Talk:Ruby Laffoon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruby Laffoon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are a lot of short paragraphs in this article. Can some of them be combined to make it look and read less choppy?

   • I've done a few. Did that help?

   • Fight for a sales tax section. "Despite Laffoon's hateful rhetoric, the sales tax was again defeated." "Hateful rhetoric" is a bit over-the-top, eh? Perhaps tone it down a bit... I agree it wasn't a nice statement, but I think it was fairly par for the course in the '30s, so he wasn't really going against the practice of the day.

   • I've deleted "hateful". I guess it could be considered POV.

   • In the Governor of Kentucky section, you say "Laffoon organized the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels", but in the Later life section it says that Colonels had been commissioned by his predecessors. Which is correct?

   • Both, actually. As mentioned in the "Governor of Kentucky" section, The Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels was an organization to which only Kentucky colonels could be admitted. The title of Kentucky colonel dates back to 1813; the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels was established by Governor Laffoon.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The image of Happy Chandler has a note that it needs to be re-tagged.

   • Lovely. That's the second time this tag has bitten me in as many weeks! Although the Biographical Directory says the image is from the Library of Congress, I can't find it in LOC's online catalog. There is this one, which is free, but to me, it makes Chandler look a lot more sinister. I'll work on making the change, though.

   Done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few MOS/prose issues and one question about images. Other than that, the article looks good, and these issues shouldn't take too long to fix. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I was away this weekend. I've made the changes noted above. If they are insufficient, let me know. I'll try to switch out the Chandler image some time today. Thanks for again reviewing my work. I always look forward to a GA review from Dana boomer! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Image fixed. Everything should be good to go now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier... Everything looks good now, so I am passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

If you look at most U.S. politicians, with a well-constructed lead, the wording is superior to the present of this article. The wording should be "...was an American politician who served as the 43rd Governor of Kentucky from 1931 to 1935." This formatting of the lead is most concise, and logical. Firstly, nationality as an American supersedes his state residence; secondly, the title of office "Governor of Kentucky" not only lists the office itself, but establishes that his highest office, which is the one of primary mention, was as head of a U.S. state; thirdly, the range of service establishes the period of his prominence.

As it presently stands, the lead is misleading and improperly constructed. While the official name of Kentucky is the "Commonwealth of Kentucky," as opposed to "State of," referring to it as the "U.S. Commonwealth of Kentucky" is wholly erroneous. Why? Because while Kentucky's official name incorporates the term "Commonwealth," it does not cease to be a state. Furthermore, calling it a 'Commonwealth' as opposed to 'State' is in error, for a U.S. Commonwealth is an insular area, unincorporated, which presently include the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The aforementioned lead wording, which was reverted, is a proper construction. Using the phrase "He was the Commonwealth's 43rd governor" is not only in error due to the usage of "Commonwealth," but it also fails to establish the office in formal terms, which "43rd Governor of Kentucky" does. The rest of the lead still clearly establishes him as a state-level politician, and mention of nationality is prudent. This wording is of good syntax, and is widely accepted throughout articles in Wikipedia, see Mitt Romney, Pat Brown, Jeb Bush as among similar examples.   Spartan7W §   14:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Acdixon on this, but do you have any sources to back up your claim that "Commonwealth of Kentucky" is improper? Or is that just your opinion? Acdixon meticulously researches his articles, and I'd be surprised if this is an improper way to write about Kentucky. I can live with the rest, as it's more or less subjective. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the official name of Kentucky is "Commonwealth of Kentucky," but this does not remove the fact that Kentucky is a U.S. State, that there are not 46 states and 4 commonwealths, but rather, 50 states, of whom 4 refer to themselves as commonwealths. The title commonwealth, in this application, is an antiquated label with no meaning. The link used in the lead itself, to "U.S. Commonwealth" directs to an article covering unincorporated insular areas, whose title 'commonwealth' has legal meaning, of which Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands are included.   Spartan7W §   15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) ::@Laser brain and Spartan7W: Thanks for the ping, LB. I would take exception to the notion that "Commonwealth of Kentucky" is incorrect. In fact, it is so styled in the Kentucky Constitution, as it is in the constitutions of the other three states known as commonwealths – Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Also note that Wikipedia has two separate articles on U.S. commonwealths – Commonwealth (U.S. insular area), which deals with the situation that Spartan exemplifies by Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands, and Commonwealth (U.S. state), which deals with the nomenclature used by Kentucky and three other U.S. states. The notion, stated above, that "while Kentucky's official name incorporates the term "Commonwealth," it does not cease to be a state" is only half the story; it is also true that because it is a state, it does not cease to simultaneously be a commonwealth. It is not uncommon here in Kentucky for folks, especially politicians, to refer to our state as "the Commonwealth", so it's not just an anachronistic designation.

All that said, I typically start my leads along the lines of "{Person} was a {job} and politician from the U.S. state of Kentucky." I haven't checked the history, but I feel certain that another editor made the good faith change to "Commonwealth" at some point, and as both are correct, I probably just left it that way. I have no particular attachment to the current wording and agree that the proposed is more concise. I like noting that Laffoon was born in Kentucky and later became governor, as contrasted with say, Simeon Willis or Brereton Jones, who were from Ohio and West Virginia, respectively, before becoming governors of Kentucky. But if there is an accepted convention, the nativity designation is far from a deal-breaker for me. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above, my biggest issue was the link of 'U.S. Commonwealth', previously in error. But I do believe, in this instance, (if present wording was kept, although I'll change it to the agreement on the proposed), saying he "was the state's governor" is better, simply because the average reader might conflate the two. Saying "the state's" wouldn't be in error, and I think so long as "commonwealth of" is prefixed, there is little issue with using "state" later, to assure the reader that the two are the same thing, practically. I can include Kentucky birth in the lead, no problem.   Spartan7W §   15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ruby Laffoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091119134646/http://kycolonels.org/index.cgi?id=52 to http://kycolonels.org/index.cgi?id=52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)