Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alben W. Barkley/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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Alben W. Barkley edit

Alben W. Barkley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last Kentucky governor FAC was met with a collective yawn, I've decided to see if I can generate more interest with a U.S. Vice President from Kentucky. This article has been through the wringer, from an RFC on its length and number of references, to a successful GAC nomination, to a partial copyedit from Collect (talk · contribs), to a full-fledged peer review. Now, I think it's ready for FAC. I will do my best to respond promptly to comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAC instructions where it says, "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." Have you requested an exemption? Graham Colm (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, because I misread the instructions. I thought they referred to re-nominating the article that just failed; I didn't see that they referred to any other article. I guess I've been in violation of this rule several times, and no one has ever called me on it, so mine was a sin of ignorance. I assume you would agree that the Stevenson nomination received minimal feedback and should qualify for an exemption? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. Given the paucity of reviews of your previous nomination, I think it is acceptable to proceed with this one. Graham Colm (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  • You describe how he went from "Willie Alben" to "William Alben," but don't say how he came to be "Alben William," unless I missed it.
    • No, I just mistyped it. He reversed it at the same time he adopted the more formal version. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much did Barkley win his first House election by? Was the primary the main contest, or was his district one of the ones Republicans occassionally won back then?
    • I will try to dig up that source again and see if it says. I'm usually exceedingly diligent about including that when it's available, so I'm inclined to believe it wasn't. Without doubt, the primary would have been the main contest. The First District was the most solidly Democratic district in the state for decades, including this time period. Details here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This site says he won by 34%, but I don't know if that counts as a reliable source. Even if you can't get the exact number in there, just saying that it's a solidly Dem district gets the point across. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The declaration of war in 1917--you say he voted for it when it came before the Senate. Should that be "House"?
  • Under "U.S. Senator", do you identify the Bourbon faction before this point? If not, a link might help, especially in a Kentucky article where it might be confused with the county.
    • I had a previous reference in there, but during the peer review, Wehwalt (talk · contribs) was concerned about the use of the term because it had broader national implications, so I removed it. I didn't realize it was in there again. Changed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Hatch Act specifically a reaction to shenanigans in Kentucky, or were there similar incidents elsewhere that were equally notorious?
    • My impression is that, if there were other instances (and surely there were), they were far from equally notorious. The Barkley-Chandler contest seems to have been a contest of national interest, which put the spotlight on the issues addressed by the Hatch Act. Admittedly, most of my sources are Kentucky-centric, but they read as though the act was a direct response to this particular election. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have, other than some minor copyediting I did. Nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Let me know if you have other issues to be addressed before supporting. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN84: formatting
  • FN94: page formatting
  • FN141: which Libbey?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky? Register of the Kentucky Historical Society or The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society?
  • Check formatting of quotation marks within quotation marks
  • Lake Barkley: doubled period from template
  • Pietrusza: ISBN?
  • Check page formatting in Further reading
  • External link should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review, and, for the most part, my concerns were addressed. I'd still like to see a bit more on Barkeley's personal style, which was folksy and distinctive, but that's not enough to stop me from supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK as Public Domain, sources and authors provided, one small problem:

  • The derivative images should be tagged with "self|Cc-by-sa-3.0". "PD-Harris-Ewing" refers to the original copyright situation of the original image (some uploaders add such original tags as secondary tag for information purposes). Derivative works create a new copyright with the need for a license from the creator of the derivative. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This looks like a very worthy political biography, and I am not far off supporting. I do however have a few issues:-

  • Possible overdetailing: these political articles can be difficult reading for those unfamiliar with the context. One way of making them more accessible is to be sparing on minor detail; I feel that in this article one is sometimes bogged down with trivia. As an example, consider this, (concerning Barkley's run in the primaries for governor in 1922):

"Bingham's campaign forced Barkley to declare his candidacy earlier than planned, but it was not successful outside Louisville; Beckham supporters backed Barkley, more to prevent Cantrill's nomination than because they desired Barkley's.[68] Beckham's law partner, Elwood Hamilton, became Barkley's campaign chairman, and Percy Haly, a political boss in the Beckham faction, was a Barkley advisor.[69] Barkley recruited Wiley B. Bryan, a former Cantrill supporter, as his campaign treasurer, and appointed Mildred Spaulding, who supported Barkley more than Cantrill or Beckham, as head of his Louisville campaign headquarters.[70]"

All very hard to follow, and is this level of detail really necessary, for what was an ultimately unsuccessful campaign and hardly central to Barkley's life and career? This is one example; there are other similar cases.
    • Good point. The idea here is that Barkley attracted support across factional boundaries, which was important in his later Senate run. I've reduced the detail here. I'm more than open to your pointing out additional examples. I've been through this thing trying to reduce it's length so many times that I can no longer effectively identify these things anymore. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reduced text is definitely better, though you need to clarify what is meant by "it" in "it was not successful outside Louisville". The tactic, presumably? I don't have time to suggest specifically in what other areas you might trim detail; this was more by way of advising you to be watchful for any chances to improve readability, which can be something of a problem with political biographies of, shall we say, the non-stellar variety. Brianboulton (talk)
      • Fixed this. Hopefully, I can take a fresh look in the post-FAC period to see if I can identify any more places where trimming could help, but I'm just too close to the text right now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, "Roosevelt" is mentioned with no link or indication as to who he was. Presumably most/all American readers will know, but for the rest of us, well he's been gone many years...I'd specify "President Roosevelt" and link.
    • Oops. Unintentional consequence of lots of trimming and copyediting. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coolidge administration" does not seem an appropriate section heading, as Coolidge's presidency is not discussed in the text.
    • Nothing really unifies the ideas in this section. What about "Later House career"? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'd alter "Harding administration" to "Relations with Harding administration", and adopt your "Late House career" heading in place of "Coolidge administration"
  • Who says Davis was "lacklustre"? This reads as an editorial judgement.
    • This is Libbey's judgment, although Davis' own article calls him a "dark horse" for the presidency in 1924. I'm not sure "little-known" is exactly correct, but it's clear he wasn't really a competitive candidate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to adjust the text so that it's clear it is Libbey's judgement, not yours. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " until after he seconding Smith's nomination for president" - needs attention
  • "Barkley called for a platform plank directing Congress to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment" - you should specify that this refers to the repeal of Prohibition.
    • Isn't the 18th amendment already mentioned in connection with Prohibition earlier in the article? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barely. You say, earlier, "future prohibition legislation, including the Eighteenth Amendment" which is not very precise. For the benefit of younger and non-American readers I would uses this latter sentence to include a link, thus: "Barkley called for a platform plank directing Congress to repeal prohibition.
  • What was Roosevelt's "court-packing plan"?
    • It's a bit complicated. The law limits the number of Supreme Court justices to nine, and appointments are for life. The Supreme Court struck down some of Roosevelt's New Deal, so he proposed the "court-packing plan", which would allow him to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70. Ostensibly, the idea was to reduce the workload of the older judges, but as I understand it, most folks, even non-politicos, saw it as a transparent attempt to allow Roosevelt to appoint more justices friendly to the New Deal without having to wait for sitting justices to retire. As such, it was cherished legislation for New Deal supporters and totally anathema to New Deal opponents. The wikilink is on the word "legislation" in the previous paragraph. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. The phrase "court-packing plan" occurs twice in the article, once within quotes, the other time not. I'd get rid of the quotes and alter the first to Roosevelt's "plan to pack the court with additional justices". Then I think all is clear. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about the revisions I just made as an alternative? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's fine. One thing, though, in the section title: do you mean "accession" rather than "ascension"? The latter seems a little, well, Christlike. Just a thought. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain: The New York Times called the race "the Gettysburg of the party's internecine strife over national control in 1940 [at the Democratic National Convention]"? Doesn't seem to make sense in the context.
    • I assume (perhaps wrongly) that most folks know that Gettysburg was a key battle in the American Civil War. The Times was comparing the Kentucky primary to that key battle because it was a challenge to Roosevelt's hand-picked Senate floor leader by a New Deal opponent. If Barkley had lost, it would have been seen as a repudiation of his New Deal agenda. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're right in your assumption that most people can identify Gettysberg and understand the metaphor. It's the sentence that confuses, especially the bracketed addition at the end. I recommend you reword along the following lines: "The New York Times saw the primary as "the Gettysburg of the party's internecine strife" over control of the Democratic National Convention in 1940". Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...all of these candidates won, damaging Roosevelt's image." Wrong use of participle; you could say: "thereby damaging" or "which damaged".
  • "In 1943, Roosevelt refused to appoint Barkley to a vacancy on the Supreme Court". There is no previous indication that Barkley sought such a position. Also, to the general reader this refusal seems eminently reasonable, given Barkley's slender legal training and limited practical experience, yet you make it seem as though Roosevelt was denying Barkley his rightful due.
    • I'm pretty sure Barkley was seeking a patronage appointment. He had been a loyal supporter of Roosevelt, and he thought he was entitled to the appointment if he wanted it. The source doesn't explicitly say that, but it's a political tradition in the U.S. that dates back basically to the country's founding. Usually, it's a cabinet post, a diplomatic mission, or a lower federal judgeship, but this would not have been the first time a president made a patronage appointment to the court, and it would have been less strange still considering Roosevelt's adversarial relationship with the sitting justices. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " making 40 major speeches his first eight months in office" - something missing there.
  • " Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (son of the vice-president)..." Grandson, I believe, and "former vice president", without the hyphen.

All in all, highly creditable. I'd never heard of him, but have now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and sorry about the slow response. Been a busy (but rewarding) couple of weeks at work, and my little girl was sick, but is feeling much better now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to support when the final tweaking is done. More importantly, I hope your little daughter is better, and no more sleepless nights. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well wishes for Little Miss Acdixon, who was recovered enough to take in the Senior Day basketball festivities at my alma mater this weekend. Thankful for Tamiflu; hope the flu hasn't been as bad where you are as it has been in the States this year. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support after careful attention given to my points raised above. As I said earlier, very creditable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having read about a third of the article so far, this is very really well written, insightful and engaging to the reader. Cmts to follow. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working through, but unable to parse this - His admiration for Woodrow Wilson and Percy Haly's influence led Barkley to denounce. Direct/Indirect, on whom, or should it be stance. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notwith standing, this was a pleasure to read, I have a few quibbles I can sort myself. Re: Read the other two thirds last night, made a few small tweaks, few more to make, its a Support from me anyroads. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Most of your tweaks were fine, but I altered a few of them for various reasons. If you feel strongly about any of the ones I changed, we can discuss. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (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/Alben_W._Barkley/archive1&oldid=1109752613"