Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Tyler/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

John Tyler edit

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 08:51, 12 June 2014 [1].

John Tyler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Designate (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... John Tyler, President of the United States from 1841 to 1845, who was eventually the only president buried under a non-US flag. Perhaps most famously the tag line in a political jingle, Tyler served most of Tippecanoe's term and established the precedents for a vice president becoming president that we still observe today. Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Just finished the new disclaimer, User:Dank/Copyediting2. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I found from doing a peer review that the shadowy Tyler is a much more interesting figure than most mid-19th century political figures, and it is a credit to this article that I became fully absorbed in the subject. First rate political biog, ticks all the boxes – happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Weh walt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I think we're OK on that now.
  • File:Tyler_Daguerreotype_(restoration).jpg: LOC tag has an error message
Not convinced that's from LOC, so swapping it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Tyler_Signature.svg: where was this digitized from?
Beats me. I've asked Connormah, the uploader, for more info, haven't heard back.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's updated it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:United_States_1842-1845-03.png: what sources were used to create this work?
No idea, sorry. It's validly PD and appears accurate, though the Texas boundaries were presumably researched.
  • File:Letitia_Tyler2.jpg needs US PD tag
I've researched the matter and it seems it is by an artist, Lawrence Williams, who died in 2003.
  • File:WHOportTyler.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
Nevertheless, the licensing appears valid.
  • File:John_Tyler's_grave.JPG: as this is a photo of a 3D work, what is the copyright status of the original work?
It was erected in 1915 and so is PD. I've made changes to the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:William_Henry_Harrison.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I shall get to these over the weekend, unless Designate gets to them first!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow Wehwalt, do you ever take a breather? Another 60k article!
Designate did much of the writing. This came to FAC first during the leadership crisis two years ago, and reviewing it then was a pleasure and a distraction during a horrible time. Designate was distracted, I gather, by other things, and it didn't pass, but I remembered it and approached him a few months ago. I filled in the gaps (1840 election) and made the article stylistically smooth where needed, and it mostly wasn't needed. I'm hopeful of doing another one with him.
  • I love the spirit of collaboration. In that case, Designate, congratulations on a very strong article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Confederate House of Representatives - Worth a redline?
There's an article. Linked.
  • Mary Marot (Armistead) - should the "née" be made explicit?
  • Well, given the rest of the sentence, is it really necessary?
  • I don't like to change a style unnecessarily. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to the family section.
  • "in so poor a condition as to require a charitable donation from Congress," - italics in original? (just double checking
  • I double checked too and it seems kosher (note: I do not mind people putting the article through its paces)
  • states'-rights - I don't think this hyphen is necessary
Gone south.
  • There seems to be a rather high percentage of sentences starting "he" or "Tyler"
  • I did some modifying in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservative Democrat. - With a capital C? Perhaps link this, at least (though the article uses the small c).
Lower cased.
  • Presidency of William Henry Harrison goes to his article, and not an article on the presidency itself (small wonder, with a one month term). Is this really worth having as a see also link?
  • quietly returning to his home in Williamsburg - do we have an article on what the vice president actually did in these years? I mean, I can't imaging Biden spending his vice-presidency almost exclusively in Delawarej
  • Until the middle of the 20th century, the Vice President presided over the Senate, and that was it. Nixon was really the first modern Vice President, and that is in his article. I'm not even sure if Tyler had an office in the Capitol at that point. I consulted Hatch's book on the history of the Vice Presidency, but he really doesn't have much to say about the duties of the early veeps. Clay had gotten Harrison to call a special session for May, Tyler would have come back then to preside, and of course for the regular session in December.
  • Richmond attorney - the last link to Richmond wasn't that long ago
I'll be back tomorrow. This is clearly well written, and I doubt I'll have anything but a support once I go through the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. Can I put in a commercial for the ongoing peer review of Judah P. Benjamin, the next to FAC I hope?
  • in his hotel room. - Was he not required to do it somewhere... a little more related to the government? Or was the requirement just the witnesses, the legal right, and the oath itself?
Column B. Coolidge, after all, was sworn in by his father, a notary public, in Vermont. LBJ was sworn in by a female judge on a plane. Teddy Roosevelt was sworn in, in borrowed clothing, in a friend's house in Buffalo (though most of the Cabinet was there, as they had been hanging around McKinley's sickbed).
  • the sales of public land, as an emergency measure - this comma feels funny
  • Despite not officially recognizing Tyler as president, the Whigs appear to have done so in some of their actions; wouldn't impeachment implicitly recognize Tyler's claim to the presidency?
Plainly with Tyler in the White House, they had to deal with the facts on the ground.
  • The first paragraph in the Cabinet section is unreferenced
  • Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson's successful confirmation was a surprise. Nelson, although a Democrat, - three Nelsons in three sentences?
Played with.
  • Some {{cn}} tags added
  • Florida was admitted to the Union as the 27th state. - worth giving more information?
Not as controversial as Texas.
  • Early in his presidency, Tyler was attacked by abolitionist publisher Joshua Leavitt, who alleged that Tyler had fathered (and sold) several sons with his slaves. - Do we have a year, at least?
  • As of January 2014, ... grandchildren - This source is from 2012, yet you're using it to support a January 2014 date.
  • Confederate flag - link to the article?
Three above dealt with.
  • The line of quotes in #Legacy would probably do best with references after each
  • None of the "Tyler was ineffective" academics are given powerful quotes, compared to the more positive views; several of them quoted here are just mentioning what others think. This feels unbalanced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a powerful anti-Tyler quotation. It's strong enough that I think that is a good balance.
Thanks, I'll work through these later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. Another great article on a US president. Designate and Wehwalt, you both do Wikipedia proud. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support, and for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. —Designate (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review (from this version)
    • This is my first time doing this, so apologies if I miss anything
  • How you indicate a book was previously published needs to be standardised
  • Hatch, Louis C. (1970) [1934]. A History of the Vice-Presidency of the United States (reprint of 1934 ed.). - do you really need to twice mention that it was first published in 1934?
  • Check the alphabetization of your books
  • May source - Was there a specific contribution May was credited for?
    • May's book is pretty short; it's essentially a review much like this article. I used it as a due-weight check, since Chitwood and Seager are so enormous, but I didn't find anything worth citing to May. I would still consider it part of this article's bibliography. —Designate (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question was more "Did he contribute a certain chapter, or did he write the whole book and the other people edited it?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • He wrote the book. The series as a whole was edited by the other two. —Designate (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schouler - Do we really need to say "online edition" if it's a facsimile scan of the original book? To me, online edition sounds like an ebook published concurrently by the publisher
  • Standardise whether you use ISBNs or not (you should, I think WP:ISBN recommends it). There is an OCLC number for the older books with no ISBN
  • What makes this an "article" in the journal sense? This should be formatted as a web citation
    • It uses the "cite web" template. I still consider it an article, not a "journal article" but an article nonetheless. It's a brief, nonfiction piece of writing collected in a larger work. —Designate (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kleber - volume and issue number?
  • You should include access dates for all web references, not just Freehling
    • I think Wikipedia's policy is to ignore accessdates for dated and authored works (books, journal articles, news) that are unlikely to be modified. A biography page with no date or author is more subject to change.
      • Not quite what Cite web recommends ("Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date."). However, my personal experience is that there is no such thing as a web page that does not change. I would have lost a lot of Tempo citations when the website went paywall if I hadn't archived them (and they had been stable for years). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I added the rest, but I omitted it from the U.S. Constitution and anything with an ISBN, since nothing will be lost there. —Designate (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Const. - why not spell it out in full?
  • Harris - You need a space between the page numbers
  • "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Woodburn". - page number? Access date?
  • Standardize the formatting of dates in your references
  • Fixed. Designate (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • News.yahoo.com and Sherwoodforest.org are works, not publishers, I believe
  • Standardise whether you abbreviate page numbers (105–106 or 105–06)
  • Several footnotes use p. when they should use pp. (32 and 45); the reverse is also true (40). This is not an exclusive list; there may be more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks like everything. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments:

  • Very nice article. I have only a few comments:
  • Lede:
    • "Tyler, born to an aristocratic Virginia family of English descent..." Is the "of English descent" necessary? I can't think of a FFV that wasn't English, unless some Huguenots have escaped my mind.
  • Start in Virginia politics:
    • "Tyler was elected by his fellow Charles City County residents to the House of Delegates, the lower house of the Virginia General Assembly." Since you introduce and link the House of Delegates in the previous section, shouldn't the descriptive clause go there?
  • U.S. House of Representatives
    • The first paragraph could probably use a link to the Era of Good Feelings to explain why there was only one political party.
    • "Tyler voted against the Missouri Compromise". Why?
  • Presidential election, 1836
    • In a legal writing class, my professor once noted that "pursuant to" can nearly always be replaced with "under". I find the plainer word makes for more natural reading.
  • Family and personal life
    • Does the ancestry chart have a source? A lot of them have been removed from non-royals' articles because of this, and because it's not especially notable for a non-royal.
      • The source was listed in an HTML comment by whoever added it to all the U.S. presidents' articles. I don't like those charts at all, but I'm trying to choose my battles these days. If there's precedent to get rid of those charts, I will gladly do the same here. —Designate (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd pull it just because his ancestors aren't notable (except his father, whom you already discuss in the article). --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also:
    • This whole section is probably unnecessary.
  • External links:
    • This section is kind of thick. Do you think you might delete the links to his State of the Union addresses, since they're already linked by the Wikisource box to the right? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the rest of your comments in full. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three supports, an image review, a source review, open for almost three weeks ... sounds like "the ball a-rolling on, for Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Tippecanoe and Tyler too". Well, Tyler anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Could you just check your duplinks and see what's really necessary, Wehwalt? For instance there's at least three to Governor of Virginia (though admittedly the first is piped). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool for that? otherwise I'll try to do it manually--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find actually had that. Should be okay now removed several links--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2014 (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_Tyler/archive2&oldid=614300744"