Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Adams

< 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 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Samuel Adams edit

I've worked extensively on this article, and I have already asked a number of editors to copyedit and review the article. The article was promoted to GA status seven days ago, and I think it's ready for featured article status now. Nishkid64 20:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — bags of references, an interesting read and aesthetically pleasing. Definitely one of our best; anthony[review] 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I spot a 21 line paragraph in the Boston Tea Party section. Any chance of breaking it up for readability's sake? CloudNine 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Support - Lots of references and generally very impressive. However, could you please trim the opening? Those two paragraphs just seem a little dense to me. Otherwise it's great and I would support it. John Smith's 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; well written, well sourced and informative. Great work - crack open a bottle of Sam Adams: you deserve it! Laïka 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Underage and anti-alcohol. :D Nishkid64 21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, could something like {{Quote box}} be used for the number of quotes that are in the middle of the text? Will support anyway, just wondering. -Phoenix 22:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was tinkering around with the template, and it seems to really get in the way of the text. Also, it might be difficult for users to see that a certain quote corresponds to a particular section of the article. Nishkid64 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmmmkay...support anyway, it looks good. -Phoenix 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a well-written article, no doubt. Here's my problem, though: just one paragraph on almost 4 years as governor; nothing on the 3(?) elections he contested for the office, etc. Compare that to MA's last governor to serve a full term, Mitt Romney: we have a lengthy article on his governorship, and an extensive article on the election of his successor. Of course, finding information on very recent events is much easier than unearthing 200+ year old material. Still, maybe a little more work could be done in this area. Biruitorul 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was one of the last sections I worked on, and even though I looked at a number of sources, both online and in books, I could not find any substantial details of his governorship. In any case, I'll see if I can find any more information that I can add to the article. The problem is that he mostly stepped away from the political scene after the Constitution was ratified, and he did not "do much" while in political office. Well, that's how I perceive it as. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for letting me know. As I said, I am inclined to support, but maybe take a couple of days and make sure there isn't any readily-available material on his time in office. Biruitorul 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I guess there was some more stuff I could write about. See this. I expanded the section. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Change to Support: much better. One point, though: elections were held in April at the time, so if he became acting governor in October 1793, I think he would have been elected, not re-elected, governor in 1794. You may also find this detail from a biography of William Cushing interesting: "In 1794 his name had been presented by his friends as a candidate for governor of Massachusetts against Samuel Adams, and while he made no active canvass, he received 7,159 votes as against 14,465 for Adams." (Dictionary of American Biography, vol. 4, p. 635. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930.) Biruitorul 01:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Corrected, and I'll add the bit about the 1794 governor race later. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, I added the details of the 1794 governor race to the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit's comments edit

Oppose I am going to oppose for now because I have quite a few concerns regarding this article and fixing all of them will take quite a bit of time. If the editors feel that they want to address all of them, I will certainly work with them. First, the overarching comments.

  • Organizationally, I would suggest that the information regarding Adams' personal life be integrated into the article. It is odd to suddenly go backwards in time to his marriage and children. Since the article is presented chronologically, this material should be worked in where it belongs.
    • I originally had details from his personal life situated within the main content of the article, but I created a new section after I realized it did not flow well. It's weird making a transition from politics to children within a few sentences. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really feel that the editors should work on making it flow. Unfortunately, I have noticed a gender bias in the historical biographies that I have reviewed and read on wikipedia. They tend to relegate men's domestic lives to the end of the article while prominently featuring women's domestic lives. I would urge you to consider the political statement that your layout makes. It is not innocuous. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My layout makes a political statement? It would seem odd if anyone would think so. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it is not odd. What you choose to emphasize on the page - putting it first, giving detail, etc. - is a political statement. I will give you an imperfect but hopefully helpful analogy. Before the 1970s and 1980s, there was an emphasis in American universities on teaching what was called the "canon," or what were thought to be the best books ever written. Interestingly, most of these books had been written by straight white men. Books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin which helped spark the American civil war were not taught because they were viewed as "lesser literature," partly because of their style and partly because of who wrote them (in this case a woman). During the 1970s and 1980s, a movement arose to de-canonize literary studies and question the idea of "great books" - who determines what is great? why is one literary style preferred over another? One can ask these types of questions about this article - why are you privileging Adams' career over his family so dramatically? What message is conveyed by your division of his life into the "personal" and the "political"? Did he divide his life that way? Actually, I highly doubt that, from what I know about eighteenth-century American revolutionaries. A page's layout is part of its rhetoric just as surely as its prose. One of the best ways to understand how this works is to look at old books. Looking at old texts, whose ideology is far removed from one's own, makes it easy to see how even the structure of the text itself is ideologically motivated. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay. I have removed the section, and integrated it into the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "State politics" section seems very short compared to the level of detail in the revolutionary sections. I would suggest adding some more material there and deleting some of the detail earlier - this article is already a bit long.
    • As I told Biruitorul, I had just expanded the "State Politics". Adams' notability stems more from his actions before America gained their independence. Also, judging from Adams' view of governorship, I'm not surprised I could not find a lot of detailed information about his work as governor. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that Adams' notability stems from his revolutionary activities, but that does not mean that the article should shortchange other aspects of his life. Biographies do not cover only the aspects of a person's life that are notable. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although it's one of the suggestions at WP:LEAD, I think the lead section is fine here. People complain about lengthy leads and I tried to keep it short, and so I had to sacrifice some miscellaneous information. The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the subject, and also stand on its own. I feel that the lead does accomplish this, but I'll see into the matter and make necessary additions, if need be. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think that the "state politics" section could be expanded (in the article) to include more detail. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would get rid of the "Quotations" section - that is akin to "Trivia."
  • I would also delete the "See also" section since those topics are linked in the article. I was under the impression that "See also" sections were supposed to be for links not in the article.
  • Could you please explain why you are relying so heavily on nineteenth-century sources? So much has been written on this period of American history that I was kind of surprised. A little note somewhere on the page might not be amiss if there is some compelling reason.
    • Most of these 19th century works are considered the foremost authority on Adams. Besides, many of the newer books on Adams reference their information back to these 19th century biographical works. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will take your word on that. I still think it would be a good idea to mention this somewhere in the article. See the "Bibliography" in Sarah Trimmer for an example (although that situation was even more troublesome). Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I added a little note about it at "Further reading". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along those lines, I think that it is crucial that in the "Legacy" section, you say that you are presenting Puls view of the historiography. Since you cite that book during your review of the other biographies, I assume that that is what you are doing. Other historians probably view those biographies differently. Did you read those biographies as well?
    • Can you elaborate on that? I tried to use a number of varying sources detailing his legacy, and even though I used Puls book in about half of my references in the "Legacy" section, most of them were for direct quotes made by other historians and such. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was, you seemed to be using Puls' analysis of Adams scholarship - Puls' analysis of all of the Adams' biographies; that is what the notes led me to believe, anyway. Is it your own analysis of the Adams biographies? If so, that would be original research and cannot be included (as you well know). Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh okay. I used a number of sources in that section, not Puls' analysis of the Adams' biographies. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should say in the text of the article whose analysis of the biographies you are restating. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is still not addressed. In the paragraph beginning "Still, Adams has been overlooked by many biographers and historians," you cite Puls in the notes which leads me to believe that you are presenting Puls' account of these biographies. Are you presenting Puls' account of the biographies, your account of the biographies or are you using Puls to represent a common assessment of historians? If it is the latter, another source other than Puls would be good. If it is the first, you MUST mention that you are presenting Puls' assessment of the biographical tradition. If it is your opinion, that is original research and cannot be included here. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of all the Adams biographies that you know of would be nice for those of us who are curious - a "Further reading" section, perhaps.
    • Added back into the article. Please correct any formatting/layout issues. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might you also include the publication information such as the publisher and place of publication? That is essential in any bibliographic citation. Also, it is very awkward to have the first names first - most lists of this sort put the last names first. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be a summary of the entire article; this lead seems to summarize one particular part of Adams' career. WP:LEAD
    • Well, my lead covers the period of notability for Adams--from the early 1760s until his retirement from politics. Lead paragraphs are not supposed to be too long, and I basically covered the main points of Adams' life which will let the reader know why he was notable in the first place. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leads are not supposed to cover only the notable events. They are supposed to summarize the article. I quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at important information that will appear later in the article. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article." - I point specifically here to "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" and "self-contained and cover the main points." Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...I guess I'll add a bit about his early life to the lead then. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lead expanded to cover his earlier life, as well. That looks better. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that the lead could still use some work. I edited it a bit myself. It was getting too detailed and had some awkwardly worded sentences. You might try to eliminate even more detail. Try to tell a little story in the lead without getting bogged down in the details (leads are very hard). Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of links in this article. I wonder if you could trim them down a bit. Massachusetts and Boston, for example, are linked multiple times within sections. A lot of your links repeat.
    • Removed some duplicates now, but I'll continue to make the necessary corrections as I look through the entire article again. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still duplicates within sections (Articles of Confederation in "State Politics" for example). Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to get a picture of the Public Advertiser, such as the cover you describe; that would add a little to the page. This is a minor issue, though.
    • I wasn't able to find one. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about a quote box? There are huge swaths of uninterrupted text on this page that should be broken up somehow, I think. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the quote box seems to format awkwardly in the article. Maybe it was just me, but I think I've covered quite a bit of quotes in the article. Perhaps, it may seem like I need some toward the end. (State Politics, Later Life, Continental Congress, etc.) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't thinking of using the quote box to add more quotes necessarily, but to add color and variety to the layout. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues. I copyedited a little bit while I was reading, but here are some issues with the language and the general sense of the article.

  • He also championed the approval of the Declaration of Independence with the delegates at the Second Continental Congress. - "with" clause is a little awkward - not clear what your meaning is
    • I tweaked it around a bit; hopefully this looks right. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams was very influential as a political writer and theorist - as a "political theorist"?
    • As a theorist, he advocated his principles of government (similar to Locke). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see that, but the phrase "political writer and theorist" is awkward - what about just "political theorist"? Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's both, because he commented on the role of government in society, and he also made a case to rebel against British colonial rule. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not clear what a "political writer" is exactly; that is not an easily recognizable category. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • in his writings, he articulated the principles of republicanism that shaped American political culture - "he was one of the key architects of the principles of American republicanism" perhaps? he did not do it alone!
  • He wrote to influence others by making a case to withdraw from the authority of Great Britain by forming a new government. - awkward displacement of revolutionary activities at end of sentence
  • After the United States gained their independence, Adams helped write the Massachusetts Constitution with his cousin John Adams and James Bowdoin. - not totally clear if Bowdoin was his cousin, too
    • Reversed names to "James Bowdown and his cousin John Adams". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page lists Adams as "congregational" - it should be "congregationalist"
  • The "Early life" section begins with "Samuel" - why not "Adams"? Always refer to him as Adams (there are several other "Samuels" and "Sam"). It is a sign of respect for the subject.
    • Fixed. I had originally used "Samuel" to avoid any confusion between him and his father. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is very tricky, I know. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In old age, Samuel suffered from symptoms akin to those of cerebral palsy or Parkinson's disease, so Samuel's daughter Hannah had to sign his name for him. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • tenth-born child - "tenth" is sufficient
  • Mary, the only daughter of businessman Richard Fifield, and Samuel Sr., a deacon of the church - mention name of church here rather than later
    • The Old South Congegrational Church was not built until 1715, which was two years after the marriage. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how could he be deacon of it? Was he deacon of another church? This is confusing. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably another church. I'm not totally familiar with the subject area, so I interpreted my sources as they were written. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it is confusing as it is written. Something needs to be done here. Delete the information if you can't figure it out. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he served a very important role in many of the town's affairs - "played a very important role"?
  • Adams felt a special appreciation for church services and the captivation effect they had on parishioners - "captivation effect"? - unclear
    • Was supposed to be "captivating effect"; removed now, though. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams developed his own political beliefs about the rights of colonists and British control over America. - as opposed to those of his father? confusing
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentences in this paragraph now sound choppy and unconnected. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deacon Adams arranged for young Samuel to work at the counting house for Thomas Cushing. - "of Thomas Cushing"?
    • Reworded to "Thomas Cushing's counting house". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • but he was never repaid back - "back" is redundant
  • Adams wastefully squandered the other half of the money. - "wastefully" is redundant
  • Samuel was seen through the streets of Boston lugging malt, and was called by some as "Sam the malster". - awkward word order
  • a woodcut illustration of Britannia liberating a bird tied by a cord to the arms of France - what represents France? not clear how a bird can be tied to France
    • It's supposed to be symbolic. France may have been a figure with arms, and the bird was tied to France's arms. Anyway, I quoted it almost directly from Puls' book (page 29). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's symbolic; the question is what is the symbol for France? Just because that author does a poor job describing it doesn't we should, too. Is there a picture? Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • then the royal governor should not have that power and influence over the colony - "influence over the colony" seems redundant
  • if we known our own happiness and how to improve it - are you sure this quotation is "known"?
  • as an example of what could happen to New England if it were to abandon their Puritan values - match pronouns please
  • I would discourage you from linking words inside quotations as it is a form of interpretation. The link to "patriot," for example, in Adams' father's obituary is particularly problematic. How do you know what the writer meant by "patriot"?
    • Will look into that matter. As for "patriot", I should have linked to Patriot (American Revolution). Patriots are usually referred to the people who supported America during the Revolutionary War, but it also applies to those who supported the cause in the earlier decades (1750s-1770s). Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is, you can't ever really know what a particular author meant - it is all speculation on your part, which is why I would be very reticent to link inside a quotation. I would consider this kind of linking original research. Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All linking within quotations has been removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see links all over the place. I don't mind linking names and places, but abstract concepts are very questionable. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I forgot to remove the links from the blockquotes. Removed now. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams not only inherited the family brewery but a third of his father's estate as well, which he shared with his newly married sister and his brother Joseph, also a clerk in the town market. - "also" is unclear
    • Earlier, I mentioned Adams was also a clerk in the town market. However, he wasn't at the time, so I best remove that "also". Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams, however, was appalled, both by the Sugar Act itself and by the lack of public outcry against England's unauthorized actions. - "what he perceived as England's unauthorized actions"?
  • Adams got in touch with James Otis - "contacted"? - diction is colloquial as it stands
  • He tried to convince them that the Sugar Act was a violation against the colonies, and such actions could not be issued with colonial involvement. - "a violation of the colonies' rights"? and "without colonial involvement"?
  • Adams suggested the taxes were a direct hit on the freedoms and liberties of the American colonists. - "direct hit" is colloquial - how about "a direct assault"
  • Adams went to work drafting protests against the Stamp Act to protest British efforts to tax the colonists and called for a spirited defense of Americans' "invaluable Rights & Liberties." - repetition of "protest"
  • Adams became an increasingly dominant leader in Boston town meetings and the Massachusetts legislature. - "increasingly dominant" sounds a little odd, don't you think? it's a little vague
  • Not surprisingly, a number of protests resulted in Boston and as Adams had stated, British merchants now called for the repeal of the act. - "anticipated" perhaps?
  • He stated that the tax would do harm to the colonial economy and multiple boycotts in the future could be quite problematic. - problematic how?
    • Changed to "could damage trade relations". Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adams' repeated proclamations for the "inherent and unalienable rights" of the people[58] would become a theme that became a core element of republicanism. - drawn from Locke, perhaps?
    • Sentence seemed awkward, so I fixed that. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point here was that this is Locke's idea - it is in the Two Treatises. I would think that your sources would say that Adams got it from Locke. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce the "Sons of Liberty" rather suddenly. A little background - perhaps a sentence or two would be good.
  • In one such meeting on October 5, Adams asked for a vote to see if people were in favor - remind us of the year
  • It came down to either they destroy the tea illegally, or just give up. Adams had control and knew he could not give up the fight. - colloquial tone
  • You might mention who planned the "covert" Boston Tea Party.
  • The angry reaction from all the colonies was to expedite the opening of a Continental Congress. - "angry reaction" to what? as this is the beginning of a new paragraph, it needs to be clear
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colonies' reaction from the Boston Tea Party was to expedite the opening of a Continental Congress. - doesn't make sense
  • You might briefly explain "anti-federalist" in the beginning of the "State politics" section.
    • Done. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • His contemporaries nicknamed him "the last Puritan" for his views. - what does this mean? Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also briefy mention what Shay's Rebellion was - not everyone will know or click. Also, those two sentences don't seem to fit in their paragraph. They should be moved somewhere more appropriate.
  • One conflict that riled the attention of Adams was whether public theater should be allowed in Boston. - "riled the attention" - "garnered the attention" perhaps?
  • The following year, Adams drew criticism for opposing the Jay Treaty, which had been approved by over two-thirds of the Senate on June 24. - briefly explain the Jay Treaty for the reader
  • In one viewpoint, he is seen as a pre-Revolution political visionary and leader, noted as the "Patriarch of Liberty" by Thomas Jefferson and the "Father of the American Revolution" by the people of his time - awkwardly worded
  • but is stanch, and stiff, and strict, and rigid, and inflexible in the cause - are you sure that this is how "staunch" is spelled in the quotation? if so, you might insert a [sic]
    • As Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) was explaining it to me, the word in this case should be "staunch", since it is taken as an adjective in the quote. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it should, but eighteenth-century spelling wasn't standardized, so it could have been spelled "stanch" in the original text. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More crucial examinations of his record as a leader has produced works depicting Adams in a negative light. - "more detailed"? - unclear
    • Thorough? I changed it to "detailed" for now. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thorough is even better. Awadewit 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source problems. This is perhaps the issue most worrying to me. I already mentioned that I was concerned about your reliance on nineteenth-century sources (which do not have the same standards of scholarship as twentieth-century sources), but most of your web sources are unreliable. I am disturbed by this because if you relied on these sources to write the page to a large extent, then the page may be in error. I urge you to only rely on scholarly works when writing the page; what cannot be confirmed in works written by scholars and printed by academic presses, should be removed. I was even more surprised when I saw that you were a wikipedia administrator and had 28,000 edits. Surely you should know to carefully check all of your sources. I can only hope that someone else added these sources; even so, you should not have nominated the page without checking them all and removing the inappropriate and unreliable sources (WP:RS):

  • Jonathan Dunder. Samuel Adams Biography. The Free Information Society. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - This is not a reliable source. It appears to be self-published and it is written by an undergraduate computer engineering major. It should definitely not be used for information like Adams had symptoms of cerebral palsy or Parkinson's (very different diseases).
  • Lawrence Kestenbaum (March 12, 2005). Index to Politicians: Adams, S to T. The Political Graveyard. Retrieved on 13 April 2007. - This is appears to be a self-published website. Kestenbaum is an attorney from Michigan; he lists his favorite websites and political groups on the website.
    • TPG seems like a legitimate reliable source. I'll see if any other reliable sources have that citation. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is absolutely not a reliable source. This page describes the site's creator; he is an attorney in Michigan. The site appears to be his own self-published site and if you notice that same page lists things like his favorite movies and comic strips. This is not the sort of reputable, scholarly source that wikipedia wants to be association with. Also, notice that it says on the homepage "Information on this page — and on all other pages of this site — is believed to be accurate, but is not guaranteed. Users are advised to check with other sources before relying on any information here." Awadewit 05:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Missed that part. Link removed and replaced. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • J. Michael Waller (3 February 2006). The American way of propaganda: Lessons from the founding fathers. Institute of World Politics. Retrieved on 26 February 2007. - Something is amiss here. The link takes you to a self-published website by Scott Cummings - www.patriotresource.com.
    • Fixed link. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Self-published and therefore not to be considered reliable. Note that it says "Posted: Friday, February 3, 2006." If you can find it published somewhere else, fine. If not, find another source. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locke, John (1689). Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, And His Followers, are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is an Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government, p191. - You have to say which edition you are using if you are giving page numbers - publisher, etc. You might just give the Book and section number - that is a common way to cite Locke (e.g. II, 8).
    • Locke note is still not fixed. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott Cummings. The Patriotic Resource: Samuel Adams. Retrieved on 25 February 2007. - This is a self-published website.
  • Samuel Adams: Section 6: The Boston Massacre. Sparknotes. Retrieved on 11 April 2007. - You've got to be kidding, right? No one is going to take wikipedia seriously if we are referencing sparknotes. Sparknotes are not peer-reviewed publications.
  • Stanley L. Klos (2000). Samuel Adams. Virtualogy. Retrieved on 11 April 2007. - Self-published website.
  • Proceedings of the First Continental Congress. Independence Hall Association (February 9, 2007). Retrieved on 21 April 2007. - Self-published website by Thomas Kindig.
  • National Rifle Association (February 22, 2006). Founding Fathers: Samuel Adams. James Madison Research Library and Information Center. Retrieved on 21 April 2007. - I'm concerned that the NRA is not going to have the most objective view on history. Why do you need them for this piece of information?
    • Again, I am concerned the NRA is not an objective source (note that the James Madison Research Library and Information Center is associated with the NRA and is, according to their own site, "the premier site on the Internet for researching and learning about America's first freedom, The Second Amendment," or the right to bear arms). Why do you need this site to prove this statement: "A loyalist member, faking illness, was excused from the assembly and immediately went to the governor, who issued a writ for the legislature's dissolution; however, when the legislator returned to find a locked door, he could do nothing." - Surely that is available somewhere else? If it is not, then it becomes highly dubious. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signers of the Declaration of Independence: Samuel Adams. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - also comes from ushistory.org - a self-published website by Thomas Kindig
  • Tom Kindig. Articles of Confederation. Independence Hall Association. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - Self-published website.
  • Account of a Declaration: Biographies. LeftJustified Publiks. Retrieved on April 13, 2007 - Self-published website by Thomas Kindig.
  • Telling the Truth - Chapter 6: The Streets Declare the Sinfulness of Man. World (6 February 2006). Retrieved on 20 April 2007. - This is an opinion piece in a magazine that declares itself to have a "Christian perspective."
  • John Vinci (January 5, 2004). The biography of Elizabeth Checkley Adams, wife of Samuel Adams, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Colonial Hall. Retrieved on April 08, 2007. and John Vinci (January 5, 2004). Biography of Elizabeth Wells Adams. Colonial Hall. Retrieved on April 13, 2007. These biographies are not written by John Vinci. If you look carefully at their site, it says that the biographies on this site are primarily from 1 of the following 2 sources: Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence, by the Rev. Charles A. Goodrich. Published in 1829 and The United States Manual of Biography and History, by James V. Marshall. Published by James B. Smith & Co., in Philadelphia in the year 1856. You need to find out if your biographies are from those books. Awadewit 20:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I removed the sources, and replaced them. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to fix the source issues, but it totally flew right over my head when I was doing my pre-FAC evaluation. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really wish you had, because all of this took up a lot of my time. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing on the sources:

  • Signers of the Declaration (Samuel Adams). National Park Service (April 13, 2006). Retrieved on 21 April 2007. See this page for correct citation information for this note. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you list this article at the League of Copyeditors. They have a place for articles undergoing FAC. There are lots of little problems with flow between sentences that could be fixed up with a thorough copyedit. A lot of your sentences have the same structure, for example, and there are some incorrect prepositions. All of this could easily be fixed. Awadewit 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samuel_Adams&oldid=1136095649"