Wikipedia:Peer review/James K. Polk/archive1

James K. Polk

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback pre-FAC.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• You have two Dusinberre sources in Refs section, but Notes do not distinguish between two by listing pub date.
• Fletcher in Notes but not Refs. Ditto Schlesinger.
• Kornblith in Refs but not Notes. Ditto Morrison. Ditto Lee, but full reference for Lee given in Notes (probably should be in refs?)
• Seigentharer or Siegenthaler? Multiple instances.

I'm not aware of a Siegentharer. Can you point to a ref? I know I have to clean up using two different versions of the same book.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Seven instances. I edited them out for you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Woodworth or Woodward? Multiple instances.
• Other things are inconsistent, like Pletcher given as a full reference in both Notes (currently note 218) and Refs. You also have books, IIRC, that are only mentioned once .. in some cases you give the full ref in the Notes but in other cases in the Notes. I'd put every one in the Refs to avoid confusion or inconsistency. Gott go maybe more later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I've gotten through most or all of them. Usually I try to use sfn but as there was an existing style to the article I didn't think I could change it, so there's a likelihood of more errors. Hopefully most are gone now. Thank you for going through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I woulda just left a note on the talk page to say I was converting everything to sfn, waited a week or two, then when no one replied I woulda converted the refs. But that's neither here nor there. I'll look again later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TR

This is a huge article (15,364 words, if you please!) and will take me more than one go to get through. First batch of comments, to the end of the General election section. Leaving the lead till last, more meo.

• Early life
  • "The young James Polk suffered from frail health, a disadvantage in a frontier society" – as frail health is not a sought-after condition in any society I might add "particular" or some such before "disadvantage".
  • "the first governor of Florida" – possibly worth a blue-link to Florida?
  • Last para has a lot of "Polk"s, some of which might beneficially be replaced with pronouns.
• Tennessee legislator
  • "a member of the Masons" – could do with a link
  • "No children were born of the marriage" – you've already told us that
• Ways and Means chair and Speaker of the House
  • No sedilla in AmE in "façade"?
• Democratic nomination
  • I don't know that I'd mix "2⁄3" and "two-thirds" in the same para – looks a bit odd.

More anon. Gargantuan word-count notwithstanding, it's highly readable so far. Tim riley talk 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I felt that we had to have sufficient detail on the war and other matters of foreign policy, and it adds up. I've made those changes (or evaded them). Thank you for weighing in on this weighty article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch of comments.

• Annexation of Texas
  • "which had never recognized Texas independence" – perhaps either "Texan" or "Texas's"?
• Mexican-American War
  • It will neither please nor surprise you to read that I lost the will to live at several points throughout the 3,300 words of this section, which seemed interminable. As there are separate articles on the war, I think the reader should be afforded a short summary in this article, perhaps 1,000 words or so at most. Other reviewers may, of course, disagree with me.
  • "to call up fifty thousand volunteers" – this looks odd to an English eye. In BrE "call up" means conscript. I don't press the point, but if it can conveniently be rephrased it would be rather good. I also noticed that writing out "fifty thousand" in words rather than in digits (though that is my personal preference when I can get away with it) is the only example of such a usage in the article: at all other comparable points we have "14,000 Americans and 25,000 Mexicans" and so on.
• Domestic policy
  • From the start of this section onwards I felt the length reverted to being reasonable and proportionate.
• Development of the country
  • "but enamored of his own writing" – the source says, "Although he was not obliged to use the veto message—'one of the ablest papers I have ever prepared'—he decided it should be preserved "with my other valuable papers", I think the editorial "enamored of his own writing" is a bit harsher than that justifies.
  • "Polk was a lame duck" – you know I am sceptical (or skeptical) about lavish blue-links, but I think "lame duck" could do with one. (Though I admit the relevant existing article is bloody awful.) It is, I think, an American term that the rest of the world might be puzzled by unless explained.
• Post-presidency, death and interments
• "In 1893, the bodies of President and Mrs. Polk ..." – probably over-cautious of me, but as two Mrs Polks have been mentioned in the preceding two sentences it might be prudent to say "Polk and his widow" or some such.
• Polk and slavery
  • "Matilda Polk died still in slavery in 1849, at the age of about 110" – are we sure the source is reliable? Seems rather a tall tale. I'd be happier if a biography of Polk or some similarly scholarly book confirmed it.

The source said 110. I hedged a bit. It's a reliable source, as such things go, I don't think a scholar's going to come up with a birth certificate ...

Hmm. Very well. No further questions, Your Honor. Tim riley talk 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Legacy and historical view
  • "the teetotaling Polk" – first time I've seen "teetotal" used as a verb. (The point nonetheless has subsequent historical resonance, cf Germany in 1933, Zimbabwe in 1980 and the USA in 2016 etc.)

I didn't know President Banana was a teetotaler ...

I have emailed you privately on this point as I don't wish to risk expulsion from the WP community for scandalous frivolity. Tim riley talk 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Legacy and historical view
  • "With the help of his wife, Sarah" – I doubt if we need to be reminded of her name by this point.

It is a quote.

Sorry! My mistake. Tim riley talk 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• And finally the lead:
  • It might help the flow of the prose to change the "Polk" at the start of the second sentence to "he", and I might also do the same in the next sentence.
  • "Polk left Congress" - ditto
  • The last sentence of the fourth para is a bit repetitious of the last sentence of the first.

That's all from me. Others may disagree with me that 15,282 words are too many, and if so I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 21:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've cut several hundred words. Length is a fair point, but given Polk's intimate involvement in the war, I think there's only so far it can be cut. I'll look for more.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the cutting, which is done only in part, I have done those things. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891

As always, I am an incredibly inexperienced editor, so take my comments with the assumption that some will be wrong.

• "49th parallel" maybe link to 49th parallel north.
• "A slaveholder for most of his adult life, he owned a plantation in Mississippi run with slaves, and bought them even as President." link to List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves?

I've added it as a see also. Putting it in text would be a little Easter eggy.

• "Polk's roommate William Dunn Moseley became the first governor of Florida" This sounds sort of out of place. You may want to try something like "Polk's roommate was William Dunn Moseley (who would later become the first governor of Florida)."
• "The University later named the lower quad on its main campus, Polk Place." is the comma necessary?

I've cut that sentence. This article is long, as has been pointed out. That seems to go beyond context to trivia. And I don't want to have to keep track of whether that changes.

• "In June 1820, he was admitted to the Tennessee bar." a link to Tennessee Bar Association might be apt.

That is the voluntary bar association for Tennessee, which was not organized until after Polk's death. Tennessee doesn't seem to have a mandatory bar association. In any event, the TBA article is exceedingly short and unhelpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• " Polk opened an office in Maury County and ^[3] was successful as a lawyer," Is the space between "and" and the citation necessary?
• "These plans required winning the Senate seat the Tennessee Legislature would fill in 1823" Why? Perhaps more detail could be added. Also, throughout the article, be careful to remember that the United States Senate is not the only place a person can be a senator for.

• I changed one during the governor section. the others all seem pretty clear even those that lack "U.S.". Detail added.

• "to Adams in a Corrupt Bargain in exchange for being" capitalizing corrupt bargain?

Yes, I think so, it is usually capitalized. Since it is unproven, I don't want to say "the".

• " following year's election for the House of Representatives" perhaps replace for with to.
• just a query, why is the article at James K. Polk, not James Polk?

I don't have statistics, but he seems much more commonly referred to with the middle initial.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Polk made his first major speech" What defines major?

I'm reproducing the source's language there. Siegenthaler calls it his "maiden speech", but I don't see that as a contradiction.

• " He remained in close touch with General Jackson," I'd just remove general, unless it serves to explain what he was doing at the time.
• "exchanging lengthy letters at a time when both men were busy" Personally, I feel the fact that they were busy does not seem to merit inclusion, as most people probably were, and it has no bearing on anything".
• " Following Jackson's victory over President Adams," Again, I feel President is unnecessary, because several times has it been mentioned that he was president, and Jackson could only defeat a president to become president.
• "though he always denied this, stating that the message was entirely Jackson's." I'd remove the always, as it is completely unnecessary.
• "Jackson's action angered some in Washington, " Why?
• "During the Nullification Crisis of 1832–33" change 1832–33 to 1832–1833, for consistency in the article.
• "In 1833, after being elected to a fifth consecutive term, Polk became the chairman of Ways and Means, a powerful position in the House." I'd prefer if this sentence came right before the section that goes into further detail.
• "In June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson resigned from Congress." why? perhaps change to "In June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson resigned from Congress, to accept appointment as Minister to the United Kingdom."
• "anti-Jacksonian backlash in Tennessee," why?
• "Jackson called in political markers" what is a political marker?
• "A master of the chamber's rules, Polk attempted to improve the order of House proceedings. Unlike many of his peers, he never challenged anyone to a duel no matter how much they insulted his honor. The economic downturn cost the Democrats seats, so that when Polk faced re-election as Speaker in December 1837, he won by only 13 votes, and he foresaw defeat in 1839. Polk by then had presidential ambitions, but was well aware that no Speaker had ever become president (Polk remains the only one ever to have held both offices). After seven terms in the House, with two as Speaker, Polk announced that he would not seek re-election, choosing instead to run for Governor of Tennessee in the 1839 election." That's A) a lot of Polks in close proximity, B) "A master of the chamber's rules"? That phrasing seems odd to me and is "(Polk remains the only one ever to have held both offices)" really necessary. I've read it quite a lot throughout the article, and for the time it is about, it seems completely out of place.

It's got to be sourced somewhere in the article. It was mentioned in the unsourced lede. Where else but during a discussion of Polk as Speaker?

• "who sought a third two-year term." I'd add "as governor" to the end for clarification.
• "hoping to be nominated as Van Buren's vice presidential running mate at the 1840 Democratic National Convention in Baltimore in May. Polk hoped to be the replacement if Vice President Richard Mentor Johnson" The two hopes are awfully close.
• "Despite his loss," I'd clarify on what loss it was.

The reader has been told this two sentences before, although in a prior section. I'm inclined to let it stand.

• "Polk hoped to gain Van Buren's support, hinting in a letter that with Polk on the ticket," I'd replace the second Polk with himself.
• "Despite his party's gibes, Clay recognized that Polk could unify the Democrats." this sounds like it precedes a quote, or further explanation.

I don't see the issue. It just says that Clay wasn't as overconfident as the Whigs were.

• "Rumors of Polk's victory reached Nashville on June 4," Perhaps replace victory with nomination, to avoid confusion on what he won.
• "what had happened at Baltimore were in Polk's hands by June 6. " Is this when Polk found out? Or is it just a roundabout way of saying that the papers covered the story on June 6?
• "after Polk professed that he had remained loyal to Van Buren, Wright supported the campaign." Perhaps rephrase to "it was only after Polk professed that he had remained loyal to Van Buren that Wright supported his campaign."
• for clarity, perhaps rephrase "Polk finessed the tariff issue in a published letter." to "Polk described his stance on the tariff issue further in a published letter."

No, I think that loses the nuance I'm trying to put in there, that he avoided both extremes and came up with a position that would, broadly speaking, be acceptable to both North and South.

• "provoking an outcry in the Whig papers." as he was not a Whig, I can assume that this was not the only time he provoked outrage in Whig papers. Why does this deserve a mention? I'd remove it.

Because after the Whigs went to all that trouble, it would feel odd if the incident just dropped into a void.

• "realizing his May letter had cost him support," May letter? I don't recall any mention of it.
• "an imaginary German nobleman." perhaps rephrase as "a fictional German nobleman."

Then we have a problem with fictional/fiction in the paragraph. I'm open to other synonyms.

• "These facts were not known at the time." sounds somewhat simplistic, maybe incorporate the sentence into an earlier sentence in the para?
• "with its former colonial overlord, Great Britain." overlord? I strongly recommend removing and replacing.
• "According to George Bancroft," according to more than just George Bancroft. It is commonly accepted that Polk laid out those four goals.
• "would be nominated for the position of Postmaster General," was nominated, not would be.
• "All won Senate confirmation" would be better phrased as "All received Senate confirmation" or "All gained Senate confirmation"
• "should expand from coast to coast, " I'd replace expand with span.
• "Mexico's independence following the Mexican War of Independence," I'd, for the sake of context, add "in 1821"
• "to avoid provoking a war," perhaps remove "a"
• "Although Polk had the military prepare for war, he did not believe it would come to that; he thought Mexico would give in under duress." Perhaps rephrase as "Despite preparing the military for war, Polk did not believe it would come to that, as he thought Mexico would give in under duress."
• "Polk was particularly worried that the British or another European power would eventually establish control over California if it remained in Mexican hands.

Polk hoped that a show of force by the U.S. military under Taylor and Conner could avert war and lead to negotiations with the Mexican government. In late 1845, Polk sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico to purchase New Mexico and California for $20–40 million, as well as securing Mexico's agreement to a Rio Grande border." A lot of Polks

• " The appropriation bill, with the Wilmot Proviso attached, passed the House, but the bill died in the Senate." the second "the bill" is unnecessary.
• "Though Polk was outraged by Trist's decision, he decided to allow him some time to negotiate a treaty." perhaps rephrase as "Though outraged by Trist's decision, Polk decided to allow him some time to negotiate a treaty." This removes an unnecessary he, and lessens the repetitive feel.
• "decided he must accept it." I'd rephrase as "decided he had no choice to accept it."
• "Congress passed, in 1847, another internal improvements bill;" I'd rephrase as "Congress, in 1847, passed another internal improvements bill;"
• "The message, confirming less authoritative reports, caused large numbers of people to move to California, both from the U.S. and abroad, the famous California Gold Rush" The last phrase, "the famous california gold rush" sounds really out of place; perhaps rephrase as "The message, confirming less authoritative reports, caused large numbers of people to move to California, both from the U.S. and abroad, thus helping to spark the California Gold Rush"
• "he would as soon have departed the city quickly," I'd rephrase as "he would have departed the city quickly," The as soon sounds out of place.
• "Polk felt so ill that he abandoned the river " I'd rephrase, as saying he abandoned a river sounds odd. Perhaps "Polk felt so ill that he temporarily left the river " or "Polk felt so ill that he disembarked the riverboat,"
• "None of the other slaves Polk purchased as President, none older than 20," perhaps rephrase as "None of the other slaves Polk purchased as President, all younger than 20,"
• ref 19 has A) no publisher, or other data, and B) is broken.

That's about it. Sorry for all the trouble. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, those are excellent comments. If I haven't said anything, I've gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. I do prefer to reply where I'm inclined not to do something, if only to set out my reasons.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And a final thank you for being so thorough. Please let me know if there is an article I can look at for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well... I just opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Presidency of George Washington/archive1. If you could take a look at it, that would be great. Don't feel like you have to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)