Wikipedia

Talk:Abraham Lincoln/GA2

< Talk:Abraham Lincoln
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Nikkimaria in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago220 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I will be doing the review of this article. My intention is to be more thorough than I would for a normal GAN, given your stated intentions to try for FAC. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a ton. Not sure if you knew, but we addressed your comments from the FA (User:Peregrine_Fisher/ALFA2Archive#NikkiMaria.27s_detailed_comments). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done initial review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note to all editors of this page: You may or may not be aware of the ongoing discussion regarding a recent discovery of plagiarism in a FA on the main page. The effect of that discussion on content review processes leads me to make the following recommendations; these should not be taken as accusations or suggestions that you may be guilty of something, but as points for consideration. The way things are going right now, it's possible that future FACs will be subject to similar considerations.

  • Please ensure that, while the article reflects the essential content of the sources, it does not contain any material that may be considered a copyright violation, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing
  • All wording taken directly from a source should be in quotes and attributed
  • Wherever possible, check that phrasing does not overly imitate sources
  • Consider checking the article for potential problems using an automated tool such as CSBot, Earwig, Plagiarism Checker, any professional academic tools you may have access to, or an "old-fashioned" Google Search. Pay particular attention to material added by people other than yourselves, and phrases that seem out-of-place or otherwise suspicious

Please note that I will not consider these issues reasons to not promote to GA status (unless an obvious problem is found), but that they may be detrimental at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Donald cites - I'm concerned here about my own editing, which was done concurrently with my reading of the Donald biography. While I am certain that I have added no material without referencing Donald, having spent so much time with the book, it is quite possible that I came too close to paraphrasing or quoting him without using quotations. I will review this issue and try my best to make sure the Donald material is quoted properly, and to the extent this may be a problem, my sincere apologies. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  Done CSBot found no violation. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given that this has been open for almost two months, I've elected to list the article as a GA. I will still be watching the review, so if you have any questions about remaining issues feel free to ask. Good luck at FAC! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Writing and formatting

edit

Section I - break for ease of editing

edit

Section II - another break for ease in editing

edit

Section break III - for easier editing

edit

Accuracy and verifiability

edit
  Done. Added Primary Refs sub section for cited sources and General References sub-section for uncited sources; this is similar to Peterson's bibliography for Jefferson. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bibliography

edit
let's keep number of pages; tells what readers want to know. There is only one Oxford University Press (it has multiple offices). Foner 2010 = W. W. Norton . "Spell out publisher names" is not a Wiki rule. All the books in the notes are top-of-line scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Consistency in referencing is a Wiki rule, and why do readers care about number of pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Back when I was teaching undergraduates I would assign book reports--they could choose a title from the list to read and write a 3 page report. They strongly preferred the shorter books. :) Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Emancipation Proclamation

edit

Lincoln rejected emancipation two times from Union Maj. Gen. John C. Frémont and Maj. Gen. David Hunter. This should briefly be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)   FixedReply

Suffered depression

edit

The lede should mention that Lincoln suffered from depression. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Legacy and memorials section

edit

This section should be separated into two segments. There is not much on the legacy and alot on the memorials. How about discussing the Emancipation Proclamation as Lincoln's legacy and starting the constitutional amendment process to abolish slavery. His willingness to go to war to preserve the Union and his ability as commander in chief in terms of handling the Radicals. Also, his rise from relative obscurity to be President of the United States. Another take would be on how southerners view Lincoln today. These issues and possibly others should be mentioned; something to wrap up the article and tie things together. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Broad

edit

Neutrality

edit
  • "Very tall and strong, young Lincoln was handy with an axe and became a talented local wrestler, which imbued him with self-confidence" - tone
  • Generally speaking, maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times. Avoid the temptation to mimic the tone of the sources - it's quite easy to adopt tones unconsciously when you're spending a lot of time reading history books
  • WP:W2W - use as precise language as possible, and avoid wording that implies a bias
that is neutral, accurate encyclopedic language, attested by all the RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
What is "that"? And how can "encyclopedic language" be attested to by the RS, unless you're including a direct quote from an encyclopedia? Could you explain your statement firther? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is the language used by RS. Proof: "tall and strong" (used by Ida Tarbell 1900 vol 1 p 50); "handy with an axe" (Carl Sandburg, vol 1 p 7); talented local wrestler (Guelzo 2009; Sandburg vol 1). "self-confidence" (David Donald). Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
If, as you seem to be suggesting, those are direct quotes in the article, then add quote marks. If not, rephrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
those are not direct quotes. You asked for evidence that the RS use this sort of language and I demonstrated that they do so. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm sure that the RS use that sort of language. The point is, that doesn't mean we can - we are an encyclopedia project, and are bound by rules of tone and WP:NPOV that don't affect RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wandered over to this page and have two comments. Technically you should reword those phrases into your own words more or use quotes to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Its a very close call, but if the sources say "tall and strong" and you say "tall and strong" or "handy with an axe" and you say "handy with an axe" you could be accused of just copying things from the books. I mistakenly did something similar in the past when I was coming off a several year break, and its terrifying when its pointed out to you. In my case I was rusty concerning the rules; I said to myself when it was first pointed out "Well are we are doing is re-iterating what a source says so naturally its going to be similar", and I was also sloppily adding in the material in a mad rush—When I re-checked and re-wrote everything against the sources I noticed no less than 8–10 times I got the page numbers I referenced wrong as well.
Also, re-enforcing what Nikki said, reliable sources that are frequently valuable in terms of info, aren't always written in an encyclopedic tone. I'm working on a bunch of film articles now and the book sources have a ton of superlatives in them. That doesn't mean they aren't reliable sources. Quadzilla99 (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
the words used were not quoted or copied from anyone--it's the vocabulary used for scholarly biography. The tone is encyclopedic as it stands. (The citations were added to the talk page per request to demonstrate that historians actually use such words--for example the TARBELL book was not used in the writing of this article) All the RS used in this article are from top scholars, not Hollywood PR people. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Hollywood thing was an example (the writers I was referring to were film historians in one case, a professor who teaches at Brandeis), but also biographers can use flowery language. An article I wrote on a particular writer, was the same way, even though the main source was a University publication. Reading other biographies they're often the same, plus even books I've read on ancient Greece can be that way. In the case cited above I would change it to something like "Lincoln was very tall for his age, and could handle an axe. He used his natural strength to become a local wrestler, and his success in wrestling is credited with increasing his confidence." Tbh that could be written a lot better but I think you get the idea. Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Could be: ""Lincoln was tall for his age, and could handle an axe. He used his natural strength to become a local wrestler, and his success in the sport is credited with increasing his confidence." Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
doesn't work. he was an extreme case in height and strength and wrestling. He was nationally famous for his axe-work (the "rail splitter" was a nickname). "is credited with" is poor term. The challenge here is that AL has been written about by many great writers, and to be faithful to the RS we need very bold, clear, accurate language. We can be wishy-washy (or "encyclopedic") on Millard Fillmore but not Abe Lincoln. As for superlatives, he was one of the most famous and important men in history, and that has to be conveyed to the readers. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
If we were writing elsewhere I would agree. I thought the exact same way as you (like literally 100% the same) when I brought Michael Jordan up for FAC. Although the article passed it only did so after a very, very long back and forth over what we could say in summary about him. Even though he is overwhelmingly recognized as the greatest basketball player ever, everything had to termed carefully or quoted to avoid lot of potential POV. A lot of statements were removed and the language made much drier, plus we just used other people's quotes to express his greatness, his tremendous leaping ability, his athleticism, his physical strength, showed examples of him making clutch plays instead of just saying he was a clutch player etc.
Tbh if what you're saying about Lincoln is true that makes your sentence look worse imho. If he was known nationally as the "rail splitter" then it would be a lot easier just to mention that. Also "very tall and strong" doesn't establish that he was an extreme case. Even if he was an extreme case like you say, you should probably directly cite a source that says that or give a specific example. I'm 6'4 and lift weights, that makes me very tall and strong, doesn't make me an extreme case (anyone 6'4 who lifts weights could be classified as very tall and strong). Lastly, unless you have a source where Lincoln himself directly says it increased his confidence, then someone else is reaching that conclusion and you're summarizing their thoughts. So it would be best to either use quotes, quote the biographer by name, or give multiple sources that are independent of each other.
You don't have to use my example, as I said the writing in that example is not great. But I agree with Nikki in that it needs to be re-worded. Now that I've said my peace, I'll get out of the way and let her finish her review. Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
no, we have to stick with the chronology, and this section is before he became famous. The facts (tall, strong, axe, wrestler, self confidence) are covered in all the major biographies (Herndon, Tarbell, Beveridge, Sandburg, Thomas, Randall, Oates, Guelzo, Donald, White, etc. etc) and there is no controversy at all about them. They each take several pages to make the points where we have a couple sentences. I really don't see what the fuss is about. HOWEVER to say that "according to xxx" with a footnote is a misleading flag that suggests it's a controversial statement and needs proof, or that there is a historiographical controversy where non exists. Excess footnotes weaken an article and turn off readers (so much so that publishers seeking a large market avoid them). Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Wow, we are doing some rail splitting here for sure, aren't we (meaning hard work) ? I'm reading the comments on this particular item and in terms of the substance, recalling the multiple occasions on which Donald referenced Lincoln's ungainliness, to the point of being downright unattractive. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • Fixed (?). I replaced the sentence and added a cite - doubtful that I addressed all the concerns expressed - but no plagiarism. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stability

edit

Close enough

Images

edit
  • Something strange going on with the image formatting under Assassination - I seem to be seeing two captions. Was that intentional?
  • "US Postage, 1958 issue, commemorating the Lincoln and Douglas debates" - should be consistent with article text
  • Captions are subject to essentially the same standards of prose quality, neutrality, and sourcing as the article text (although incomplete sentences are allowed)
  • Only include images when and where they are relevant
  • Avoid stacking images and sandwiching text between images
  • Abe-Lincoln-Birthplace-2.jpg - all source links are dead, making verification of the licensing impossible
    • With verification lacking, should this picture be removed? If so, I will raise the issue on the AL talk page and delete if no verification is provided after a suitable time period. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Mary_Todd_Lincoln_1846-1847.jpg - source link says "creation/publication" date is 1846-47, but you need to show that that was the publication date (I think...images aren't my area of expertise). This also applies to several other images tagged PD-US
  • Abelincoln1846.jpeg - why was this flipped from the original source?
    • Please clarify this "flipped" and "PD-US" and Mary L. problem - I'm weak in the image area as well. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • If you compare Abelincoln1846.jpg to the source image linked from the image description page, you will that the two are mirror images of each other - this is generally discouraged, so I'm wondering if there is a particular reason why it was done. PD-US refers to the licensing tag on the description page of the Mary L image and several others, producing this text: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923". You will notice that it specifies publication prior to 1923, not creation. Thus, as the source link provided says "creation/publication" instead of just "publication", it's unclear whether PD-US can be used. If you can prove that publication occurred pre-1923, then that tag can be used; if it was created pre-1923 but not published then, you may need to choose a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    •   Done. Image is in correct orientation. The description page of the later image states that the earlier image was the one that was in fact flipped - noting that in the earlier image L's hair is parted on the wrong side and the jacket opens on the wrong side. I have reviewed L's various photos in Donald, which confirms this. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Young_Lincoln_By_Charles_Keck.JPG - based on my reading of Freedom of panorama rules on Commons, the sculpture is not PD
  • Lincoln_Douglas_Debates_1958_issue-4c.jpg - per this, image is PD-USGov
  • ElectoralCollege1860.svg, ElectoralCollege1864.svg - source for data and for blank map?
  • Abraham_lincoln_inauguration_1861.jpg - need to include creator's date of death. Also, it would help to link directly to the LoC description page instead of the third-party source provided
  • Lincoln_second.jpg - need a more specific source than "Library of Congress"
  • Lincoln-Warren-1865-03-06.jpeg - include date of death for creator
  • The_Assassination_of_President_Lincoln_-_Currier_and_Ives_2.png - Currier and Ives is the publisher, not the author. For the current licensing tag to be valid, you need to include the author and his/her date of death
  • TheApotheosisLincolnAndWashington1860s.jpg - source link is dead, making verification of licensing impossible
US federal law says all images pre 1923 are public domain. Most are also anonymous as to artist. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Usually yes, but Wikipedia practice requires that we demonstrate that an image was published prior to 1923 and/or (depending on circumstances) who the author was or why the author cannot be determined. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Currier and Ives closed in 1907 and so everything they published was well before 1923. they did not attribute their anonymous artists of specific works, and scholars assign authorship to "Currier and Ives". Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Good to know. However, per WP and FAC image conventions, you need to say so on the relevant image description pages, and preferably provide proof. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have posted on the AL talk page the names of the images in non-compliance with licensing guidelines in hopes that someone with expertise in the image arena can help. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/GA2&oldid=1088271899"