Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Mentor Johnson/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 not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

Richard Mentor Johnson edit

Self-nomination. Article has passed GA and has gone through one peer review that netted few comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—It's a fine article. My one suggestion is to try adding a few more images.—RJH (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks.
    • Some inconsistent number format, eg, "the state's 23 electors", "Tennessee's fifteen votes"
    • "Although" is more encyclopedic than "though".
    • There is a dead external link. Epbr123 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I think I have addressed all of these issues. If not, please let me know. I hope you will eventually be able to support this article's nomination. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Is the Burke reference from an older book? I'm not sure why it should be considered a reliable source.
    • Is http://politicalgraveyard.com/index.html a reliable source? It says at the bottom of the main page that they don't guaranteed and that it should be checked against other sources.
    • the biographical directory of the US congress site needs an access date and publisher
    • I'm uncomfortable with using an 1843 book for some of the details of his life. Surely there is something more modern? While there may not be a biography of him, surely he's treated in some scholarly works on the history of the time?
    • The Starling book needs publisher information. The footnote to it also needs a page number.
    • Congressional Bio in the footnotes refers to which reference?
    • What makes http://www.americanaexchange.com/NewAE/aemonthly/printarticle.asp?from=a&id=118 a reliable source?
All other links check out okay with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, I don't use The Political Graveyard as a reference. However, in this article, it is only used to cite the districts Johnson represented during his time in Congress. I wasn't able to locate that information anywhere else, although it surely exists somewhere else. If this reference becomes a significant source of consternation, I will remove the sentence that uses it for a source.
  • In citing the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, I have used a template created by the Wikipedia community. I can change it to a standard "cite web" style reference if you like. I can also add an access date, but I'm not sure who to call the publisher exactly. I guess "United States Congress." This publication is cited so extensively throughout Wikipedia, I thought it's mere mention would be sufficient.
  • Congressional Bio refers to the Biographical Dictionary of the United States Congress. I wanted something shorter than that to include in the footnotes. If it needs to be changed, I can change it. It will only have to be modified once in the article.
  • I see the issue. Perhaps Biographical Dictionary of Congress? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that this claim is self-published, but according to the Americana Exchange web site's About Us page, AE Monthly (the publication from with the source in question is taken) is "the most widely read periodical in the book collecting field." The company also has its own Wikipedia article, if you are interested. I believe this will also pass WP:V and WP:RS.
Here's what I can tell you about the sources used:
  • As best I can gather, Henry Robert Burke wrote a column called "Window to the Past" for the Marietta Times, a newspaper in Marietta, Ohio. While I can't find a date or issue number on this particular article, a Google search for "Henry Robert Burke" and "Window to the Past" turns up similar articles with dates circa 1996.
  • Hm. This is where I get to feel really uncomforatble with the source. And I'd hate for the information to be lost though. Urf. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked our librarian here at the college if he knows some way to verify where/when this article was originally published. If I can confirm that it was published in the Marietta Times and provide a date of publication, will that suffice? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be fine if you can verify that. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find no provision in WP:V for calling a reference into question solely based on it's age. In fact, some might argue that, because it was published chronologically nearer the events it documents, it would be more reliable than a later source. Google Books contains almost 400 books by the same publisher, so it isn't as though it was published by some kind of fly-by-night publisher. There may be additional later works that verify these facts; then again, there may not be. They might also be spread across 20 different books. I don't believe there is reason to spend weeks looking for a later source when the present one doesn't appear to violate WP:V or WP:RS.
  • My main concern with using the work is not so much the bald biographical details but the interpretations coming from them. Such as the citation for the last paragraph of the first section of the Political career section, where it discusses Johnson's view that the denial of claims was an injustice. By using a source from 1843 (that isn't autobiographical either) the article is perhaps out of touch with current historical scholarship on the subject. Likewise with the last sentence of the first paragraph of the War of 1812 section, where it is said that the battalion's patroling of the Indian lines prevented raids. Current scholarship might have a differing view. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only publisher listed at WorldCat is "Henderson, Kentucky." I assume the city (which is the county seat) commissioned the book. There have apparently been several re-printings. I cannot provide a page number because I am using the text from the web site linked in the References section, hence, no page numbers. Again, only one sentence is cited from this source, so if this is not sufficient and I cannot find a hard copy of the book, I will just remove the sentence. I don't believe it will affect the comprehensiveness of the article that much.
  • I'm wondering if this is one of the County Histories that were published in the second half of the 19th century. Usually they had information in the front on the state history, then more detailed information on the county history (which varied wildly in the accuracy) and then a large section of (usually paid) biographies of leading citizens of the county. Every genealogist knows about these works, and they are useful but not always reliable. Looking at the website, it looks like it's to one of the biographies, but i'm not sure if it's from the front section which would have been about political officeholders, or if its from the paid section in the back. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can tell you that this particular detail was taken from the biography of Lazarus W. Powell, Governor of Kentucky. This seems to suggest that it would be in the front section with the biographies of political officeholders. Also, it was published 20 years after Powell's death and nearly 40 years after Johnson's, so I would think there is less chance the material was censored to avoid offending the men in question. If you really need to know before you can support the article, I can request it on interlibrary loan. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns regarding the sources used in the article, and that you will eventually be able to support its nomination for FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have some of the same concerns that Ealdgyth raised about sourcing. I'm certain the 1843 book in question, now credited to Langworthy but then published anonymously, was written to promote Johnson's presidential ambitions. (I suspect it's simply an uncredited update of the 1833 biography by Emmons.) It can & should be used for contemporary context, but its original purpose—campaign literature—should be made clear. It's not a neutral work of history by any stretch of the imagination.

    This illustrates a pitfall of using Google Books (which is great) when writing history: one needs to consult modern scholarship too and not rely too much on old, public domain books. There appears to be just one Johnson biography published by an academic historian: the 1932 book by Meyer, which is not used as a source, presumably because it's not online. The article will certainly be stronger if that book is used, and the old, promotional biography is contextualized. And as a military history buff I'd sure like to see some use of a 1934 article by Fletcher Pratt entitled "Richard Mentor Johnson: The Father of American Cavalry".

    That being said, I don't think this article has any fatal factual or neutrality problems, even though it uses mostly tertiary sources and contemporary campaign literature, rather than academic secondary sources. Overall, this article compares favorably to Johnson's entry in the American National Biography, though it lacks the critical historical assessment of Johnson that the historian who wrote that entry provided. This is good work, if not fully engaged with the available secondary sources. —Kevin Myers 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kevin. Interestingly, I was about to ask for your input on your talk page last night, but ended up having to take my wife to the hospital with breathing trouble instead. (She's fine.) Your comments are accurate regarding why I haven't used the Meyer text. (Well, that, and I didn't realize the POV problems with the Langworthy source.) Also, I wasn't aware of the Pratt article you mention. In what publication could I find it? Fortunately, I work at a college, so getting material like this is usually easier because I have access to a decent library.
Based on what I've seen of your work, I trust your opinion implicitly. You've stated that "I don't think this article has any fatal factual or neutrality problems, even though it uses mostly tertiary sources and contemporary campaign literature, rather than academic secondary sources." Certainly, I can try to obtain the two sources you mentioned ASAP, but I wish I had them going into a weekend instead of coming out of one. Do you feel like this nomination should be withdrawn until I can add material from those sources, or could it be a situation where the article is "featured, but not finished" and I could add the material later? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Perhaps the article as is may be good enough for featured status without the biography I mentioned. Looking around at recent featured articles, I notice for example that the article on Grover Cleveland makes no mention of an important biography critical of Cleveland's policies (Merrill's Bourbon Leader), and make no serious attempt to evaluate his legacy. Like this article, the one on Cleveland is good but maybe not comprehensive. It wouldn't seem right to hold this article to a higher standard, but I'll let you and others decide when and if to promote it to featured.
As for the Pratt article, I found it mentioned in the bibliography of Johnson's entry in the American National Biography (which is always a good place to check, by the way). The article was published in Cavalry Journal 43 (May-June 1934): 5-9, which is such an obscure source that I wouldn't worry about it if it's not easily available. —Kevin Myers 04:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've requested the Meyer biography on interlibrary loan; hopefully, I can get it late this week or early next. It's over 500 pages, so initially, I'll probably just see if I can verify the conclusions drawn by the the Langworthy book. I've also asked our librarian to see if he can get the article from Cavalry Journal. He's surprised me before.
Thanks for your comments. I do hope others will be able to support the article as-is, and knowing that I'm doing my best to confirm the details currently in question. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was reprinted in Pratt's collection Eleven Generals; Studies in American Command. I'll see if I can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The chronology of 1850 is unclear. The date of the election and the date the Legislature met would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Sorry to chime in so late, but I find the writing fuzzy, imprecise, and ungainly. Looking at the lead, I see the following significant glitches.

  • "to fill the seat vacated by the resignation of John J. Crittenden". A person vacates a seat; a resignation doesn't vacate it.
  • "became a detriment to his political ambition"—"Detriment" is not right here. "was detrimental to" is idiomatic.
  • "The relationship contributed to his unsuccessful defense of his Senate seat"—This is fuzzy; surely you mean that it contributed to his failure to hold the seat.
  • "but his district immediately returned him to the House"—Oh, it's possible to stand for Senate and House in the same election?
    • The implication is unwarranted, but it should probably be explained whether this was a special election. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "finally succeeding in returning to the Kentucky House of Representatives"—Remove "succeeded in".
  • "where some maintain that he personally killed the Shawnee chief Tecumseh, a fact he later used to his political advantage"—Was it an allegation or a fact? Can't be both.
  • "fell just short of the needed electoral votes to secure his election"—Remove "needed".
    • Rather, move needed to after votes; fell just short of the electoral votes to secure his election. leaves to secure in mid-air, modifying nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs careful copy-editing. TONY (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I started after the lead since Tony covered that, but I am finding issues in almost every sentence. Copyedit is needed. Some prose examples and other issues:
    • Image:Death of Tecumseh.JPG needs a source so copyright status can be verified.
      • I've asked the uploader to add the source. I also have this image, which I had first used in the article, but it was replaced by another editor. It has a source, so I can change them out if necessary. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't put multiple footnotes on uncontroversial statements.
      • "Uncontroversial statements" and "material that is likely to be challenged" have always been too subjective as criteria for me, so I try to cite everything. If there are two cites, it means that one source supports part of the sentence and the other source supports the other. I also try to keep them in order (i.e. the first fact mentioned is supported by the first source listed.) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Richard Mentor Johnson was born on October 17, 1780, the fifth of eleven children born to Robert and Jemima (Suggett) Johnson on the then Virginia Frontier at "Beargrass", near present-day Louisville, Kentucky." Try rewriting to eliminate a "born".
    • "By 1784, the family had moved again..." No "had". If you don't need a word, don't use it.
      • This changes the force of the sentence; the pluperfect and the simple past are not the same. The text emphasizes that we do not know when they moved, merely that in 1784 they are attested in Scott County. If anything in the sentence is redundant, it is the next words again, this time, and that may be warranted stress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johnson's formal education did not begin until age fifteen; nevertheless, in 1800 he entered Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky." I don't understand the connection you are trying to make here. "Enrolled" might be a better verb than "entered" since many people enter universities for other reasons than enrolling.
      • Johnson was born in 1780; few people, although more then than now, qualify for university education after only five years of formal education. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Later, he owned a retail store, and pursued a number of business ventures with his brothers." No comma after "store".
    • "Although he was from an aristocratic background, Johnson often worked pro bono for poor people, prosecuting their cases against the rich." One isn't "from" a background. This sentence mentions that Johnson was an aristocrat but is has not been discussed yet - how is he qualified as an aristocrat? The sentence also implies that it is unconventional for rich people to work for poor people, which is a complicated assertion. Does your source back that up?
    • "White society"? I don't know. Will international readers have any idea what this means?
    • "When she ran off with another man..." "Ran off" is too colloquial. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bosh. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I don't know what that means. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is largely moot, being replaced by left, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. She was his slave concubine; she did run off. What word would be sober enough to be encyclopedic? Elope is wrong; escape tendentious; should we avoid vivid and accurate language because it is vulgate? I read Samuel Johnson; but we should not copy him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to correct the specific examples cited above, except where I (or others) have made comments. Apparently, I am either a really bad writer or I'm too close to the prose to see its flaws (since I wrote most of it.) In either case, I have requested copyediting assistance from WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Louisville, WikiProject Bluegrass Region. I'd also be glad for anyone reading this to lend a hand. I will also continue to try and address any other specific concerns as they are raised. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time, I'll try to do a copyedit run. I make no promises though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I want to go ahead and say this right now, you write fine. You just have the same problems I do, a tendency towards wordiness and the problem of trying to copyedit your own work (which is very difficult to do). So don't take these comments as a slight towards your writing ability.
  • Early life section, first paragraph, second sentence. It is a bit of a run on, I suggest breaking the sentence into two. Is there a reason we're capitalizing Frontier in Virginia Frontier? What is "Beargrass"? A town? village? House? It's unclear from the context.
  • Does "with Julia Chin, a family slave left to him by his father..." really need the family in there?
  • I don't object to the "law considered her a Negro" but the "prevented Johnson from marrying her." is perhaps a bit anthropologic. Try "law considered her a Negro which prevented Johnson from marrying her."?
  • Political career section, first paragraph, second sentence "He was only twenty-three at the time of his election, and although the Kentucky Constitution imposed an age requirement of twenty-four for members of the House of Representatives, Johnson was so popular that he was allowed to serve without questions being raised about his age." It's wordy. Perhaps "He was only twenty-three at the time, and although the Kentucky Constitution said members of the House had to be twenty-four, Johnson was so popular that he was allowed to serve anyway."
  • Was he elected to the KY House as a member of a party? What brought him to join the party, do we know?
  • Same section, second paragraph, the third sentence is very long and somewhat hard to follow. Consider breaking it up?
  • Same section and paragraph, the last sentence, consider rewording to something like "He continued to champion the interests of the poor as a member of the House, and he first came to national attention with his opposition to the rechartering of the First Bank of the United States."?
  • I see what you're trying to do with using Eleventh Congress in the third paragraph of Political career, but since you haven't said which congressional term was which in the paragraph above, it is jarring to the reader to suddenly see Fourteenth Congress without any dates to give context. Yes, they could click through to the article, but having to do that too much is annoying to the reader.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph. The first sentence, the last half is awkward. I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with "minor status of the claimant during the statute of limitations."
  • Same section and paragraph, fourth paragraph. Consider rewording the first part to "Johnson found this practice so unpalatable, he requested transfer from the committee." which gives you an active verb and cuts down on the wordiness.
  • War of 1812 section, second paragraph. Consider rewording to "Johnson returned to Congress in the fall of 1812, where President James Madison and Secretary of War John Armstrong consulted him about ways to defeat the British." which avoids the dreaded passive. Also, why in the world are Madison and Armstrong consulting a pretty junior Congressman? And letting him devise a war plan? This is where a modern work or two would be good to consult, as that just rings false to me here.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph. It's a bit wordy, you might cut some words here to reduce wordiness.
  • Same section, last sentence is opinion and needs a source.
  • Same section, fifth paragraph. "Shortly following the killing of Tecumseh..." is awkward. Perhaps "Shortly after the killing..." or "Shortly after the death..."?
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence is awkward. Consider "Although he eventually recovered, save for a crippled hand, he was still suffering from his wounds when he returned to the House in February 1814."
  • Post-war career section, second paragraph. The first two sentences are awkward. Perhaps combine them in something like this "In 1817 Congress investigated General Andrew Jackson's execution of two British subjects during the First Seminole War." Also in this section, have we wikilinked Henry Clay yet?
  • Service in the Senate section, fourth paragraph, second sentence. Really wordy, consider cutting it down some? Perhaps "Near the end of his term in the Senate, petitioners asked Congress to prevent the handling and delivery of mail on Sunday because it violated biblical principles about the Sabbath."
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentence, perhaps reword to "The report was applauded as an elegant defense of the doctrine of separation of church and state, but again Johnson did not escape charges of conflict of interest due to his friends who were contracted to haul mail, and who would have suffered financially from the proposal."?
  • Election of 1836 section, last paragraph, fourth sentence is just awkward: "Regardless, the Democrats still won the canvass." You rarely see canvass used as a synonym for election nowadays, better to just use election.
  • Same section and paragraph, last sentences could probably be combined like "The voted divided strictly along party lines, with Johnson becoming vice-president with a vote of 36 to 16, with three senators absent."
I hope this helps some. It's getting there, although better copyeditors than I should probably also look at it. It's still pretty wordy, especially in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 2 April 2008 (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/Richard_Mentor_Johnson/archive1&oldid=1088822096"