Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustus O. Stanley/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 21:15, 17 November 2009 [1].

Augustus O. Stanley

edit
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article recently passed a GA review with no suggestions for improvement. It is well-sourced, and, I believe, comprehensive. I welcome any comments that may improve the article, and hope to see it promoted to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Didn't notice this. That's the wrong claim, anyway. It should be public domain because it's his congressional portrait, which is automatically PD as a product of the federal government. This image is hosted at Commons, and I never work over there. Can someone advise me on how to make this change? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of this ("Not all images are in the public domain") and in light of what really does look like a copyright notice, I don't think that we have enough evidence to conclude that that's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to consider images that the LoC labels as "no known restrictions on publications" as public domain provided it seems likely that they would be, so I'd say that one's fine. Some other editors are more stringent than me on this, though, and demand affirmative evidence that it's in the public domain. So I'd pass the image review with that image, but I can't guarantee that somebody else won't come along and make an issue of it. If you want to be on the safe side, I'd suggest uploading your preferred image to Wikipedia and claiming fair use, since the subject's deceased, it's the only picture of him you use in the article, and there are no certain-to-be public domain photos of which we're aware. Steve Smith (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of J.C.W. Beckham also used in the article comes from the Harris and Ewing Collection, the same one as the above-referenced image of Stanley. In the Beckham image description, there is a template from Commons that says the entire collection's copyright has expired under terms of its gift to the LOC. I'm willing to trust that it's PD. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92Talk

  • You don't need both the hatnote for Owsley Stanley as well as a sentence about him in the first paragraph. I also don't think that's relevant enough for the very first paragraph.
  • Removed.
  • Why would the American Tobacco Company support a tax? It needs to be clearer sooner that it had a monopoly.
  • I'll work on this.
  • OK, I finally got a chance to provide additional details here. Does this make it clearer?
  • "failed by a vote of 20—14...95—17" Use an endash, not emdash.
  • Fixed.
  • "His opponent, Republican Frederic M. Sackett, secured" > His Republican opponent Frederic M. Sackett secured"
  • Done.
  • Is there anything else about his later life? Is there anything noteworthy in his legacy, things named after him, etc?
  • Nothing is mentioned in any of the sources I've consulted, although it's tough to prove a negative. I'm not aware of anything that was named for him.
  • Websites in the bibliography not directly cited in the notes can go in external links, namely the Biographical Directoy of US Congress link.
  • This website was directly cited. Should be clearer after I took Fifelfoo's suggestion below.
  • External Links should be the last section of the page.
  • Done.
Thanks for your comments. I'll work on the ATC monopoly issue soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice job! Reywas92Talk 17:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support 1c 2c Decline (minor) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 2c
      1. "^ "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley"" replace with ""Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association." to indicate corporate authorship / publisher authorship and keep stylistic unity, indicate its a citation rather than an annotation.
        Done.
      2. To meet your own style the following citations require location information:
        1. Johnson, E. Polk (1912). A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians: The Leaders and Representative Men in Commerce, Industry and Modern Activities. Lewis Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-11-10.
        2. Klotter, James C. (1996). Kentucky: Portraits in Paradox, 1900–1950. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0916968243. Retrieved 2009-06-26.
        3. Powell, Robert A. (1976). Kentucky Governors. Danville, Kentucky: Bluegrass Printing Company. OCLC 2690774.
          Done, although Powell had a location before.
          Sorry, I'll try to use my efficient eyeballs in future!
      3. Due to Penguin's notorious multiple publication locations, the following citation requires a publication location
        1. Jackson, Blair (2000). Garcia: An American Life. Penguin Press. ISBN 0140291997. Retrieved 2009-08-18.
          Done.
      4. You may wish to indicate this is an online source more explicitly? Happy with that. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1. "Kentucky Governor Augustus Owsley Stanley". National Governors Association. Retrieved 2007-08-23.
          1. I think the fact that the link and access date are provided in full bibliography is sufficient.
    2. Non decline related Comment: its beautiful to see short citations like, "^ Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 214" which indicates clearly that its a work in a collection.
      1. Actually, A New History of Kentucky is not a collection, but there are two sources with Harrison as the primary author, so I have to specify.
        1. Hmm, its not a common form of shortcite. Try Harrison, A New History of Kentucky, p. 214 instead to clear up the confusion? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Support related comment: 1c appears complete. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Thanks for your comments; I think I've addressed them all. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport—Another strong Kentucky politician article from Acdixon; nice work. Specific points:
Thanks for noticing my work. I'm still working on more Kentucky politicians, so I hope no one is tired of them yet!
  • I've done some copyediting; I took a fairly free hand, so please do revert and/or ask me if there's anything you don't like.
  • Nothing too onerous. I made a couple of changes.
  • I really don't see the point of that disambiguation hatnote. Is there any real possibility that somebody trying to make it to Owsley's page would make it to Augustus's instead?
  • I have seen a couple of places in the sources that refer to Augustus as "A.O." or "Owsley". I'm honestly not sure what was most common, since I wasn't born yet! I didn't actually add the hatnote, but I did leave it in place. I'm not strongly opposed to removing it, but I think one should remain on the Owsley Stanley page because of possible ambiguity.
  • Well, I'll leave it up to your best judgment.
  • Maybe mention his party affiliation earlier in the lead, to provide context to his rivalry with Beckham (i.e. that they're in the same party)?
  • I've made a change that should address this.
  • "Concurrent with his ventures in academe..." I'm not sure how I feel about this turn of phrase. Would object to seeing it boringfied?
  • Not really. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.
  • Works for me.
  • Some of the early history seems a little thin - how did he get to be the Democratic nominee for Congress? Was his legal career one of particular distinction? It just seems like "academic administrator -> lawyer -> failed county attorney candidate -> CONGRESSMAN!"
  • The sources seem pretty light on that subject, too, although it's been a while since I looked at them in-depth. My guess is rural county + support for tobacco farmers + good public speaker = Congressman. Remember, everything he did before that was in central and eastern Kentucky. Once he came to Henderson County (western Kentucky, and a far different area culturally and economically) he was elected to Congress. I suspect he made a bit of a name as a lawyer first, but there aren't any specific examples of how, that I'm aware of.
  • Well, if that's a limitation of the sources, there's not much to be done.
  • I just reviewed the Burckel article, which is by far the most complete record of Stanley's record in the House. Of this career between his admission to the bar and his election to the House, it says "Moving then to Henderson in western Kentucky, he entered Democratic politics and served as a presidential elector for William Jennings Bryan in 1900. Two years later, Stanley won election to the 58th Congress, representing the largely rural tobacco-growing Second District." The only hope I'd see for filling in the gaps is to acquire a copy of Thomas Ramage's PhD. dissertation "Augustus Owsley Stanley: Early Twentieth-Century Kentucky Democrat" from the University of Kentucky, but I'm three hours from that library, and it isn't available online.
  • "public hearings on the tobacco situation" Did this situation extend beyond the tax? If so, how? If not, why not just say that the hearings were on the tax?
  • My impression is that it was about the whole idea of ATC having a monopoly, but I'll look at the source again. I need to do that for Reywas92's comment above anyway.
  • The hearings were indeed about the American Tobacco Company's actions as a whole, not just the tax. I've done a quick re-word, but it's not necessarily beyond improvement.
  • "McCreary was never a serious challenger..." Is elaboration on this possible? I'd have thought that a sitting governor would automatically be a credible candidate.
  • I can elaborate some, but I don't want to go too far off-topic. Best I recall, he had a reputation for flip-flopping on the issues (his nickname was "Oily Jeems" for that reason). Also, I believe he'd have been about 76 years old by then, so I doubt he was still a spry campaigner. Plus, Stanley and Beckham were already factional leaders in the party, so it was only natural that the campaign centered on them.
  • Okay, I agree that staying focussed is a concern, and that this probably isn't appropriate for an article on Stanley.
  • Is the anecdote about the puking and subsequent rejoinder ironclad? I ask because it sounds suspiciously like a story that circulates up here about renowned alcoholic John A. Macdonald, and I know that these things sometimes get assigned to different people in different places.
  • The anecdote is mentioned, with very slight variations, in at least three different sources that I recall. Each one acknowledges that it's an anecdote more than something reported in newspapers, etc., but the sources that do mention it are written by respected Kentucky historians and don't seem to discount its veracity; they just vary on the details, which is to be expected.
  • "...forbade public service corporations from contributing to any campaign." What's a public service corporation? Is that a widespread term in the U.S.?
  • Just quoting the source here. I don't know what it is either.
  • Any chance you could find out?
  • I'll do some checking, yes.
  • Looks like it's what is more commonly called a "utility company". I've added an appropriate wikilink for clarity.
  • "...many of her peers..." Is it standard to refer to states in the feminine, rather than the neuter? It kind of makes me cringe, but my sensibilities probably shouldn't have any privileged position on these questions.
  • I think so, kinda like ships and things. I'm not overly opposed to making it gender-neutral, though.
  • I've changed to "its" partly because it sounds far better to me but mostly because the state is treated as neuter elsewhere in the article.
  • Suits me.
  • "...the General Assembly approved funding increases in nearly every part of state government, including higher education." If increases were approved across the board, what makes higher education particularly noteworthy?
  • I'll need to look back at the sources to see if there were specific projects mentioned, but increasing funding to education was one of those things most Kentucky politicians tried to do during this era, so it usually got a special mention.
  • If there's additional context available, it would be good. Otherwise, no big deal.
  • What was the voters' verdict on the 1918 prohibition amendment?
  • I tried to find this, but never could. Best I recall, the sources seem to imply that it passed, but I never could nail that down. According to the wiki article on the Eighteenth Amendment, Kentucky approved the national prohibition amendment in January 1918, so its tough to tell if the state amendment went into effect or was superceded by the national one.
  • Pity, but nothing to be done, apparently.
  • Are specific election results available, perhaps to be presented in a table? The margins provided are somewhat less meaningful without context.
  • I can probably find the vote totals. Sometimes I give totals, other times just margins.
  • We hear nothing about his family until he dies. Could something be worked into "Early life" (assuming that's when he got married and had kids)?
  • There isn't much about them except that he married and had kids, then one of his grandkids became a drug icon. I originally had the marriage and number of kids in the Early life section, but it made for an awfully short paragraph and made it even tougher to work in the bit about his grandson later. I don't even have a name for his third son (the one who died) nor any details about how and when he died.
  • I brought this up with Thomas R. Marshall as well: is there a reason that the article includes both an infobox and succession boxes? My understanding that the advent of the former deprecated the latter, though if American political figures are working to a consistent standard that includes both, I have no objection.
  • I didn't add the succession boxes; I never do, but if they are there, I usually leave them. Personally, I think they're kind of unsightly, so if there has somewhere been a discussion with consensus to remove them, I'll happily abide by it.
  • Well, WP:TCREEP specifically advises against including both, though that's just an essay (albeit one that I think is widely accepted). I'd prefer to see it go, but it's up to you.
  • If it's widely accepted, I suppose we should leave them, but for the record, I still agree with you that the infobox is the more elegant solution.
All in all, an excellent article that I will soon be pleased to support. The Canadian connection is just a bonus. Steve Smith (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you enjoyed it, and its connection to Canada. (Incidentally, the librarian who helps me find most of these sources is also originally from Canada. Alberta, I think.) I'll await your reaction to my responses above, and also try to address the ones I've left open sometime next week. My wife and I are planning a short little weekender vacation this weekend. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alberta's the best part of Canada, as it happens. In fact, I've always sort of considered that your Wikipedia career is to Kentucky as mine is to Alberta (in case you feel stalked, I should point out that our paths previously crossed at FAC back when I was Sarcasticidealist). Anyway, I'll try to have some responses to your points waiting for you when you get back from vacation; enjoy it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to most of your concerns above. I'll do some more checking on the rest. I don't feel stalked at all; I'm just glad someone is reading my work, and further, that they've found it enjoyable. The weekend vacation was great. Wikipedia will have more images from Rupp Arena and the Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team as soon as I have time to do a little Photoshopping. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support. I still think action on my points that remain unstruck would be beneficial, but it's certainly not necessary for featured status. Well done. Steve Smith (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please tell us what country Kentucky is in, in the first sentence. Don't presume that an ignorant Australian like myself knows every state of every country in the world. It's too much to ask. Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (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/Augustus_O._Stanley/archive1&oldid=1068829755"