Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Governor of Kentucky/archive1

< 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 SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011 [1].

Governor of Kentucky edit

Governor of Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hopefully comprehensive overview of the office of chief executive of the U.S. state of Kentucky, complete with illustrative examples from past officeholders. I believe this would be the first FA about the office of governor of any U.S. state. I'll try to respond to comments quickly, but I ask for your patience, as I have a newborn at home. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no broken external links (linkchecker said one was timing out but it worked for me), but this link, which you're using for ref 31 right now, says at the bottom that it pulls from wikipedia, making it a no-go unless you can show that on the date it was put up the information you're using it to cite wasn't in this or any WP article. --PresN 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I also recently took the Fletcher article to GA, I know the information was there prior to it being in the Wikipedia article. I'm reasonably sure that NGA just links to the Wikipedia article for many governors, but the biographies aren't actually cited to them, kind of like the "External links" or "Further reading" sections in many Wikipedia articles. All that said, I could probably cite this to another source if it's absolutely necessary. NGA was just handy. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • What is the difference in content between the two 1891 constitutions lisred in the references? I have not been able to reach the earlier, because of repeated timeouts. To which of the two 1891 constitutions do the citations in 1, 5, 6, 8 etc refer?
  • The first 1891 Constitution is the document as it was adopted in 1891 (noted by the words "as adopted" in the bibliography). The second is to the document as it presently reads due to amendments since 1891. Only reference 69 refers to the 1891 constitution as adopted (and again, this is noted by the "as adopted" qualifier.) It is necessary to reference both documents in order to verify the changes made to the chain of gubernatorial succession effected by a 1992 amendment.
  • Citation 16: The link goes to a Charters of Freedom homepage. I can't see the US Constitution listed in the references, as the state constitutions are.
  • The U.S. Constitution is in the references as "Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, section 7". It appears just below the two works by Thomas D. Clark.
  • Citations 79 and 83: What are the "Nomination forms" referred to? I imagine that the National Register of Historic Places Inventory is published or listed somewhere. Wouldn't that make a more verifiable source?
  • I'm far from an expert on the National Register of Historic Places, but as I understand it, in order to have a property listed, it has to be nominated by someone and that nomination form is approved by someone in the federal government. I'm citing the forms per advice from User:Bedford, an editor much more experienced with NHRP articles than I. If there is a better source to verify the years that the mansions were listed, I'm not opposed to changing the source.
  • The eight Harrison contributions to The Kentucky Encyclopedia should be differentiated in the citations.
  • Eesh. Indeed. I thought I fixed this during the GA nom, but alas, it seems I never made it past the good intentions stage. Fixed now.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to see a governor article (as opposed to a governor list) up for featured consideration. :) One comment - we abandoned the colorful party tables on the governor lists long ago, so I'm not sure it's a good idea here. Then again, it does provide some color to a section that otherwise might go without a picture. The history section is otherwise very well done, taking the list and essentially turning the major events of it into well-written prose. I stared at it trying to see what I could steal for the list article, but not much really; it would be retelling the same story. It works well for this article. One more comment: "Political victories were few and far between for Federalists in Kentucky. None of Kentucky's governors were members of the Federalist Party." These sentences look like they could be combined. --Golbez (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the colorful table, I wasn't aware that practice had been scrapped. I'm not opposed to replacing it with an image; probable candidates include Isaac Shelby, the state's first governor; John Breathitt, the state's first Democratic governor; Thomas Metcalfe, first in a string of National Republican/Whig governors; Charles S. Morehead, the state's only Know-Nothing governor; William O. Bradley, the state's first Republican governor; Ernie Fletcher, the state's most recent Republican governor; and Steve Beshear, the state's present governor (although he also shows up in the infobox.) Still, the table is not without value, since it shows at a glance the long history of Democratic dominance in the office. If the colors need to be removed to make it more palatable, I'm not opposed to that. Let me know which seems best to you.
  • Regarding your copy-edit, I've implemented it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, it's not that there's colors, it's that it can, in some cases, give a skewed view of reality. Let's say, hypothetically, that a state had 40 Republican governors when its terms were 1 year long; and then, more recently, raised term lengths to 4 years, and had 10 Democratic governors. A table like that would show a Republican dominance, when in reality they are equal. This could be bypassed by including the number of years served by each party, but I much rather prefer it being dealt with in prose. (Note that the current list template includes a counting of governors, but in conjunction with a small key and to explain how the official counting works) Though you are correct, in the case of Kentucky there was a heavy Democratic dominance, so there'd be much less chance for ambiguity, but I still think it can be handled better in prose than with a table that has only one column of real information. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not likely to be a problem with Kentucky specifically at this point, since terms have always been 4 years and very few have been eligible to serve consecutive terms. It does get somewhat complicated, however, in a case like John L. Helm, who served two non-consecutive terms, one as a Whig and one as a Democrat. I'm fine with nixing the table; which image do you think is most appropriate to replace it? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first governor seems to be a good option. --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - beginning a read-over now. I'll jot queries below. Prose looking promising. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
''The Democratically-controlled House of Representatives... - simpler to just say "The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives..." ?
I'm never entirely sure which is correct (or if both are acceptable) in this situation. "Democrat-controlled" sounds a little awkward to me, but that's hardly a substitute for a grammatical rule.
okay, I am not too fussed.
the officeholder has had to rely on empowering legislation enacted by the General Assembly - is this second "empowering" necessary? Is any meaning lost by its removal? (there are a few wordy setences around this bit making for heavy reading...)
I actually think it reads better if we change the first occurrence of "empower", which I have done.
This provision reflected the prominence of duelling in the South at the time - would "prevalence" be a better word here?
Indeed. Thanks.

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I look forward to the rest of your review, and hopefully, your eventual support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Administration and appointments section, "In the three and a half decades between". Why not just say "In the 35 years"? This seems like a long way to say something simple.
  • Fair enough. Done.
  • Same section, "Happy Chandler enacted a merit system by executive order". The arrangement of this just feels awkward, like the subject is a "merit system by executive order". Maybe "...an executive order issued by Chandler enacted a merit system...", although I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with that either.
  • I've rewritten this. See how it sounds now.
  • Same section, "forbade the hiring or firing of state employees for political reasons" Isn't "political reasons" rather subjective - i.e., how was anyone going to be able to prove that a governor had done something for political reasons unless the governor came right out and said so? And also, wasn't it rather pointless to just enact an executive order, when the next governor could come through, repeal the order and make whatever political hirings/firing he wanted to? I see that Combs later made it impossible for later governors to repeal this, but then what was the point of Chandler's actions?
  • Your first question is quite observant considering that when Governor Fletcher was charged with violating the merit system, part of his defense early on was that the regulations imposed by the merit system were too vague and open to interpretation to be enforceable. Ultimately, his objection was not sustained, but it is apparent that at least some legal minds have made a similar observation to yours.
  • Regarding your second question, it's been a while since I was deep into this period of the governorship, but as best I remember, Governor Chandler's campaign was built upon the idea that the executive branch was all being controlled by former Governor Clements and that all appointments had to be vetted by him. The executive order was probably meant to show that he was serious about cracking down on cronyism. However, as I understand it, Chandler was probably just as guilty of cronyism and may have deliberately taken the action because of its political expediency, hoping to undo it later and hope no one would notice. Alternatively, he may not have had the votes in the General Assembly to enact a merit system statute and believed the executive order was better than nothing.
  • I suppose if there aren't any RS dealing with this than there's nothing you can do. It would be interesting for the article to go slightly more in depth on this, but maybe it's better for another article.
  • Unofficial powers, "often seeking to hand-select" Did they just seek to do so, or did they actually do so? If the former, why/how were they thwarted?
  • Most of the time, they actually did so, excepting the few Republican governors who had the difficult task of dealing with a heavily Democratic General Assembly. I've changed the wording here.
  • Same section, "national or international dignitaries are visiting." Just "...dignitaries visit."?
  • Better. Thanks.
  • I actually meant "national or international dignitaries visit", hence the ellipses, but the way you have it is better - less wordy, tighter prose.
  • Qualifications and term, "Another constitutional amendment, passed in November 2000, called for a 30-day legislative session to be held in odd-numbered years between the longer 60-day sessions held in even-numbered years." What does this have to do with the governorship? It seems rather tacked on to this section, having little to do (as far as I can tell) with what is being discussed immediately prior to it.
  • This addresses Wetherby's observation in the quote immediately preceding it that a governor has only the first legislative session of his term in which to enact his agenda. Part of the argument for more frequent legislative sessions was that it gives the governor more chances for his proposals to become law.
  • Ah, I see. Guess I missed that :)
  • Election, "This was changed from the fourth Tuesday after the election by the 1850 constitution." Any idea why?
  • Unfortunately, no.
  • Darn. Oh well.
  • Succession, "the secretary of state, or in his inability to qualify" First, what would lead him to be ineligible? Second, this really doesn't sound grammatically correct (maybe it is and it's just my writing style, I don't know). Perhaps "...,or in the event of his ineligibility,..."
  • I don't believe all of the same requirements for governor (age, residency in the state, etc.) apply to the lower offices. (J. C. W. Beckham was not of legal age to be governor when he was elected lieutenant governor, for example.) Also, God forbid, some accident or attack had incapacitated multiple members of the executive branch (e.g. the secretary of state was in a coma from which he later recovered or something like that.) Regarding the "inability to qualify", this was the language used in one of the sources I consulted, although I forget which one it was at the moment. I'm open to changing it if you think it sounds better, though.
  • OK, what about "in the event of his inability to quality". Perhaps I'm just being to wordy, but "in his inability to quality" sounds like there's something missing between "in" and "his".
  • Works for me.
  • Same section, "removed the provision under which the lieutenant governor became acting governor when the sitting governor was out of the state" Any idea why?
  • It was archaic and reflected a time (1891) when out-of-state governors could not easily be reached or return to the state (i.e. before cell phones and automobiles).
  • Makes sense. Guess that's not really something that needs to go into the article.
  • History of the office, "(Kentucky's sixth governor, George Madison, was a cousin to James Madison.)" Any way that this could be better integrated into the prose? The parentheses are rather jarring.
  • Done.

Overall it's a nice article. Most of the above issues are minor, and I look forward to supporting when they are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I look forward to your eventual support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support. The remaining couple of issues are minor style things that don't affect my support. Thanks for the quick replies. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have concerns as to how the article will be maintained if an Incumbent is going to be in the infobox, and was curious what are the plans to keep this up to date? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no PD image of the newly-elected governor is available, I'd assume we'd just remove the incumbent image and leave the infobox without one. I plan to maintain this article inasmuch as I'm able, including the picture. The image should only need to be updated every 4-8 years. I don't see this as a big issue. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I read through "Veto". It's pretty good, but I'm unimpressed with the writing. Repetitive structure and language makes it drier than it can afford to be. There are several MoS problems and general mis-cues that indicate it hasn't really been gone over with a monocle by anyone yet. Not ready for prime time, I'm afraid.
    • I found MoS problems within a few seconds of looking—has it been checked?
      • I've done my best to conform to the MOS, but no, no one else has checked it. Is there a place to request that?
    • Fixed the image caption, but: "heavily-Republican". See WP:HYPHEN.
      • Fixed.
    • There are lots of easter-egg links, even just in the lead. Unless there is a good reason, we shouldn't completely surprise the reader as with "Fifty-six men and one woman" going to the list of governors and "Jacksonian Democrats" going to the modern Democratic Party page, which contains no explanation of the connection. There is a page on Jacksonian democracy, however. See WP:EGG.
      • I don't really consider the list link an Easter egg; I thought the reader might want to know who the fifty-six men and one woman were; still, I've removed it. I also wasn't aware of the article on Jacksonian democracy, but I've changed that link too.
    • I find the "he or she" construction to be quite inelegant. Modern grammars have no issue with the singular "they", or better yet, write around it.
      • I don't care much for it, either, but I wasn't aware that singular "they" was acceptable now. (Who makes those determinations, anyway?) I've gone back and tried to write around it as much as possible.
    • Why "has been historically considered" but then "has historically been augmented"?
      • Just an oversight on my part. Fixed.
    • Clunky: "In the second and all subsequent constitutions, a stipulation was added" Added to, not in.
      • Changed. Should read better now.
    • Parallel structure: "For his service, Shelby received the thanks of Congress and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal."
      • Fixed.
    • Also, "Thanks of Congress" is meant to be a proper noun.
      • Fixed.
    • Starting in the "Convening and adjourning the legislature" heading, more variety in writing is needed. There are a lot of "also present" type constructions that create the impression you were reading through a list of powers as you wrote.
      • I've tried to clean it up some. Not sure how to talk about the powers other than to enumerate them, commenting if something is noteworthy. Comprehensiveness seems to require mentioning them all.
    • "The 1799 constitution and all subsequent constitutions" Wouldn't something like "The constitutions of 1799 forward" be simpler?
      • Simplified.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't find the writing up to FA standards. I've done the best I can, but finding help on copyediting and MOS issues for Kentucky governor articles has proven dang near impossible. Peer review seldom generates any comments and extends the time needed to get an article through FA review even more. (As you can see, this nom has been open for over a month, and will probably fail based on a lack of reviews and supports.)
Anyway, I've tried to address all of your concerns above, and I'll be happy to try and address any more you list here, but general comments like "doesn't conform to the MOS" aren't the kinds of things I can really do much about, since I won't really know what I'm looking for specifically. Sorry if I'm venting a little here; guess I should work on articles about battleships, hurricanes, or The Simpsons so I can generate enough interest to get sufficient reviews. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Maybe. :) Well, it's close, so I wouldn't count it out yet. I'll plan to take another pass through it today, and see if it's ready. I'll check for any other MoS problems. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I paid particular attention to the prose, given Andy's comments above. I think it passes. It's not the most riveting article I've ever read but the topic is unavoidably dry and I think the nominator has done all that can be expected. I did a copyedit pass and found very little to fix. Per Andy's comments about MoS above: I'm not a MoS guru but I didn't spot anything objectionable. In addition to prose, the sources seem high quality, and it's comprehensive in terms of covering everything I would expect to see in such an article, though I don't know the sources and can't tell if anything has been omitted. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now. Made a few other minor changes and anything else I would point out would be purely subjective. Thanks to Mike for the late-term edits and commentary—should make it a lot easier to get this thing moving. FYI I'm recused from promoting or archiving this, so it won't be looked at until Sandy makes her next pass. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, guys. I was really worried that this one was going to fail, and I was going to have to start over with it, wasting another month. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some of the PDFs listed in Notes but not References don't have access dates, and not sure you should be using those big quote marks on the quotes, per WP:MOS#QUOTES-- please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (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/Governor_of_Kentucky/archive1&oldid=1138461800"