Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John C. Calhoun/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 [1].

---

John C. Calhoun

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesman who held a number of high political offices in the United States during the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the sectional divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of nullification and slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from a brief glance of the article:

• Why don't you use a photograph to illustrate him in the main infobox?

For a while, the lead image was the 1849 Mathew Brady photograph. That was replaced by consensus here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is your link correct, it doesn't seem to point to a specific discussion.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

4th bullet down. Sorry, I should have said that at the beginning. Display name 99 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• References need to be formatted better—university names have been italicised (they shouldn't be), for example.

Thanks. I've taken care of the part about university names. If there are any other issues, please bring them up specifically. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also refs 73–85 have been formatted differently than the others, and also feature lengthy quotations from the sourced material (why?).

Here is an excellent question. The part of the Secretary of State section concerning the Texas annexation and election of 1844, which is what includes the lengthy quotations, was written mostly by an editor by the name of 36hourblock. That editor has a citation style that always seems to involve the use of lengthy quotes from the sources. You'll see it in every article that he or she edits. I have never liked the style.

There previously were many more quotes in this article. Before renominating this article I went through the Secretary of State section and removed numerous quotations which I found to be particularly confusing, excessive, or unrelated. Others I managed to work into the main text. I chose to keep the remaining quotes in the article largely due to the fact that I was recently involved in a major dispute with 36hourblock in which that person, after falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet, alleged that I had engaged in harassment and troll-like behavior by altering his or her edits. I did not want a repeat.

Yet, if you say specifically that you concur with my opinion that the quotations are unnecessary, and a distraction in that they are inconsistent with the citation style in the rest of the article, I will remove them. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Indopug, I have decided to remove all the remaining quotes, revising the citations to make them the same format as the rest of those in the article. I also removed all references to "Presidential Profiles, 2016", as it is still unclear to me what that even is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Legacy looks like it needs an overhaul:

• Historical reputation is far too scattershot and recentist, relying a lot on newspaper articles of the past few months instead of scholarly works. There needs to be more about how historians of the past 165 years have perceived him. Perhaps Thaddeus_Stevens#Historical_and_popular_view can be a model in this regard?

I will try to expand this section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, thus far I have expanded the section by adding a paragraph about how Calhoun is viewed and portrayed by one of his biograpers, John Niven. It is now the second paragraph of the section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have added a two-sentence paragraph describing Calhoun as being viewed favorably by historians of the Lost Cause movement. So in the section we now have the traditional Southern perspective, the modern leftist perspective, and a more moderate, nuanced, and balanced perspective, represented by Niven. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have also added a quote from Bartlett about the importance of Calhoun's philosophy regarding the protection of minority rights and of choosing good and virtuous civic leaders. Will this be enough? Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I have also added a slight bit more to the "Legacy" section about the impact of Calhoun's philosophy on the progress of sectionalism in the South. I wish to know if you know find the section satisfactory. Display name 99 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Film and television is stubby and probably unnecessary. I'd remove it or at the least merge its content with one of the other Legacy subsections.—indopug (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It's accepted practice to include film and other forms of popular media in which biography subjects have been featured. I don't think this content could fit into either of the other sections. Therefore I think it best to leave it where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

indopug, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I am attempting to contact you once more on the status of your review. Despite having made yourself a reviewer for this article, you have provided me with no opinion or perspective on how well I have done implementing the changes that you have proposed. You're not supposed to simply post a list of suggestions and then not return to the review. Rather, you should respond to the concerns of the nominator and provide any advice which may be necessary on how to best implement the changes. After this is done, you should probably either "support" or "oppose" the nomination, depending on whether your concerns were properly addressed. I suggest you below on this page to see how Coemgenus has conducted a review in order to determine what an ideal one should look like.

Therefore I ask you: have I responded to your review to your satisfaction? Is there anything else that I might do to improve the article? Display name 99 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated right at the beginning, I only took "a brief glance of the article", and commented on a few things that immediately stood out for me. Therefore, there's no way I can either support or oppose this nomination as a whole. Having said that I will return over the weekend to review my points above, especially about the Legacy section in detail. In the meantime: what makes Shannon Selin's personal website a reliable source? The statement it provides a cite for, "Recently, Calhoun's reputation has suffered ..." seems obvious enough to be better sourced?—indopug (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Indopug, I understand your concerns about this source. I have replaced it with an article-already cited elsewhere in the article-by Clyde Wilson, editor of the Calhoun Papers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• As the US does not have freedom of panorama except for buildings, images of 3D works should include tags for the original works in addition to the photo

The Fort Hill historical marker is for a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and which is on the Clemson University campus. Calhoun was buried underneath his gravestone immediately after his death. I'm not sure what kind of copyright issues we would have here. Display name 99 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Likely that and the statue are out of copyright, but we should include a tag on the image description page saying so and why. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've dealt with the gravestone, but I'm not sure what to do about the marker. I suppose there's a good chance that was created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Any way to verify that, or to check for other possible reasons it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I can email the NPS to try to find a date. But what happens if the marker wasn't erected before 1923? We have plenty of photographs on our encyclopedia of things created after 1923. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There may be another reason that it would be PD - that is the case for some things that we have photographs for, while others are in a country with different freedom of panorama rules. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, the marker for Fort Hill is on the campus of Clemson University. It's also a historical site that is generally recognized as something preserved for the public, and not for private use. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so is there a USGov tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I tried a Department of the Interior tag. However, the tag said that the work was created by someone from the U.S. Government as part of an official duty. That is not the case. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, is there any other tag that you would recommend? It's a photo of government property taken by someone who was not working for the government. Display name 99 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

If the marker was created by someone working for the government, a USGov tag is appropriate for the marker; the photo is covered by the CC tag. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have re-added the Department of the Interior tag. While the image itself was not created by the Federal government, the marker in the picture was. Thank you for your assistance. Is there anything else that you would like to bring to my attention regarding the images and sources, or with anything else in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:John_C_Calhoun_by_Mathew_Brady,_1849.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg

The former was published as a lithograph in 1850. As for the second, I don't know for certain of the publican date. It was acquired by the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution in 1978. The identity of the photographer is unknown, and so I imagine it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact publication date. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

For the former, please add details to the description page. For the latter, the current tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have dealt with the former. On the Commons page, File:John_Caldwell_Calhoun_ca._1843.jpg, there is already a "Licensing" section, which includes a template stating that the photograph was published before 1923 and is thus in the public domain. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

But if we can't verify that the photo was published before 1923, then we don't know whether that tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we will be able to verify it. We don't even know the author or the exact year that the image was taken. Do I need to remove it? Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there another reason it might be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Having been created around 1843, it's likely that it was published before 1923. Even if it wasn't, we don't know who took the picture, so to whom would we credit it? Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:G.P.A._Healy's_portrait_of_John_C._Calhoun,_Charleston_City_Hall_IMG_4589.JPG: photographers of 2D works don't generate a new copyright. What is the status of the original work?

The original work was created by Healy in 1851. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please update image description page with the appropriate info and tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The page already reads: "Charleston City Chambe; George P.A. Healy's painting of Calhoun, 1851, no copyright". I'm not sure what "tag" you're asking for (I don't work often in Commons or with imaging) but that seems like all the information you could need. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was displayed in 1851, {{PD-1923}} would work. But in this case, we should also remove the incorrect information - the photographer does not get any copyright on this work, so that tag shouldn't be there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Jcctypo01.jpg should include details of the original work

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest doing some MOS work - for example, seeing some overlinking/WP:SEAOFBLUE issues.

I don't see how this is an issue. I'm fairly certain that nothing is linked more than twice in the body of the article. Also, what else is there? Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on at least a couple of occasions you've linked the same thing twice in the same section. For another example, you've got [[Abbeville, South Carolina|Abbeville]], [[South Carolina]], [[United States|U.S.]] - that's several MOSLINK issues in a single line. Your citation formatting in particular is all over the place and needs serious cleanup - you're mixing up works and publishers often. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have discovered and removed two duplicate links. Please excuse me, but I can't find any sections with the same thing linked twice. If you're including the infobox, it's ok to have something linked in the infobox and also linked in the body of the article. The MOS article specifically allows for that. Also, to me the citation style does not seem terribly inconsistent. All printed books or journals are cited using the Harvard reference format, and are cited in full at the article's bottom. Internet articles are cited using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates. Display name 99 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nullification is linked twice in the lead, Randolph twice in War of 1812. MOSLINK also covers other types of linking issues, such as linking multiple items in such a way that they appear to be a single link. As to citations, some of your Harvard refs are not linking correctly, and you are varying significantly in what information is entered in what parameter for the cite templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Those instances of duplicate links have been remedied. I have added the Harvard referencing style to two sources to which it had somehow not been applied previously. I have also increased the consistency in the citation style. Thank you once again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you for the review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported last time, have read the discussion at the old FAC and the article again. I think it deserves promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

Lede

• A link to war hawk might be useful.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "Federal" should be capitalized.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• The "Yet" in the fourth paragraph is confusing--I don't think the statement contradicts anything that came before.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

• "His father, also named Patrick..." would be clearer as "Patrick's father, also named Patrick..."

Patrick's father, also named Patrick

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "These opinions helped shape his son's attitudes regarding these issues." The phrasing here is awkward. I'm not sure it needs to be said at all--the reader will get the idea even without it--but if you want to keep it, something like "The son would follow in his father's political footsteps." Something like that.

Done. I have revised the sentence to read: "Calhoun would eventually adopt his father's states' rights beliefs."Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Much better than my suggestion, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Marriage etc.

• "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson; but was not outspoken about his religious beliefs." The two "but"s in this sentence make it cumbersome. Maybe "He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson, and was not outspoken about his religious beliefs."?

Done. Changed to: "Calhoun was not openly religious. He was raised Calvinist but was attracted to Southern varieties of Unitarianism of the sort that attracted Jefferson. He was generally not outspoken about his religious beliefs."

• Also: what are "Southern varieties of Unitarianism"? Is there some article you could link to that would explain how they were distinct from Northern and European Unitarians?

An introduction to a part of the Calhoun Papers implies that it was less organized that that found in New England-which makes sense if you consider Jefferson's lack of organized religious adherence. I added this sentence: "Southern Unitarianism was generally less organized than the variety popular in New England." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Before he died, he was touched by the Second Great Awakening...." How? Did he revert to Trinitarianism?

I couldn't find any strong mention of this claim in the source. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

War of 1812

• "With a base among the Irish (or Scotch Irish)" Probably just the Scotch Irish, right? The Catholic Irish population of South Carolina must have been minuscule in those days.

They could still have been descendant from those people living in Northern Ireland. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose. However your source material puts it is fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "... thus inaugurating the War of 1812." You don't need "thus" here.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...break the power of hostile Indians..." You should explain that the Indians in question were allied to the British so the reader understands why Indian fighting had anything to do with a war against Britain.

Done. I added the sentence: "These Indians had, in many cases, cooperated with the British or Spanish in opposing American interests." Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• You link Era of Good Feelings, which is good, but it might be useful to briefly say what was significant about it (the demise of the Federalist Party and there basically being only one party in the country).

Done. I added "an era marked by the formal demise of the Federalist Party and increased nationalism". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Postwar planning

• "A new bank was chartered as the Second Bank of the United States by President James Madison in 1816." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Congress chartered it? Executives couldn't issue charters on their own. Maybe "Congress chartered a new Second Bank of the United States in 1816."

Done. I have clarified this point. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Throughout his proposals..." "Throughout" is odd here. Do you mean throughout the wording of various proposals, or throughout the time when he proposing things?

Done. I removed the word "out". Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thank you for the review. I've gotten this far now-I'll do more tonight. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Secretary of War etc.

• This section is very disorganized. It's hard to get a handle on the narrative, because we keep jumping back and forth in the chronology.
• "His first priority was an effective navy, including steam frigates..." This paragraph largely restates the ideas you describe in "Postwar planning". It could probably be condensed a lot by reference to his ideas as a member of the House.

I took out the last sentence of the paragraph, which I thought was not exactly relevant to his time as Secretary of War. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "...sought to reduce the operations and finances of the War Department." Did they succeed?

Yes they did. See the Reduction Act, mentioned later in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1817, the deplorable state of the War Department led four men to decline offers to accept the Secretary of War position before Calhoun finally assumed the role." This should probably come before the first sentence of the section. You talk about him accepting the job, then a paragraph later describe things that happened before that.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is footnote 10 meant to cover everything that came before in this paragraph?

Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• A link to Indian removal would be useful in the section that pertains to that policy.

Done. See "relocation". Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• On that note: the view of Indian removal here is extremely one-sided. Some analysis of the policy's effects would go a long way toward needed historical context and NPOV-ization.

The First Seminole War was the most important event that took place between the United States and the Indians during Calhoun's tenure as Secretary of War. Calhoun himself had very little role in it other than to oppose the invasion of Florida. We know how that turned out: the Seminoles were beaten and Florida annexed. Generally, the treaties that Calhoun concluded with Indians helped cede more land to white settlers. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Vice presidency

• "The Electoral College elected Calhoun vice president by a landslide." The actual vote total might be of interest to the reader.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After Clay, the Speaker of the House and also a candidate in the previous election, was appointed Secretary of State by Adams,..." would be better in active voice: "After Adams appointed Clay, who was also a candidate in the previous election, Secretary of State..."
• On that score, an introductory sentence naming the four main candidates for the presidency after Calhoun dropped out might set up the situation nicely and save you from mentioning various politicians' candidacies throughout the paragraph.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "However, Calhoun's service..." Since the next sections explain this more fully, I'd cut this sentence completely.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nullification

• "The southern legislators miscalculated and the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and was signed by President Adams." We don't need to keep calling Adams by his title, and this would be better in active voice. "The southern legislators miscalculated: the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" passed and Adams signed it into law."

That's the first time that Adams is referred to by his title. I don't see an issue with it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "President Jackson, meanwhile..." again, don't need to repeat his title. See MOS:SURNAME.

Done. I've removed this one. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• "was strongly against" ---> "opposed". Avoiding light verbs makes for stronger prose.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you missed this one, so I fixed it for you. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun had asked President Monroe to censure then-General Jackson for his invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 while Calhoun was serving as Secretary of War." How about: 'In May 1830, Jackson discovered that Calhoun, while serving in Monroe's cabinet, had asked the President to censure Jackson for his 1818 invasion of Spanish Florida."
• "Jackson had invaded Florida..." You already explained this in the "secretary of War" section.

Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• This whole paragraph about the censure has nothing to do with nullification. It might be better in one of the other sections of "Vice Presidency," either in the first part or in "Resignation".

The censure issue and nullification are very much connected. All of the scandals that placed Calhoun at odds with Jackson-censure, Petticoat, and nullification-all sort of got grouped together. Jackson loved to personalize just about any kind of dispute, and the censure issue, along with the Petticoat affair, gave him the ammunition to do so with nullification. It is important to understand his mindset here. To Jackson, all of these issues were attempts made by a few scheming and bitter men-such as Calhoun and Clay-to undermine the federal government and his administration. It was all a great conspiracy. Calhoun didn't get his way in Florida, and he was seeking revenge. That is more or less how Jackson saw the situation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think "Federal" needs a capital F here.

Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Petticoat affair

• In the first paragraph, the first sentence would work better as the last sentence.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Resignation

• "...South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne was considered less capable..." By whom?

I added a quote from the South Carolina newspaper City Gazette. In 1830, Webster had mopped the floor with Hayne in a series of debates, after which Hayne had been unable to do anything to reduce the tariff. Calhoun had a more distinguished record, and so the South Carolina legislature thought that he might do a job. Sure enough, he and Clay negotiated the Tariff of 1833, which Jackson reluctantly signed and which ended the crisis. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First term...

• "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and so decided to quit." The important fact in the sentence is that he quit, not that he decided. "However, he gained little support, even from the South, and quit the race."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, here's a little more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Appointment and the Annexation of Texas

• I made some minor changes [2]
• "He abandoned his quest in December 1843, before the Democratic Convention convened, having failed to mobilize solid southern support." You already explained this in the previous section.

Done. I removed this sentence and the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Again: "President Tyler and his allies..." --> "Tyler and his allies"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Moreover, Tyler declared national security to be at stake: If foreign powers – Great Britain in particular – Texas would be reduced to a British cotton-producing reserve and a base to exert geostrategic influence over North America." There's a word or two missing from this sentence.

Done. See my edit here.Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "synonymous with slavery" --this quote seems to refer to something, but it's not clear what.

The idea is that many in the North considered the term "states' rights" to be merely a substitute for slavery. I have tried to clarify this here.

• "due to the fact that" is almost always better as "because"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Calhoun's linking of Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery had totally alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty." might be better as "In linking Texas annexation to the expansion of slavery, Calhoun had alienated many who might previously have supported the treaty."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• "after fierce partisan struggles" Did the vote really break down on party lines? I had the impression that it was more sectional.

It was mostly partisan. Whigs had strength in the North and in parts of the South-especially the Upper South. They almost unanimously rejected it. I have added the vote totals by party here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Election of 1844

• "As a result, the highly pro-Texas partisan, James K. Polk, a strong Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination." You could lose some of the adverbs and keep the sentence's meaning while making the prose more encyclopedic. E.g., "As a result, James K. Polk, a pro-Texas Jacksonian and former House Speaker and Governor of Tennessee, won the nomination."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oregon boundary dispute

• All of the action in this sub-section takes place after Calhoun was back in the Senate. Wouldn't it be better placed in that section?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Second term

• "he chose to abstain from voting"--->"he abstained from voting"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the Compromise

• "...Calhoun, weeks from death and too feeble to speak..." What was the nature of his illness? Did it pop up suddenly, or had his health been declining for some time?

I have attempted to elaborate on this here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agrarian republicanism

• The MoS suggests using prose instead of lists when at all possible. See MOS:LISTBULLET.

Done. I have combined this section into a single paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The evils of war etc.

• "Calhoun was consistently opposed to the War with Mexico from the outset..." I would strike out either "consistently" or "from the outset".

Done. I have chosen the latter. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link spoils system.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I have responded to all of your concerns up until this point. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Concurrent majority

• The first four paragraphs are very good, but the "Disquisition on Government" section would be best as a separate article. As it stands, it's far too long and detailed for a general biography article on Calhoun.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Monuments and memorials

• Calhoun County, Georgia, is not the only Calhoun County. Either list them all, or list none of them (I incline toward the latter).

Done. I have removed any mention of counties. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Film and television

• There are actually several movies that portray Calhoun. See this list. In Ulysses S. Grant, we split the Ulysses S. Grant cultural depictions off into a separate article to keep it from overwhelming the general biography. I'd recommend doing that here, too.

IMDB is not a reliable source, and I don't think many of the films listed there are particularly notable. La Amistad is by the far the most famous movie to portray Calhoun. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, we can agree to disagree on that one. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• I'd link Calhoun College and Residential college, if you keep this section. I'm on the fence about whether it belongs here in more than one sentence. It has far more to do with modern-day Yale than with Calhoun's actual legacy. Maybe consider condensing it here.

I have linked these two things. I think that the Yale part is important, because it demonstrates the attempt to balance a respect and acknowledgement of the past with the values of the present. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

• If you don't actually link to them in the article, the "ref = harv" field isn't necessary, and it actually creates an erro message for users who have a certain cite-format-checking extension in their monobook.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I have responded to your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, that seems to be everything. This article looks to be up to snuff. Thanks for bearing with my many comments. I'm glad to support this nomination of an article about an important figure in American history. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thank you for your support and for your comprehensive and helpful review of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

The article is in excellent shape; I could only find a handful of nitpicks. I've copyedited; please revert as needed.

• "With a base among the Irish (or Scotch Irish)": I don't understand the "or"; is this an alternative name?

Many people moved from Scotland to Ireland, and then to the U.S. Others just came from Ireland. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, but as it stands it reads as though it's uncertain which of the two groups provided his base. If it's OK to do so I'd probably make this just "Irish"; if the Scotch Irish support is independently important I think it should be "Irish and Scotch Irish", without the parentheses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I have chosen the latter course. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The militia had proven itself quite unreliable during the war and Calhoun saw the need for a permanent and professional military force. Historian Ulrich B. Phillips has traced Calhoun's complex plans to permanently strengthen the nation's military capabilities." Why do we need to mention Phillips here, rather than combine these two sentences and simply cite him?

Good point. I removed that sentence. I kept the mention of Phillips later on when the article includes a direct quote from him. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "a system of internal taxation that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade, like customs duties": it's not clear whether this means some form of internal customs taxation, which could replace the border tariffs, or if this is actually referring to the tariffs. If it's the former, I suggest "a system of internal taxation, such as customs duties, that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade"; if the latter, then "a system of internal taxation that would not collapse from a war-time shrinkage of maritime trade, as the tariffs had done".

The latter made more sense. I decided to use that. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Southern radicals known as 'fire-eaters' pushed the doctrine of states rights to its logical extreme by whole upholding the constitutional right...": "whole upholding" sounds odd; is this accurately quoted?

Done. "Whole" should not have been there. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He believed that the spread of slavery improved public morals by ridding the countryside of the shiftless poor whites who had once held the region back": I don't follow this. How did it rid the countryside of poor whites?

Slaves competed with poor whites for labor. Their presence diminished the number of white sharecroppers and laborers. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't get this. I can see there would have been competition for labour, which would have diminished the opportunities for poor whites, but where did they go? Presumably they didn't become rich, so they're either still there or they left. Did the spread of slavery really make poor white migrate to the frontier, or to elsewhere in the country; or at least was that Calhoun's argument? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been unable to access the source for that quote. Also, although Calhoun was in many ways an elitist, I not seen any evidence from any other source, primary or secondary, that Calhoun viewed the departure of poor whites as improving "public morals". Thus, I have decided that the best course was to remove the passage. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Congress and the citizens the territories": presumably should be "Congress and the citizens of the territories"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I have responded to the remaining two concerns in a way that I hope will prove satisfactory. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. All the fixes look good; I have no hesitation in supporting. An impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Display name 99 (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we are just about there now. It looks like everything has been actioned, but in an ideal world I'd like Indopug to pop back for a last check. In any case, unless I've missed it, we still need a source review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Additionally, unless I am mistaken, Display name 99, this would be your first FA. In that case, we will need a spot check of sources for reliability and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This too can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I have made a request at WT:FAC. I would appreciate it if you would please check to see if I did so correctly. If this article were to pass, it would indeed become my first FA. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is done correctly. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheck

Starting this now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have a couple of Harvard errors; you can see them by installing this script.

  Thank you. I have discovered and fixed one. However, I'm not sure what to do about the messages I got concerning the errors under "Primary Sources." Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  It seems to be gone now, so unless you still see an error, I think this is taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please add locations to your book citations in primary, secondary, and further reading.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  I see you've gone with "Oxford, New York" for the OUP location, which is understandable, but you're also citing some as OUP USA and some as Oxford University Press. This isn't something I'd insist on for FAC, but I'd suggest for consistency that you use Oxford for the UK ones, and New York for the US ones, and spell it out as Oxford University Press in both cases.

  OK. I fixed the "OUP USA" one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Also it appears one is still missing: Holt (2004) has no location. That one has the title in quotes as if it's just a chapter, but there's no indication of what book it's from if so -- can you clarify?

  The location is given as "New York." All of the titles are in quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Titles of books are in italics; titles of chapters in books are in quotes. Is it a book or a chapter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's a book. Display name 99 (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that it's using {{cite journal}}, which of course is displaying it like a journal not a book. I can switch it for you if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• And I assume "Washington C.C." is a typo?

  Yes. It's fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  And be consistent about commas before state names; you have "Oakland, CA" but "Washington D.C." Not an issue for FAC but you might consider spelling out state names for the benefit of non-US readers -- few Europeans will know what state MO or MD stands for. I'd also suggest putting in "UK" for the Cambridge locations; the US Cambridge also is a well-known publishing location so the disambiguation is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  It is proper to use commas to separate city names from those of their states. However, I don't think that it's required to separate Washington from D.C. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Check for consistency in journal titles; I see "Journal of Southern History" and "The Journal of Southern History". Similarly you have both "US Senate" and "United States Senate" in different places.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ford (1994) has an issue number given and pages cited, but Ford (1988) has neither, though it's from the same journal. Please give page ranges where possible as it helps readers who wish to follow up a footnote. There are some other related inconsistencies -- for example, Capers in further reading does not seem to have a volume number, and Belko (2004) has the volume issue listed as "Vol. 105 no. 3" instead of the '105 (3)" you use elsewhere.

  I have regrettably been unable to find a page number for the "Ford 1988" source. I see if I can find a volume number for Capers. I changed the format for Belko to that used elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Looks like you do have page numbers for Ford 1988, but are missing the volume/issue? This page says it's 54 (3). Capers is here; looks like 14 (1). I fixed Belko by switching it to {{cite journal}}, which has formatting consistent with the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your finding that information. I have inserted it into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have both "University" and "Univ" in the publisher names; be consistent -- in this case I don't think there's a need to abbreviate.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's a trailing ",volume 1 of 3-volume scholarly biography" tacked on to the end of the secondary source list.

  Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• No publisher on Calhoun 1870 or Calhoun 1837 in the primary sources.

  The 1870 source has a publisher given. As for the 1837 source, nothing that I can find gives the name of a publishing company. It says instead "Printed by Duff Green." Green was the chief editor of the United States Telegraph, a powerful Calhoun-supporting newspaper. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I had a look and from what I can see, some bibliographies list Duff Green as the publisher; if he paid directly for the speeches printed then that might make sense, but as it is we probably have to leave it blank. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the intended order of the primary sources? Date?

I've fixed the order so that it is dictated by date. All the sources have the same author, so organizing them by date makes sense. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Slavery a Positive Good speech needs the source spelled out beyond just "United States Senate".

  I'm not quite sure how this would be done. The speech was given by Calhoun in the Senate. How else should I cite it? Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  Well, the goal of a citation is to allow the reader to find the source. You have a link to Wikisource, and there's no reason to doubt that it's accurate, but we don't treat our sister projects as reliable so we need something else. The Wikisource talk page has some links to sources; the last one gives a physical source, McLaughlin's 1914 Readings in the History of the American Nation, which is available on Google Books. I'd suggest citing that; it's pages 206-212. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. There is a link to a Google books source for the long quote given in the slavery section. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• You have a "p. 68" in the secondary sources for the 1999 book, which I suspect is debris and shouldn't be there.

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd remove the link to findagrave -- it's not that it's inaccurate, but we avoid using findagrave as it's crowd-sourced.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• FN 83 should be "pp." not "p."

  Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason why Crallé is cited in the footnote rather than making it a short ref pointing to a secondary source?

  It looks like he was cited twice. I have removed him from "Further reading." Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  What I meant was that in other cases, such as Phillips (1929), you list the source in the secondary sources, and have a short form citation such as "Phillips 1929, pp. 411–419." that points to that source. For consistency, shouldn't you be doing the same with Crallé? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean. I added the Harvard citation style to that as well. Display name 99 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Checklinks shows some dead links.

  Mike Christie, I'm not sure what to do here either. I checked the links that were highlighted in blue and green and they both worked. Display name 99 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  It's the red ones I was concerned about, both to millercenter.org; they are coming up as dead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed them both. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll come back and do a review for reliability, and a spotcheck, once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I have responded to a few more points. I'll finish the rest soon. Thank you for your review and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is looking pretty good now; just a couple of minor points left. I'll look through again, probably this weekend, and will do some spotchecks then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just one more source formatting point -- you have the publisher listed for Belko (2004), which is a journal; I wouldn't oppose promotion for a minor point like this, but I would recommend you have a consistent format for journals. I believe in every other case you do not give a publisher, so consider removing it.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is a letter to the NYT a reliable source for "Calhoun supported Whig candidate and Southern slaveholder Zachary Taylor for president in 1848 over Democratic candidate Lewis Cass, a Northerner who favored popular sovereignty to determine a new state's slaveholding status"? Even if reliable I think it could only be said to cite Calhoun's support for Taylor, not the characterization of Cass.

All sources other than that look reliable, and a spotcheck of four or five sources finds no close paraphrasing, so it's down to just these two points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I've chosen to remove that passage. I couldn't find any other source supporting Carroll's claim that Calhoun supported Taylor. Carroll was a highly-partisan anti-slavery and pro-Union writer. It is fathomable that she may have distorted the truth somewhat while trying to get a point across. It does make sense that Calhoun would've failed to support Cass, seeing how other Fire-Eaters such as Yancey did the same. I do believe that the description of Calhoun in the letter has having "spoke[n] against Popular Sovereignty to defeat Gen. CASS, whom he knew to be unmanageable" adequately conveys the sentiment expressed in the article.

I think that takes care of everything you've brought up so far. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; we're done here. Sorry to have nitpicked you a bit on this. I've enjoyed reading the article and I look forward to seeing it promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie, don't worry about the nitpicking. That's what makes an article FA quality. Thank you once again for your work. I'm pinging Sarastro1 to let him or her know that the source review, reliability check, and spot check have been concluded. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Per consensus here, religion should only be included in infobox when it's a key defining trait one is prominently noted for, which doesn't seem to be the case with Calhoun Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) "He is best remembered for being a strong defender of slavery"..... it would be better to go with something more concise like "He is remembered for strongly defending slavery" Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I see two sets of consecutive sentences beginning with "he" in lead; replace one of them with "Calhoun" so the text isn't so repetitive Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Another set is still found in the first paragraph; let's fix that Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Per this discussion, four digits are overall preferred over two digits for years, which looks more complete and professional I'm not sure what you mean here. It looks like the full four digits are given for all of the years. Would you please direct me to where specifically you see the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I spot "secession from the Union in 1860–61" in the lead Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Done. I've fixed that. If there are any others, please identify them or else fix them yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Maybe "Marriage, family, and religion" could be renamed "Personal life" Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Overall, not too bad Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Sure thing. On another note, you say 3 of Calhoun's children died in infancy. Which ones were they? If going into early deaths, then it helps to be specific on the matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS, I have dealt with the issue regarding the years. I have also added the names of the three children who died in infancy. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I now support this following its improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, thank you for your helpful review and for your declaration of support. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth

This is a well-written and apparently comprehensive article that I very much enjoyed reading. I'm surprised at finding so little to grumble about in an article of this size and scope. I made two or three minor edits as I went, and I have a short list of quibbles, as follows:

Secretary of War and postwar nationalism

• Lowercase "e" in "Eastern Indians" to match "western reservations" later in the sentence?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rejection of the Compromise of 1850

• "The nearly 68-year old Calhoun had suffered period bouts of tuberculosis throughout his life." – Maybe just "periods" or "bouts" rather than both?

This was supposed to say "periodic." I have remedied the error. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

• The Harv error in citation 42 might be occurring because the publication year, 1988, differs from the year, 1993, in the reference section.

Good observation. I fixed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources

• I'm not sure what the entry "volume 1 of 3-volume scholarly biography" refers to.

A book from Wiltse was the last source cited in that section. That phrase refers to the other two volumes in the three-volume biography, both of which are listed under "Further Reading." But because I found it, upon further review, vague and unclear, I removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

• The first entry under "Primary sources" has a harv error. You might either link something in the text to this entry or delete the entry if it's not needed, or remove the ref=harv parameter.

Done. I've moved it to "Further Reading" and removed the ref=harv.

External links

• I think you might be able to fix the Harv error here by replacing the Cong template with an URL–text combination.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Switching to support, as noted above. I'm assuming you'll address Mike Christie's source review and spotcheck finds such as the two dead URLs. Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Finetooth, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Yes, I am working on the source review now. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.