Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John C. Breckinridge/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2017 [1].

John C. Breckinridge edit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Cabell Breckinridge was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state. He was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln. He eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war. Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:John_C_Breckinridge-04775-restored.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the LOC, it was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem with that is, if it was only created and not published at that time, the current tag does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, wouldn't the slash indicate that both took place during that time period? Also, this is a Brady/Handy portrait. I think that most of Brady's photographs were published during his lifetime. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having looked at LOC images before, I can say that the slash means "and/or" not "and". If you can find a publication during his lifetime, that would support the use of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Brady's biography on Civil War Trust includes the following sentence: "In 1850 he published "The Gallery of Illustrious Americans," which sold for $15, equivalent to about $400 today." It also states that in 1875 he sold his collection of photographs to the U.S. Government. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this image was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880, it can't have been included in the 1850 publication, and may or may not have been sold in 1875. Any way to narrow this down a bit? And do we know whether the rights were included in the 1875 sale, or just the physical photos (or negatives?)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, it seemed to me that, in your previous response, you said that if I could prove that if some of Brady's photographs were published at any point in his life, there would be some justification for using that tag. Per the Library of Congress [2], Brady photographs are considered to be in the public domain. Also, the source of the Breckinridge photograph is the Library of Congress. That, along with the fact that all sources that I've seen referring to the 1875 sale indicate that Brady sold all of his major works, makes it practically certain that the Breckinridge photograph was among those sold to the U.S. Congress in 1875. Display name 99 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Confederate_States_of_America_General-collar.svg should include an explicit tag indicating that the design is out of copyright
I added a PD-1923 tag. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John-C.-Breckinridge-bust-by-James-Paxton-Voorhees.jpg: since the Licensing section is split, the tag in the Permissions field should be moved to the appropriate section. This was done but apparently incorrectly for File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg, and for that image to use the life+100 tag we need an author date of death
I've done the first part. However, the Wikipedia article for the Breckinridge statue in Lexington does not provide the name of a specific author. It merely states that the work was done by the "Henry-Bonnard Bronze Company" and that it was built in 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged this. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_C._Breckinridge_by_Nicola_Marschall.jpg has a life+100 tag, but the given death date for the author is less than 100 years ago
Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JDavis.png (in template) needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I couldn't find that image in the article anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in {{CSCabinet}}, and to use the tag you've added we need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag. In my search to find a publication date using the URLS given in the file I eventually ended up here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...which unfortunately doesn't tell us much in regards to whether we can use it! Again, if we can find an early publication we're good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything, and thus replaced it with a cropped version of a Brady portrait, which appears to include the appropriate tags. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay. Please check my work above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

I'll be reviewing this article. Preliminarily, I'm not sure that you can say he was convicted of treason by the Senate. The Senate's only significant right of trial that I'm aware of is impeachment. Looking ahead in the article, I see he was expelled by a resolution that called him a traitor, but that's not a conviction of treason. I would say "found to have committed treason".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source, Breckinridge's "Dictionary of America Biography" claims that he was indicted for treason in a Federal court. But it was not by the Senate, so I removed that sentence from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: Princeton University was Princeton College throughout his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "College of New Jersey." Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, you might want to put Princeton in parens or something. I fear my being pedantic conceals info from the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede is five paragraphs, and the limit is four. Just reading the lede, I see a number of sentences that are probably information that does not need to be in the lede. Consider some cutting. Examples of matters that do not need to be in the lede are who he was the son and grandson of (they are more obscure than he), what the sectional wings of the Democratic Party favored. That's not intended as a complete list. The description of the nominations of Breckinridge and Douglas could probably be boiled down to a long sentence. For the lede, it's generally sufficient to say what he did, and leave the context for the body of the article.
I knew it was a bit too long, but didn't want to shorten it without having first received proper advice. I took some of the advice that you gave, but decided to combine the last two paragraphs. Breckinridge's term as vice president and his presidential candidacy are both more historically significant than anything that he did after joining the Confederacy, so I felt it was best to leave that part in tact and shorten the aftermath. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would use "doughface" as a noun, rather than an adjective.
Here are sources in which it used as an adjective: [3] [4] Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supported popular sovereignty for determining slave-holding status" I might say "which supported allowing local residents to decide if a new state should be slave or free". It's the "slave-holding status" that's getting me, as it seems an indirect way of putting it.
I added something similar to this. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln" I don't think Lincoln was actually anti-slavery in 1860. He was certainly against its spread, but he had not publicly called for slavery's immediate end.
I added the word "more." He was definitely anti-slavery as far as southerners were concerned. But compared to some northerners, not quite so much. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Kentucky's neutrality was breached." I might tell the reader a bit more, and so substitute "Confederate forces moved into Kentucky"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fourth of six children born to Joseph "Cabell" and Mary Clay (Smith) Breckinridge, he was their only son." I would add another Breckinridge after "Cabell".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February, the family moved with Governor John Adair to the Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, Kentucky." Since it's long since you mentioned the year in question, I would either add it or say it happened the month after JCB's birth. It's also a bit obscure why they moved into the governor's mansion with the governor. Also, you could lose the word "Kentucky" here, it occurs three times in two sentences, and the other two seem needed to avoid ambiguity.
Done. I added that the move was done "so that his father could better attend to his duties as Secretary of State." Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While in Lexington, Breckinridge attended Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[7] His grandmother also taught him the political philosophies of her late husband, John Breckinridge, who served in the U.S. Senate ..." I'd lose the word "also" as not really needed.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breckinridge's uncle, William Breckinridge, was also on the faculty there, prompting him to enroll in November 1834." Was this the "decider" as it sounds? I mean, he's living in the house of the college president and doesn't have money to go away to school, wouldn't he have already been planning to attend Centre?
The sentence uses the word "also," indicating that more than one thing prompted him to attend. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in September 1838, he spent the winter of 1838–1839 as a "resident graduate" ..." to avoid the repetition, I would change, "winter of 1838–1839" to "following winter".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he and former classmate Thomas W. Bullock resolved to relocate to Iowa Territory in October 1841." Ambiguous. Did the resolution take place then or did they plan the move for then? And when did they actually leave?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he decided to remain for the summer rather than returning to Iowa's colder climate" This sort of sounds like you are saying Iowa has cold summers.
That's what the source says. I think that the summers are at least colder than those in Kentucky. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 1847, he delivered an address" I would name Breckinridge here to avoid the possibility of ambiguity.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to write The Bivouac of the Dead." why is the "The" capped and italicized if it's not part of the titie?
Done. I removed the word altogether. I don't think we need it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Owsley, then Governor of Kentucky" I would substitute "the" for "then"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John J. Crittenden " I would mention that he was a senator, and also a Whig.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After several men became ill at Vera Cruz," this may not make clear enough that disease was as deadly as the Mexicans, if not more so, in that campaign. The reader may not get the sense of alarm.
Done. I also added that the disease was yellow fever. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they participated in no military action" I would boil down to "they saw no fighting"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breckinridge's nominal military service" I'm not sure that does him enough credit for a difficult and dangerous task. I would rephrase as "Although he saw no combat, Breckinridge's military service"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breckinridge campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee James K. Polk during the 1844 campaign." I would change "campaigned" to "made speeches" or some such, to avoid the near repetition.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some local Democrats encouraged him to seek the Eighth District's congressional seat in 1845," The "in 1845" feels tacked on, I would move the phrase to the front of the sentence if I am interpreting the year correctly as saying when the encouragement (rather than the election) took place.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In August 1849, Kentuckians elected delegates to a state constitutional convention in addition to representatives and senators.[40]" I imagine that this is a reference to state legislators, as they wouldn't have elected a US senator.
Added the word "state" before representatives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Frank H. Heck wrote that Breckinridge was the leader of the House Democratic caucus during the session, but most of the measures considered were "local or personal ... and in any case, petty"." I don't see where there is a contrast justifying the "but".
Replaced with "during which time." Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a traditionally Whig stance" I might phrase this "a core Whig position" or similar. They agreed on this as much as Whigs ever agreed on anything.
I think that the word "traditionally" better conveys the irony of Breckinridge supporting it. The main purpose of this article is, of course, to discuss Breckinridge. Using the word "core" could even momentarily confuse the reader into thinking Breckinridge was a Whig. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three days before the end of the session, Breckinridge took a leave of absence to care for his son, John Milton, who had become ill; he died on March 18, 1850." You may want to supply a couple of dates in the discussion of the session here and previously.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attacks came from the pages of George Nicholas Sanders's Democratic Review, and on the House floor from Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, fellow Kentuckian Humphrey Marshall, Illinois' William A. Richardson, and California's Edward C. Marshall, who was Breckinridge's cousin, nearly all of whom supported Stephen Douglas for the nomination.[63] Their attacks, however, ultimately hurt Douglas's chances for the nomination and Breckinridge's defense of Butler enhanced his own reputation." is the list of conspirators necessary? This seems of importance only because it boosted Breckenridge.
I removed all mention of them specifically except for Marshall, because he was Breckinridge's cousin. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one of the mentions of Henry Clay, I would mention he was a senator. You don't seem to quite get there.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During its debate on the House floor," I think "the" for "its". The subject is not in doubt.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention somewhere around the time that Breckinridge's second house term expired in March 1855.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "any misdemeanors" maybe "any wrongdoing"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even with this additional support, Douglas was also unable to garner a majority of the delegates' votes," Probably "still" for "also".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggested that nominating Breckinridge for vice-president would balance Buchanan's ticket and placate disgruntled supporters of Douglas or Pierce." I would substitute "the" for "Buchanan's" and "and" for "or".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More soon, continuing with vice presidency. Sorry to be so segmented.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they managed to alienate most Northern Democrats, including Douglas.[91][48]" refs in wrong order
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly something could be said about the limited role of 19th century vice presidents, with specific reference to Breckinridge.
I couldn't find anything. Breckinridge isn't considered one of the most notable VPs in history, for better or worse, based on what he did in office. I did, however, expand the paragraph on the speech that he gave in the Old Senate Chamber on January 4, 1859. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breckinridge endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which upheld the legality of slavery" That wasn't really the holding of Dred Scott, more that Congress couldn't restrict it in the territories.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might toss a "recent" into the description of the Brown raid.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among Breckinridge's supporters ... " since all of the gentlemen listed were Kentuckians, I see no need to use the name of the state twice. Also, by this time Powell was a senator. (you later mention his becoming a senator in the 1861 description, so you could cut that)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Douglas maintained a wide plurality, but failed to gain a majority;" Didn't he need two-thirds?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To avoid detainment, " I might use the more common "detention".
To "detain" is a fairly widely-used word. I see no real advantage here. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capturing several Union prisoners, destroying their supplies, and driving them from the city." this can be read he did all this to the Union prisoners.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if [the attack] should result in disaster and I be among the killed, I want you to justice to my memory" It seems like there should be a word "do" before justice. If it's not in the quote, a bracketed word might be worth it.
I added "do" without the brackets. I couldn't access the source for this, but it definitely seemed left out. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arguing that Kentucky's decision to stay in the Union denied Breckinridge the notion of states' rights to justify his siding with the Confederacy." maybe "suggesting that Breckinridge had been a hypocrite for supporting states' rights, then abandoning his home state when it chose to remain in the Union." Some such, anyway. As it is, it's a bit opaque.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since then, many in the South viewed him as a "worthy successor" of the late Stonewall Jackson." This appears to need a "have" before "viewed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breckinridge would later set another example of this" maybe "Breckenridge would also show these skills"
Changed to "Breckinridge would draw more comparisons..." Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Lee ordered them to clear the Union forces from the Shenandoah Valley, then cross into Maryland and probed the defenses of Washington, D.C." likely "probe" for "probed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the process, he ensured that the Confederate archives, both government and military, were captured intact by the Union forces.[130] By so doing, he ensured that a full account of the Confederate war effort would be preserved for history." I'm not sure you should use such introductory phrases, commenting on the same thing, in two consecutive sentences.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worthwhile to mention how Breckinridge traveled as he fled in April 1865. Horseback?
Added that he rode into Abbeville on April 28. That was all I could find. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sherman later praised Breckinridge's negotiating skills, and the surrender terms agreed to were later criticized by Sherman's colleagues as too generous." They were actually refused by Washington, who ordered the surrender done without all the political trimmings, as I recall.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Learning of Davis's capture, which left him as the highest-ranking former Confederate official still at large" Benjamin outranked him, so to speak, I believe.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were Breckenridge's means of support while in exile?
Davis (2010) doesn't say much. I did add that he lived in hotels and a rented house. People gave him stuff for free in Cuba, as the article mentions. That could have been the case elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) offered him a professorship, but he declined." Was this offered through Lee's influence?
Probably. But I could only find that he was urged to accept it by former Confederate Colonel William Preston Johnston, and added that into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything be said about how Breckenridge is viewed by history? Being Buchanan's VP and a Confederate probably doesn't get you rave reviews.
I had difficulty finding sources on this. As I said before, nothing that Breckinridge did through his office of vice president stands out very much, in either a good or bad way. He's most famous for running for president in 1860. But people discussing the election seldom focus on Breckinridge the man. Instead they talk about the breakup of the Democratic Party and Lincoln and Douglas. Breckinridge had a very respectable career in the Confederacy, but he didn't become a legend the same way that Lee or Jackson did. The best I could do was insert a brief laudatory assessment of Breckinridge as a military commander, and another brief quote assessing his impact on the war.Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I have finished responding to the review. Thank you for your assistance. As always, it is appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support you're welcome. I have no objection if you collapse addressed comments, or move them to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All references appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following notes:

  • Ref 7, the Congressional Biographical The reader should be led to a link in some manner there. It is linked both in biblio and as an EL, which I think is a no-no.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not consistent on the use of title case for online resources, compare 32 and 120.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we reproduce the all caps in newspaper headlines.
Most of today's newspapers don't use all caps, but ones back then did quite frequently. Newspapers from the 19th century don't seem to be cited too often on WP. Personally I do it in order to be as accurate as possible. I don't see it as a big deal. If you can point to any specific policy I would have no problem changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ALLCAPS--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18 has the wrong dash. Also 153. And 187.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a typo in Ref 40 that should either be corrected or marked by sic.
Added "[sic]. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125 could use an ISBN.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 131 needs fuller detail.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 162 has a format problem. 174 has one too, but different.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 178 the publisher is likely the Library of Congress
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 207 to 210 appear to use a different formatting scheme.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Trails-R-Us a reliable source?
It doesn't look too good. I replaced it with a Maysville newspaper from 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the biblio, the place name for the location of Eicher's publisher appears incorrect.
Stanford University Press does apparently publish in California. I added "California" to the citation for clarification. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No such place as "Standord".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed spelling error. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current's book needs an ISBN.
Whose? Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me. But Eaton's needs an OCLC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a location and ISBN for Eaton. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • McKnight's book title needs italics and a publisher location. Also, this is the only one where you use a 13 digit ISBN, all others use 10.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The identical footnote in the succession boxes is given twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, thanks for the review. Please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl edit

  • "was a lawyer, politician, and soldier from the U.S. state of Kentucky". Surely better to say "was an American laywer was a lawyer, politician, and soldier", with Kentucky then being introduced in the second paragraph? That would be in keeping with most FAs, in my experience. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that you don't mind, but I've made some tweaks to the lede paragraphs to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's fine. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede is a little lengthy. Do you think it could be pruned here and then? It is for instance a few lines longer than FAs on other senior politicians, like Vladimir Lenin or Nelson Mandela. For instance "In 1859, he was elected to succeed U.S. Senator John J. Crittenden at the end of Crittenden's term in 1861." could easily be trimmed into "In 1861, he succeeded U.S. Senator John J. Crittenden." "As vice president, Breckinridge joined with Buchanan" could easily be "As vice president, Breckinridge joined Buchanan" etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Breckinridge was elected to succeed Crittenden two years before the term is significant. I left that alone. I have, however, tried to shorten the lead by implementing other suggestions that you have made. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he died on May 17, 1875." - we already have that date elsewhere in the lede, I do not think that we really need it again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "he died in 1875." He did die without reaching old age, so I think that it's worth mentioning his death. However, I agree that we don't need to give the exact date. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have nothing on Breckinridge's reception or legacy in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to the end. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " after Breckinridge had previously supported both President Franklin Pierce and Douglas for the nomination" probably is unnecessary in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed that part. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " doughfaced Northerner Buchanan," - I would scrap "doughfaced". We do not need to describe the personality of figures other than Brechinridge himself in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I have made several changes based on your suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, hello? Display name 99 (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I hope to take a closer look later in the week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Have you had a chance to take a look yet? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little concerned about the general length and structure of the lede. There is great disparity in the length of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The lede is also considerably longer than those of other FA-rated political biographies such as Vladimir Lenin or Nelson Mandela, who were more important than Breckinridge on the world stage. Personally, I would therefore like to see the lede trimmed down further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid point. I did some work trimming the lead, mostly in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. Those are still the longest, but the disparity is not as bad as before. It also makes sense for those to be longer, because while the 3rd paragraph covers only a single election season, the other two cover years. The first paragraph isn't supposed to be more than just a few sentences at most. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his father had been appointed Kentucky's Secretary of State just prior to his son's birth" - this could generate confusion, with the "his son" being interpreted as meaning John C. Breckinridge's son rather than John C. Breckinridge himself. I would suggest a rewording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both he and his wife fell ill; he died, but she survived" - similar situation. Maybe the latter "he" would work better as "Cabell"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in September 1838" - do we know what in? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted every available reliable source, but could not find it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bachelor of Arts" then "bachelor of law"? Standardise the capitalisation situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I capitalized the second instance. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I have responded to all of your comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I'm not sure why you consistently fail to respond to pings, but I have responded to your points and await the continuation of the review. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just busy with other things. When I have the time to return to the Breckinridge article, I will. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919 edit

This is fairly long and it's on the urgents list, so I thought it best to get comments started now so the coords don't close it while I'm reading. Just a couple of initial comments about the end sections:

Good point. I hadn't been paying much attention to that list. I removed both. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: I did not review the sources as a whole, but the use of a quote in note 121 caught my attention. Is there a reason for the quote? Also, it appears that this is cited to a website selling old copies of the New York Times, rather than to the paper itself, which also seems quite odd. If you don't have more direct access to this, I do, and would be happy to update the source, unless you have some reason to keep it the way it is.
The website that I used made it slightly difficult to find the appropriate heading. You've got to click on "Show Images List," and then scroll down. That source was the closest I could get to the paper. If you can get a better version, please add it right in to the article. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back with more in the next few days. --RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies above. I've updated the source for fn 121 as discussed, and here are a few more comments/questions:

  • First term (1851–1853):
    • Is there a reason that "heir apparent" is in italics?
Removed. No real reason for it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long sentence about attacks on William Butler by Breckinridge's cousin and others was a bit difficult. I took a shot at splitting it up, but if you've got a better idea, feel free to take another pass at it.
It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retirement from the House: "an attempt by Breckinridge's fellow investors to secure approval of a railroad" -- should I infer from this that Breckinridge was not personally involved, just his fellow investors? It's not clear from the current wording.
He was not involved in the actions which led to the plan being thwarted. Added clarification in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice Presidency: "Although Crittenden's Senate term did not expire until 1861" -- After re-reading, I realized this meant John J. Crittenden, but the first time through I was confused. Breckinridge was involved with both the John and Thomas Crittenden, and after several intervening sections I had forgotten about John's briefly-mentioned senatorial status. It's not a must, but it might be appropriate at this point to refer to him by his full name again for clarity.
Done. Added "John." Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential campaign of 1860: "He endorsed Crittenden's proposed compromise" -- I had to follow the link to know what this was. A brief description would be helpful. Maybe "He endorsed a package of constitutional amendments and Congressional resolutions proposed by Crittenden as a compromise" or something along those lines.
Done. I added something to this effect. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Service in the Western Theater: "commanding the Army of the Army of Mississippi" -- Should this just be "the Army of Mississippi"?
Yep. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Escape and exile: "and his son Cabell" -- isn't this the same son who was captured earlier? If so, it seems odd for him to be back at his father's side with no mention that he had been freed.
I don't see where the article says that he had been captured. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the last paragraph under "Service in the Western Theater". --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy: I moved some sentences around in an attempt to improve flow. I think the mention of the movie sticks out. If there is no other content to include about how he is represented in popular media, I'm not sure that a single, little-noticed film should even be mentioned. It seems more like trivia.
It's common practice, in sections such as this concerning historical figures, to include mention of notable films or other media in which they have been portrayed. If there are too many to list in the main article, we create a separate article. I don't see why there only being one movie made should prevent us from mentioning that film. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems quite thorough and generally well written, so those are all the comments I have at this point. --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919, I've responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with all the updates and replies except the one bit about his son's capture. See additional comment about that above. That should be addressed, but by itself it isn't critical, so I support this article for promotion based on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Regrettably, I could not find anything on his son being released from captivity. The source that is cited there is not available on Google Books, and I have no hard copy to reference. I checked the other sources, but none seem to say anything about it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a mention in one of the other sources that he was freed in a prisoner exchange, so I added a sentence to that effect. --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'm about halfway through the article, and have made a couple of minor copyedits; so far the prose looks to be in excellent shape. I'll add notes below as I go through. I hope to be able to do a source spotcheck too.

  • The article is very long, and I see there's a subarticle on his political career. Shouldn't some of the detail be moved to that article? Particularly prior to his vice-presidency I think we get a lot of detail that would be fine to trim, so long as it's in the subarticle.
I don't see this as a major issue. The article on Breckinridge's political career is shorter than his main biography (86,495 characters compared to 112,498), but this is mainly because the former, in keeping with its title, completely omits areas of detail for other areas of Breckinridge's life. The part about his career in politics is already much more detailed. Other articles on U.S. vice presidents are longer (John C. Calhoun is about 6,00 characters longer, and many articles on more recent VPs, some featured, are much longer than that). It seems to be that sections are divided and organized appropriately. If you disagree, please say so. But I don't see an issue with overall length. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not too long in itself, but given that the subarticle exists I would prefer to see it shortened as most of the details are present in the subarticle -- that's what summary style is for, after all. I am not going to oppose over this, but I do think more could be compressed here since it's in the subarticle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his vice-presidency ends he is immediately in the Senate again, but unless I missed it there is no mention of the election that placed him there.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually answer your second item without waiting on the nominator: His "election" (appointment by the state legislature in the 19th century) as senator is discussed in the last paragraph of the Vice Presidency section. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- struck above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

  • "Breckinridge received a plurality of votes for Speaker, but fell at least eight votes short of a majority on each of the first three ballots": The source only supports the "eight votes" comment for the first of these three votes.
The source (Klotter p. 104) says that he received more votes than anybody else, but 8 short of a majority. More than anyone else but not a majority equals a plurality. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says he received 8 more than anyone else on the first ballot; it doesn't say anything about the second or third ballot except that there was a deadlock in prospect. I think it's likely that the vote was unchanged, but I don't think we can say that with just the statement in Klotter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I see what you mean now. I have removed any mention of ballots. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would like to see more material moved to the subarticle on his political career, but I won't hold up support for that as I think it's a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice a few duplinks but as this is quite long, it could be argued that these are not too bad. I also notice that the images are missing alt text. While not a FA requirement, I always think that FAs should demonstrate best practice and it would be good if someone could add this in. Neither of these issues is enough to hold up promotion any further. If Midnightblueowl has anything further to add, I'm sure this could be discussed at the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (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/John_C._Breckinridge/archive1&oldid=796180953"