Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899/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 Karanacs 16:04, 27 July 2010 [1].

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 edit

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article recounts the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899 that resulted in the assassination of William Goebel. It has passed a GA review. I believe it is comprehensive and well-written. I look forward to resolving any issues quickly. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It's more of a stylistic thing, but could you set the infobox to have two candidates on top and two on the bottom, instead of three and one? It looks unbalanced, and it makes it 50% wider than necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too familiar with that infobox template; it's my first time using it. I do hope there is a way to do what you describe, but I don't know what it is. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues:

  • The case citation (65) would be better figured thus: Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 610 (1900). with the link within the citation rather than listed separately as an "external link". (You can of course use this format without using the template)
  • For consistency, publisher locations should be added to the second Harrisson book and the Tapp book.

Otherwise all sources look OK, no other outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Interesting, comprehensive, and well-written; I believe it meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Someone (I forget who) did this on most if not all of the articles I've worked on related to governors of Kentucky. I was following that precedent, but I have not problem removing it if you think it should be. What other links do you find problematic?
  • The others are not as bad, and are generally of the same type: linking "X" to "X in/of Y" (for example, "Attorney General" to "Attorney General of Kentucky". Linking "state capital" to Frankfort, Kentucky is yet another.
  • I've removed the Frankfort link and the link to the list of governors. I clarified the attorney general link. I'm inclined to leave "Term limits in the United States", as it is more applicable to the context. Are there others you find particularly problematic?
  • "sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died February 2, 1900"—please be consistent in use of "on".
  • Corrected.
  • I think this should probably be consistent throughout the article: the lead sentence, for example, does not have "on", and there are probably other cases.
  • Sorry, I was a little lazy in just correcting this one. I think I got them all now. In fixing this, I discovered that every month of the year is mentioned at least once in this article (an interesting but otherwise pointless fact!)
  • Done.
  • On several occasions, you repeat citations to the same reference in consecutive sentences. To avoid clutter, it's better to restrict those to a single reference following all the sentences supported by the same ref.
  • Sorry; I often forget to clean this up. I typically consolidate where entire paragraphs can be cited to the same source. Beyond that, though, I prefer to leave separate refs.
  • Do you really need to give the year for all, or nearly all, dates?
  • I usually do this to eliminate any chance of ambiguity, but I'd have no problem with some of them being removed.
  • I removed many; I think it can be generally assumed that you're still talking about the same year if you do not mention a new one. Feel free to reinstate some or all if you prefer.
  • This is fine; I'm not particularly attached to them.
  • "the city's private police force"—isn't a city's police force by definition a public one?
  • Yes; I used "private" to distinguish it from the state force, but that introduces some unintended implications. Removed.
  • The lead says Goebel's only official act was an order the militia to leave the capitol, but the body says he ordered the Republican militia to disband and the General Assembly to convene in Frankfort.
  • Fixed.
  • "He remains the only American governor ever assassinated while in office."—technically, wasn't he assassinated before he became governor?
  • Depends on your definition of "assassinated". Is it when the attempt is made, or when he dies? In the article on Goebel, I initially said that he was "the first governor to die from assassination while in office". An FA reviewer said this was redundant. The language I've used here is consistent with the sources.
  • OK, I'll leave it.
  • Could the article have a legacy section on how this eventful election influenced the following political history of Kentucky?
  • Maybe, but surprisingly, there wasn't much lasting effect, as far as I can tell. Bradley's win in 1895 was really the catalyst for the two-party competition. Beckham's opponents charged that he had ridden into office on Goebel's coattails and exploited the sympathy vote; meanwhile, some Democrats used the assassination against Republicans, but there's no real evidence that was very effective. About the most enduring legacy was the repeal of the Goebel Election Law and the adding of Taylor v. Beckham to U.S. case law.

Ucucha 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I look forward to your additional input and hopefully, your eventual support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "lieutenant governor" be capitalized when referring to a specific LG?
  • Yes. I think I've corrected it everywhere.
  • A quick scan of the article's lead makes me believe it is similar enough to satisfy WP:SEEALSO. Added.

Ucucha 19:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources that look like they may be worthwhile, but that have not been cited in the article: JSTOR 2191607; "My own story" (by Caleb Powers himself; perhaps inappropriate as a primary source). Otherwise, the sources I found on a quick check are the same as used in the article. Ucucha 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article you cited on JSTOR and cited it in the William Goebel article, but it's been a while, and I've returned the source to the library. I don't have access to JSTOR, but as best I recall, this article primarily deals with Goebel's opposition to the L&N Railroad as a state senator and doesn't deal much with this election. I am also aware of Powers' autobiography, and although I haven't read it, I feared it would be too POV to be considered a reliable source, at least for this article. Bits of it might be appropriate for Powers' own article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I can send you the article if you wish, but I'm satisfied this article meets criterion 1c, so I'm going to support. Ucucha 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd love to have an electronic copy of the article for future reference. Please contact me via my email link. Thanks, and thanks for your support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - beginning a read-through now. Will make some copyedits as I go - please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below. fascinating read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the General Assembly was heavily Democratic.. - is "Democratic" the right adjective? I'd have thought "Democrat" myself but as an Australian am no so familiar with adjectival use.
... as a sure sign that the state would vote Democratic in 1899 - ditto.
To me, "Democrat" sounds unnatural there—see Democrat Party (phrase) for some related discussion. Ucucha 12:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In both of the above cases, Democratic sounds more natural to me than Democrat, but I have heard them both ways. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll concede that because you both are picking on me as consensus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when reviewers are beaten into submission don't take things too seriously! :) Thanks for the support, Casliber. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 images in the infor box should be in the same aspect ratio as each other, could something along the lines of File:Populist-logo.jpg be a place holder for the missing candidate? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm familiar with the term aspect ratio, I cannot find it mentioned at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria (the link you provided), nor at Wikipedia:Images or WP:IUP. I'm afraid I need a more specific link to see what policy is being referenced.
With regard to the Populist logo, I hardly think it's commonly recognized as such. I opine that it is more likely to cause confusion as to why a person is being depicted by the Liberty Bell than to add any real value to the article. I'm content to leave it as-is. I really doubt we will ever find an image of the individual in question. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Taylor stressed the economic prosperity brought about during the McKinley administration and reminded the crowd that the Republicans had not supported the enslavement of blacks and they would not now support the political enslavement of electing Goebel. - I'm not sure they could "remind" the crowd they would "not now support the political enslavement of electing Goebel" - electing Goebel wasn't really "political enslavement". This is an analogy or political argument - perhaps you could re-word?
  • Yes. See how it reads now.
  • It's much better, but I would change "claimed" to "stated". Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also hammered the Goebel Election Law as creating an oligarchy - the use of "hammered" here is fairly colloquial, and might not be understood by non-Americans or non-native English speakers.
  • How about "derided", as it reads now?
  • This made him particularly onerous to Brown supporter Theodore Hallum - I don't think you mean "onerous" here. Did you mean "odious"?
  • Indeed. Changed.
  • some of it was later proven to be purjured - I assume you mean "perjured".
  • Yep. Should have watched my Firefox spell checker.
  • In the References section, the "retrieved" parameter should not be used for sources in print (e.g. Harrison 1997, Hughes 1900, Tapp 1977). "Retrieved" is only relevant for ephemeral content like web-pages, so that if the link rots, one can search for the material on archive.org or some other archive. For printed material, all you're telling people is when you read the book, which is not relevant to the reader.
  • Note that each reference with a "retrieved" parameter has a link to the source on Google Books or another online copy of the source. This is why I have used that parameter.
*Yes, that's one of the problems with these citation templates: they provide parameters which aren't actually needed (or should be avoided) in many or most cases, but which make the editor think he should fill them in anyway. The Google book link is just a convenience link; the citation would be perfectly valid without any link at all. And it actually detracts from a citation when you inform the reader when you read the book, or when you last checked that the convenience link worked - it's personal information about you, not required or desired by the reader. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, well written, and a fascinating story. I'd like to see these small issues cleared up before supporting. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope I can secure your support in short order. I was afraid I was going to fall short of the requisite number of supports to gain promotion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing the article. I've supported. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:WilliamJenningsBryan.png - In the US, PMA is not relevant for published works. License needs to be revised accordingly (my eyes are too old - what's the roman numeral date at the source?)
      • Changed to a different image.
    • File:William Bradley.jpg - Permission line is utter nonsense. "Bradley died in 1914, and since this is a photograph, it was created before 1923 and is in the public domain. Also likely that the creator has been dead for more than 100 years, which would also qualify for public domain." Creation is not publication. What if the author lived 30 years after taking this image (i.e. death in 1944)? We can't pick and choose PMA and publication terms; it's one or the other.
      • Removed. I have another PD image of him, but he's facing the wrong way for me to use it in this article.
    • File:William Goebel circa 1889.jpg - If the author is not known, how can we claim he/she's been dead 70 years? Where does the source say when this was published? We can't pick and choose PMA and publication terms; it's one or the other. Эlcobbola talk 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to a different image.
    • This should now address all of your image concerns. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Goebel image was from here, which states it was taken circa 1899, if theat helps at all. Not sure regarding the author, I'll keep looking, but it'd probably be best to leave this one out. Connormahtalk 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, creation date is irrelevant. We don't know the author's date of death, so we can't make a PMA claim and, unlike works created in, say, the 1700s, there exist reasonable, possible scenarios in which the author could have been dead less than 70 years: let's say the photographer was 29 when this was taken (1889) - i.e. born in 1860. If he/she lived to 85 - i.e. died in 1945 - they haven't been dead 70 years. Эlcobbola talk 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No remaining image issues. Thanks. Эlcobbola talk 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to Support. This is an absolutely cracking story, generally well-told and appropriately referenced. The main issues arise in the section headed "Goebel's assassination".
  • In the section on the Democratic nominating convention, is it possible to add any numbers to the information about the votes, eg where it says "After numerous ballots, the convention was deadlocked on the night of June 24"?
  • I've added information about the relative vote strength. I assume this is what you mean, rather than asking how many ballots were taken.
  • You interpreted me correctly. I was hopiong for some actual figures, but what you've done is OK. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where it says "The following day, the Assembly appointed a committee to investigate the allegations contained in the challenges", can I suggest you add "(the contest committee)" after "a committee", to help make clear its name, since this term is used later?
  • I've clarified this, I think.
  • "but that body voted 19–17 to table this list and approve a list provided by Goebel instead" - in some jurisdictions to "table" something implies its acceptance. I think the wording should perhaps be "to set aside this list".
  • I was unaware of this alternate meaning for "table". I've adopted your suggestion instead.
  • "The Republican militia refused to disband, but it was joined by a Democratic militia across the lawn of the state capitol. Civil war seemed possible." The "but it was joined" here seems wrong. If I have understood, they were not joining together: they were threatening each other. The language needs revision to reflect that.
  • Never thought about it being interpreted that way. I've clarified.
  • "Republican legislators made preparations to heed Taylor's call to London on February 5." Rephrase so the meaning of the date is clear. Is the intention to say "Republican legislators made preparations to heed Taylor's call to convene in London on February 5."?
  • Good suggestion. Done.
  • I'm not sure I understand the status of "militia" here. The phrase "armed citizens" is used in one para, then "the state militia" in the next, referring (it seems) to the same group of people. Then in the next para we have "the militia", and of course there is the reference to "Republican militia" and "Democratic militia". Given that there are armed people on both sides, this is starting to get confusing. The confusion is not aided by the fact that the term "militia" can mean a citizen force sanctioned by the government, or a force not sanctioned by the government. I'd like to see a careful review of the words used to make sure a lay reader who knew nothing of Kentucky or these events would always know which 'side' was being talked about and whether the forces involved were 'state sanctioned' in some sense (as far as is known, at least).
  • I agree that this can be tough to follow, even for me. It would be so much easier if this had happened years later when the state militia became known as the Kentucky National Guard! I've added the qualifier "state militia" everywhere it is appropriate. The "state militia" was the official military force of the state, and this is generally what is being referenced every time. The "state militia" was loyal to Taylor because, after his election was certified, he was empowered to name the state adjutant general, the head of the state militia. The Democratic militia was another force, loyal to the Democrats, who believed Goebel was legally governor and answered only to him (and later, Beckham). I think this group was led by John B. Castleman, who eventually became Beckham's adjutant general. All of that is from (imperfect) memory, but I think that's right. Hopefully, the qualifiers make it clearer. If you think this is bad, try distinguishing what was going on between the "Home Guard" and the "State Guard" in Kentucky during the Civil War. The governor was pro-Southern and had his own set of troops, while the General Assembly was pro-Union and voted to cut off funding to the governor's troops and form and fund their own state military!
  • OK, your tweaks have made it better. I can see it will always be a slightly tricky bit of the narrative to follow, but you've done a good job of trying to make it clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and shouldn't take much to tweak. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope I can clarify everything well enough to win your support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have signalled my support. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Is there a reason why the first paragraph in the lead is only 2 lines? It's kind of awkward just hanging there by itself.
      • Just not sure what else to put in that paragraph, though I'm open to suggestions. It doesn't really seem to merge well with the next paragraph.
    • There's a red link for the 1895 election in Background which I assume someone will write eventually. Until then, don't link it.
      • I do hope to write that one at some point, yes.
    • In Democratic NC and elsewhere (except see also), there shouldn't be spaces around the endashes.
      • See below. I'll defer to Ucucha on this.
    • In Republican NC, "Auditor" should not be capitalized.
      • Done.
    • "I will support him – but lower that that you shall not drag me" --- is that the correct quote? Is it not "than that"?
      • Just a typo. Thanks for the catch.
    • "(Chance dictated that the committee should have contained four or five Republicans.)" Is this really necessary? I think it's plainly obvious that it was rigged just from telling me that it was 10 to 1.
      • I was afraid that without the actual odds, the claim that the drawing was rigged might be seen as POV, even though the source makes that assertion. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to keep it for context.
  • No !vote until comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your review. See my responses above and Ucucha's below. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is no problem with red links (see WP:REDLINK), so there is no reason not to link that article; the article's use of dashes is appropriate per WP:DASH; and "Auditor" should be capitalized in that context, as it refers to a specific person. Ucucha 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, some of the uses of endashes should be replaced with emdashes, specifically, in the cases where they're not used as parentheticals (ie, when there's only one endash). Axem Titanium (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spaced endashes are an acceptable alternative for unspaced emdashes; see the MOS. Ucucha 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for addressing this for me, Ucucha. Those dashes drive me nuts!
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/Kentucky_gubernatorial_election,_1899/archive1&oldid=1085529831"