Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Harrison

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [1].

Benjamin Harrison edit

Nominator(s): Coemgenus

This article was promoted to GA a few months back, thanks to the work of editor Charles Edward, among others. Since then, I've added some more information and believe it to be of FA-quality. Coemgenus 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article is very good. I found one statement which needs a citation: For the third vacancy, which arose in 1892, Harrison nominated George Shiras. Shiras's appointment was controversial because his age — sixty — was considered advanced at the time. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cite is to the same pages as the previous cite, so I added it again. I changed the wording a bit -- the issue apparently wasn't that they thought he would die soon, something to do with his pension. Coemgenus 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Question: would the "legacy" section benefit by adding a brief assessment of the effectiveness of his presidency and public attitude toward Harrison? Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any public perception of him nowadays. I'll look in the sources. Coemgenus 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Support I read the article with great interest. I found no major problems (except one, see below) that can prevent it from becoming featured. I only want to say that according to MOS you should use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash (and this should be consistent throughout the article). Spaced mdash should not be used. I fixed spaced mdashes myself, but you should check, because I might have missed something.
The only problem that I found is the 'Legacy' section. It actually says nothing about legacy, but contains mainly trivia. I think the section should be disbanded and the information should be distributed among other sections. Ruslik (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated it; see my comment below. Coemgenus 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query In the tariff section the phrase "was had the" is ambiguous and the whole section is unclear as to whether the measure was passed. Either the measure went through in which case it "was the" or it failed to be enacted and "would have been" ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. Coemgenus 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Also you have a map for the Presidential election he lost, (though I think the Upper Peninsula is coloured incorrectly on it) but why no map for the election he won? ϢereSpielChequers 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 1888 map. The 1892 map is colored as it is to represent the Michigan divided its votes between the two candidates. Coemgenus 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute with Chile has a different explanation for the riot than the article linked. Accepting refugees in one and intervention in the other. Worth checking that out and bringing the articles into line with each other (I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't multiple views as to the cause of the tension).
The post Presidential section leaves me with some questions:
Apart from the boycot of their father's wedding to their cousin there is no further mention of the rift with his elder children, were matters subsequently resolved?
If his time in California was brief, in which year did it end?
Why in an otherwise chronological section was the book publication out of sequence, was that when it was written?
Why was his book not published for nearly two decades after his death? ϢereSpellCheckers 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Of course I have spent considerable time working on this article myself, so I am a bit biased :). The legacy section is the only area I am still concerned about as is noted above. It was in fact a trivia section at one point, which I significantly pared downed, put into prose, and labeled legacy hoping to at some point get more information on his legacy (which I have yet to find much). We should probably remove that section and try to integrate into the rest of the article before we grant FA status. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be glad to remove it and integrate the relevant parts. Coemgenus 16:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I moved some of it to a section called "technology," since it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. The list of stuff named after him I deleted -- I've never liked those lists in a biogrpahy article, since for more popular presidents they can go on forever. Coemgenus 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the Early legal career section, specify "In the same year".
    • At the end of the section, there's a man named Fishbank but the firm was called Fishback; which is right?
    • There's a redlink for the Regiment in the Civil War section; link can be removed if no article exists.
    • In the next paragraph, "the 70th Indiana" sounds weird.
    • Should the image of the house in the Early legal career section go under Indiana politics by "to build a grand new home in Indianapolis."?
    • "losing by 5,084 votes": How few is that; out of how many?
    • Under United States Senator, do we know which cabinet position he was offered?
    • Election over Cleveland: "90,000 fewer popular votes" How much is that in proportion to the total number cast?
    • The post-presidency section, especially the Venezuela attorney part, could be lengthened a little, especially since it's mentioned in the lead.
      • I did some copyediting throughout the article, mostly punctuation and minor phrasing, but these are what I wasn't sure about. Overall it is an excellent and very informative article. I had read it in a very short state last year, and you have done an excellent job improving it! Reywas92Talk 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added total vote numbers for the two instances you noted. In regards to the cabinet position, my sources do not indicate which position, but only states "a position in the Garfield cabinet". I also expanded the post presidency section a bit with another source. I also corrected the name of the Indiana regiment and changed the link to point to the Indiana regiments page. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing them. The sources I have also don't specify which cabinet job. "70th Indiana" is the form of name I've heard for other Civil War regiments, too, so I'd suggest we leave that as is. Christmas Eve probably wasn't the best time for me to nominate this for FA, but I'll try to keep up! Coemgenus 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Comprehensiveness worries. I only read the "Family and education" section, but I feel like it could be beefed up a bit to better describe his background. It does an adequate job giving a timeline of what happened in his early life, but I think an FA biography should go a bit deeper.
    • He was seven when his grandfather was sworn in as President. What kind of impact did this have on his childhood?
    • "He maintained a membership in the Sons of the American Revolution." Who's "he"?
    • "In 1845...In 1847...In 1850" The repetition makes for some dull reading here.
    • "he was provided with a tutor " Was he struggling with his studies? He had tutors before this though, according to Calhoun and Moore. The quotation from his first tutor Harriet Root about him being "the brightest of the family" might do well integrated here.
    • What kind of childhood did he have? Was his family well-off? Middle class? What did his father do at the time?
    • "In 1847 he was enrolled in Farmer's College" Might want to make it clear whether this was for preparatory or undergraduate work.
    • No mention of the deaths of his mother/siblings and how it affected him?
    • No mention of the influence of Robert Hamilton Bishop?
    • Why did he want to transfer?
    • How did he do at Miami University? How did his activities/performance there shape him?
    • Might want to devote some words to his decision to pursue law instead of the ministry after graduation.
    • No description of how he met/fell in love with Caroline Lavinia Scott? BuddingJournalist 22:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some details of his early life. I don't want to add too much, partly because it will be of less interest to most readers than his adult life, and partly because there isn't much about it in the sources I have. Do you think Bishop influenced him that much? Calhoun devotes two paragraphs to Bishop, but never mentions him again. If you have access to the Sievers books, there may be more in there (almost certainly; they are lengthy) but I don't, so I can add no more than I have. Coemgenus 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, one certainly needs to strike a balance. I just feel that more discussion would be worthwhile on how his childhood and early life shaped him and his future, rather than listing what happened (in this year, Harrison did such-and-such). For example, see the early life section of Ronald Reagan, which discusses his faith. Both Calhoun and Moore say that he was heavily influenced by Bishop, and Calhoun spends time talking about his political writings/speeches he made while at Miami University. I think it'd be interesting to note that at Miami, he was already distinguishing himself as a leader and public speaker. The full text of Sievers is available online for free courtesy of the great folks of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/benjaminharrison007546mbp. BuddingJournalist 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to that website for the Sievers -- I'll look it over and see if he has anything to add, and I'll see if I can summarize some pertinent info from the other sources, too. Coemgenus 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit from Sievers to the Early Life section. Only the first volume is online, so I won't be able to do the same for later parts of his life. Coemgenus 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 100 (Leip, David...) what makes http://uselectionatlas.org/ a reliable source?
    • It's a fairly well-known site that's been used as a source in other FAs (see, e.g., Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Winfield Scott Hancock. Do you think there might be a problem with it? Coemgenus 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've got it (apparantly) double cited here in this article, but it certainly looks like a self published website to me, meaning it needs to satisfy WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The National Archives site gives the information well enough, so is there any harm in leaving the Leip site also, which presents the same information in a more eye-pleasing way? I'll take it out, if you want, but I don't see the harm in having two sources there.
          • You're welcome to leave it in, but its use here won't help prove its reliablity. Probably a good compromise would be to put it in the external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I moved them there. Coemgenus 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you use the Benjamin Harrison book in the footnotes, you need to list it in the references, not the further reading.
  • The Adelson book is a juvenile per Amazon, might it not be better to use a better source?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many image layout issues (see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images). Official White House portrait of Benjamin Harrison is looking off the page, and several images are above sections rather than within them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've corrected the issues you've mentioned. Please let me know if there are further inconsistencies with the MOS. Coemgenus 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments that weren't addressed
    • End of Early legal career section: The man's name is listed as Fishbank but the firm's is listed as Fishback. What's right?
      • It's Fishback. I fixed it. Coemgenus 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't the image of his home in the Early legal career section go under Indiana politics by "to build a grand new home in Indianapolis."?
    • Also, should it be noted in the States admitted section that Harrison admitted the most states after GW?
      • I'd rather not. I'm not sure this is really Harrison's achievement, or that the admission of the first 15 was really Washington's. Coemgenus 16:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC) I changed my mind and added it. Coemgenus 15:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All other comments of mine were taken care of already. Good work. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Excellent! Reywas92Talk 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets FA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about research - The first thing I did when I came to this article was look at the list of references consulted. I was shocked that there were so few and shocked that the article relies almost exclusively on one biography. However, I know nothing about Harrison scholarship, so, I trotted over to JSTOR and looked up a review of the Calhoun biography. Unfortunately there was only one (not a good sign). It was generally positive, but it mentioned that the biography is part of a TIME series that "clearly hopes to appeal to a wide audience". I'm concerned that the scholarly biographies on Harrison have not been used to write this article. Unfortunately, I do not know what those are. Have the editors endeavored to find and use all of the biographies of Harrison while researching and writing this article? For most of the major biographical articles I've written (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestley, and Mary Shelley), I've had to read seven or eight biographies and I haven't written on a figure as well-known as a US president. Awadewit (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All biographies I know of were used, with the exception of the second and third volume of Sievers. If you discover any others, and if I am able to procure them, I will be glad to see if they have any new information worth adding. Coemgenus 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow! This is like Harriet Tubman! How strange that there are only a handful of biographies. What is in the second and third volumes of Sievers? Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is unfortunate; even though the TIME series isn't perfect, for many of the lesser-known Presidents, it's their first biography in decades. Sievers volume one stops at 1865. Vol. 2 is up to 1885, and vol. 3 is from then until his death. Coemgenus 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you not have access to those volumes or something? Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • They're not in any library near me, and I'm not buying them. Volume 1 is on-line, for some reason, but the site does not have the other two volumes. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • But when there are so few biographies, it seems like we should use all of them don't you think? Did you try interlibrary loan? I'll try to go to the library and see what kinds of differences there are between the article and the second and third volumes (hopefully there won't be any). Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:GenBenHarrison.jpg - Without an author for this image, we cannot assert that 100 years plus the life of the author has passed. Do any of the Harrison books give more information on this photo, such as its publication date or its photographer?
    • I changed it to {{PD-1923}}, which is more accurate. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added "nineteenth century" to the "date" field and "unknown" to the "author" field. We can be reasonably sure this photograph was published then, since Harrison died in 1901. It would, of course, be nicer to know that. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ElectoralCollege1888.svg - This image needs to include a source for the electoral distribution. Please also add a description of the map to the description field, including the year of the election, the candidates, etc.
    • I added a source for the data. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sources for images need to be reliable. This is a website run by an independent, though conscientious citizen, making it self-published. We need something that meets WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the info on the U.S. archives website, and added it. Why is everyone suddenly down on Leip's site? I've used it as a source in three previous FAs without objection, and I've yet to find an error. I also added a caption.Coemgenus 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Billion dollar Congress.jpg - Do you have the issue and volume number for the magazine this was published in? Note that WP:IUP says "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author." This is true for magazines as well.
  • File:Uss baltimore c-3.jpg - We need a link to the source at the navy site for this image. If there is more information regarding it at the navy site, that would be good to include.
  • File:DJBrewer.jpg - The LOC page says "copyright Clinedust, Washington, DC" but it also says "created/published c.1907". Now, if it was published in 1907, it is in the PD because it was published before 1923. However, it was only created in 1907, that is not the case. Do you know anything else about this photo?
    • The LOC says it was published in 1907. That's good enough for me. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The LOC says that is was "created/published in 1907", as I stated above. There is a difference between being created in 1907 or published in 1907 (the LOC unfortunately is not drawing the distinction here for whatever reason). Since, the LOC is claiming that Clinedust owns the copyright, we need to be sure that this image was published before 1923. That is why I am asking, do you have any further information regarding the publication of this image? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't upload it; all I know is what is contained on the source page on the LOC website. I doubt they're violating the copyright any more than we are, but I can't substantiate it from the info there. Coemgenus 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The LOC leaves it up to users to determine copyright - see their extensive tutorial here. Not everything in the LOC is PD and not everything has enough information allowing us to use it on Wikipedia (the LOC's rules are different from our rules). The way around the problem with this image would be to demonstrate that the author has been dead for over 70 years (but we don't know the author), 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work. That is why it is important to know when the image was published versus when it was created. You can see why the publish/creation distinction is important. We can only use the image if it was published over 95 years ago. I was hoping one of the Harrison books might mention it. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I swapped it for a different pic. On the new picture's page at LOC, it says there are no known restrictions on reproduction. Coemgenus 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • "No known restrictions" actually doesn't mean PD. We have to establish PD. It looks like this passes the "pre-1923" test, since no one else is claiming the copyright and we have a reason to believe it was published before 1923. Lucky, since the photographer died in 1952! Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1892 Electoral Map.png - This map needs to include a description of what is represented as well as the source from which the information was obtained.
    • I added the source info. Coemgenus 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above comment on this source. Also, please add a brief description of the information contained in the map. Note that the candidates' full names are not contained in the map. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the source. I also added a caption. Coemgenus 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The image description page needs a description of the image - there is no entry in the "description" field. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, I see. I added one. Coemgenus 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I added the first names of the candidates. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 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/Benjamin_Harrison&oldid=1138455901"