" interrupts the flow and makes the following "their" less certain. Consider making it a footnote, while perhaps expanding it slightly with further information from Russel, which in my opinion is quite interesting.
I improved this slightly. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how you'd work it in there. You did so excellently. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the grammar of "a much larger spread: Garfield-Arthur 214 and Hancock-English 155." Should those be en-dashes? Are commas needed? I would reword as "a much larger spread: 214 for Garfield and Arthur, compared to 155 for Hancock and English." (A better wording may be possible.)
  • Source check: ...But...
  • Image check: Three of the four images are fine, but File:Bust of William H. English.jpg has problems. This photo of a sculpture was uploaded in 2010 by Nicole.m.m, and she did not provide a license for the photograph. (She hasn't edited since 2010, though she did leave an e-mail address.) It was moved to commons with a PD-US license added by a different user, but that doesn't apply to the photograph. In addition, William H. English (bust) indicates that the arist and date of the creation of the sculpture are not known; if it was created after 1978, it could be copyrighted, and the photo could be a derivative work. We can only keep the image if the photographer provides a license, and if we can determine that the sculpture itself is PD.
  • Consider the first two sentences of paragraph two in the "Kansas–Nebraska Act" section. They are quite strong statements, and should be clearly sourced. "Commemorative Biography" mentions only "the storm raised by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill", which isn't nearly as strong, and I can't find it in Freehling (though I can't see the whole page).
They're rather general statements about the Kansas–Nebraska Act and its effects. There are probably a wide range of sources that could support them. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited to the pages in Freehling volume 1 that cover the K-N Act's effects. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a misunderstanding. I was referring to the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the section: "The Kansas–Nebraska Act was grossly unpopular across the North. The reaction ultimately killed the Whig Party, weakened northern Democrats, and brought about a new party, the Republicans." That part is effectively unsourced, unless it's in Freehling 1990, p. 559. – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That I've sourced to volume 2 of Freehling. The end of v.1 and beginning of v.2 overlap a lot, and I think the latter explains things better on this point. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few concerns regarding the first paragraph of the "Vice-presidential candidate" section. First "It was in that spirit" is unclear; what spirit? (Son in state house, being consulted on politics, not seeking office, or what?) It sounds at first like he's there to vote, not to run, but then you mention "one delegate voting for English". For President? Was that expected? Did English go hoping to be nominated for President, or for veep, or neither? You say he was "selected" for veep... by whom? Hancock? It might be best to explain some of this in a footnote. (Also, it would be nice to split this long paragraph up, if possible.)
    • "In that spirit": that is, as a Bayard supporter.
That really isn't clear in the text. I'd suggest some sort of rewording, so "in that spirit" isn't hanging there undefined. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be clearer now. I may tinker with the prose a bit more throughout the day. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the sources suggests he expected any nomination. There's one short paragraph in Clancy about it that just says the delegates unanimously chose him to help in Indiana (pp. 140-141). Clancy mentions the one vote for president, and the Proceedings show it was from Rhode Island, but don't show which delegate cast it. An old congressional colleague? It's not very clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't be clearer than the sources allow. I've added a few words to help the reader keep track of who supported whom for what, but I don't think there's much more to be done. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my concerns have been addressed. This article is very thorough and well-written, appropriately organized and meticulously sourced. – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the thorough review. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source check: The references are impeccably formatted; the "Sources" section is too, now that I sicced Citation bot on it.
  • Spot checks: I checked the sources for references 10 (a and b), 11, 15 (a and b), 16 (c and d), and 33. In each case, all statements were fully supported by the sources without plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

Comments from Acdixon

[edit]
Lead
  • "English entered politics at a young age, becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party. After a few years in the federal bureaucracy in Washington" I'm sure the body clarifies, but I'm left wondering at this point in what capacity he entered politics. We know he was a member of a state party faction, which he could have been without holding any official office, but the next sentence implies that he held some kind of federal position and was totally out of the state. It's all very confusing.
  • "becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party" What were the characteristics of this faction? Were they conservative or liberal? Were they focused primarily on one or a few key issues? Telling the reader that he was allied with Bright really means nothing unless that reader knows something about Bright. At this point, we don't even know what office(s) Bright held, much less what his positions were on the issues.
    • In this period, factions seem to me to be more about patronage networks than ideology. That said, Bright was among the most conservative Democrats in the North. He turned out to be way more conservative than English, in a sense, if you consider pro- Southern sympathies to be conservative (he was expelled from the Senate in 1862 because he was too pro-CSA, the only Senator to be expelled.) Long story short, I added the word "conservative".--Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was elected to the state house of representatives and served as its speaker at the age of twenty-nine." Was he elected speaker during his first term or during a subsequent term? In fact, were there any subsequent terms? How long were terms in the Indiana House back then? Since he served four, two-year terms in the federal House in the 1850s, I'm thinking one two-year term or a couple of one-year terms early in the decade is probably all he had time for.
    • They were two-year terms, of which he served one. I tried to clarify that in the lede without getting to bogged down in dates. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can work it in neatly, some reference to his service in the constitutional convention affecting his selection as speaker might be helpful. Otherwise, the reader wonders how a first-term legislator with meager experience came to be speaker in his first and only term in that body. How about something like, "In 1851, at the age of twenty-nine, English was elected to the state house of representatives and, because of his familiarity with the new constitution, was elected Speaker of the House."?Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole first paragraph could benefit from some more dates. We know he got into politics in some capacity in early life, so we can look back at his birth date and surmise this was sometime in the 1840s. Then, we find out he served "a few years" in some federal bureaucracy before coming back to the state in time to participate in a constitutional convention in 1850. Then he served a term or more in the state legislature, but apparently spent most of the 1850s in the federal House. The timeline is a bit hard to follow.
  • What was English up to between the end of the war and his vice-presidential run? That's a good 25 years. I assume his business ventures were undertaken during this time. If so, might I suggest moving that information between the second and third sentences of the paragraph for chronology's sake?
Family and early career
  • "He left college after three years and began to read law." Can you give the years he was at Hanover? Without at least a starting year, the bit about being there three years isn't that helpful. Any idea why he left before graduating? We know he was admitted to the bar in 1840, but without knowing when he left Hanover, we don't know how long he was engaged in reading law prior to his admission.
  • "By the end of 1842, young English came under the mentorship of Lieutenant Governor Jesse D. Bright, who helped him win appointments to a variety of local offices." Suggest dropping the adjective "young". Any idea how English became acquainted with Bright or why Bright took an interest in him?
  • "The following year," Again, I find the chronology a little unclear. Did Bright begin mentoring English at the end of 1842, or had he been under his mentorship for a while by the end of 1842? "The following year" seems to imply 1843, but if the mentorship started at the end of 1842, it must have been a short mentorship prior to English's attaining office.
  • "English was chosen as clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives." Who did the choosing? Is that an elected position by the people or the legislators, or is it a gubernatorial appointment?
    • Kennedy says he was "elected," but it seems like the House elected him, not the populace. I changed the wording to reflect this. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I had assumed this was included in the "local offices" Bright helped him win appointment to. Since it apparently is not, do we know anything about the nature of those offices? The text seems to indicate that he held multiple such offices between 1840 and 1843. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed that language to "who helped him rise within Bright's faction of the party". It's not explicit which jobs Bright got for English, just that Bright moved him along and was interested in his success, etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a reward, English was given a patronage appointment as a clerk in the federal Treasury Department in Washington, D.C." Again, it isn't clear who did the appointing. I'm sure it was Polk, but the non-U.S. reader might not even realize that Polk won the election.
  • "English attended the 1848 Democratic National Convention in Baltimore, where he supported the eventual nominee, Lewis Cass." Perhaps clarify that Cass was the party's presidential nominee.
  • "he found a job as clerk to the United States Senate's Claims Committee, serving until 1850." This sounds like he found an ad in the paper looking for a clerk, which he may well have done. I'm not sure how Senate committee clerks are employed. A little research shows that Bright was apparently on that committee at the time. Perhaps English's connection to Bright was helpful in securing the position?
  • "Later that year, he returned to Indiana to work as secretary to the Indiana Constitutional Convention." Again, I wonder how he got this position. Did he have to be elected as a delegate to qualify? If not, did a majority of the elected delegates choose him? Do we know? Was his resignation from his clerk's position motivated by his selection as convention secretary, or were those independent events?
  • "[Democrats'] proposals were included in the new law" Is "new law" being used here to refer to the draft constitution? If so, I think that's a bit clumsy. Also, I assume the minority party dissented on these proposals, which is why they merit mention.
  • "At Bright's direction, English worked for the election of Graham N. Fitch to the federal Senate, but was unsuccessful as the legislature chose John Pettit instead." You should at least mention that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats. This shows tangible evidence of the factionalism alluded to in the lead, but still doesn't really elaborate on what the issues were between the two factions. There is also the presumption of a clear majority by Democrats, but did the minority party (Whigs?) even nominate a candidate? Some sense of the relative strength of the parties and factions would be helpful, if available. What happened to the incumbent senator? Did he just not run again? Did he fall out of favor with the legislature? Did he take another office, leaving a vacancy?
    • I have no idea what the relative strength of the Whigs was. Van Bolt says the won only one of the federal House seats, but doesn't give the breakdown in the state house. I did clarify that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats.
  • "The office of Speaker allowed English's reputation to grow around the state" Awkward construction. Suggest something on the order of "Holding the office of Speaker increased English's influence throughout the state".
  • "in 1852, the Democrats chose him as their nominee for the federal House of Representatives from the 2nd district" Again, I wonder if we know what happened to the incumbent.
  • "He was elected that October" Do we know anything of the election? Who was his opponent? Did he have an opponent? If so, what were the major issues of the campaign? Do we have a vote total/percentage?
Kansas-Nebraska Act
  • "The House of Representatives convened for the 33rd Congress in December 1853" Since the previous sentence said the 33rd Congress convened in March 1853, you might specify that the second session of that Congress convened in December.
    • As I understand it, and this has been surprisingly hard to sort out, the Senate convened for a couple weeks in March to confirm Pierce's nominees. Then they went home and the whole Congress got together for the December session. I haven't seen any evidence that the House also convened in March, but they may have. I dleeted "March" in the previous paragraph, but I hope to find a better answer at some point. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you combine the second and third sentences of the first paragraph?
  • "Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English was among those who voted for it." I'm assuming, then, that his earlier opposition was based mostly or wholly on the timing and necessity of the bill, not its content. If so, maybe say, "Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English, despite his stated reservations, was among those who voted for it." Otherwise, it could be a little jarring to see him writing a minority report opposed to the bill, then voting for it two sentences later.
English Bill
  • I think total House vote on the admission of Kansas should precede English's feelings and his vote. Also, don't the "yeas" still come first in reporting a lost vote?
  • "There was a twist to the choice, too, as the Bill..." This seems too editorial to me. Maybe just "The Bill also required Kansas to..."
  • "to be reelected in 1858 with his largest-ever majority" This brings me back to the lack of detail about English's election and re-election to Congress. Do we have no details of his opponents (primary or general election), the issues, or the vote counts? Without at least some idea of the vote counts, this bit about "largest-ever majority" is not nearly as meaningful as it might be.
Business career
Vice-presidential candidate

I know that's a lot of commentary, and I know how difficult it can be to dig up the details on minor political figures. A lot of these are just "hey, see if you can find"-type things. A good article about an interesting character. I'll try to keep track of your responses and strike resolved issues in a timely manner. Feel free to ping me if I don't. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Great responses. Struck many; added some comments on others. Thanks for your work. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note --We seem to be close to consensus to promote; Coemgenus and Acdixon if you're able to finalise things shortly that'd be great -- pls ping me when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following this note, and looking again at the discussion above, I think we can promote this shortly. The fact that Acdixon was very happy with the responses and edits following his first round of comments indicates that he and Coemgenus are on the same wavelength. The only outstanding comments I can see are re. the "1843 selection as House clerk" and "the incumbent" -- if you're able to just acknowledge or action those then I think we can safely wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done, guys. Sorry for the long delay. Holiday stuff. Feel free to promote. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:55, 2 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Hayden_English/archive1&oldid=862746960"