Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chester A. Arthur/archive1

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 22:23, 27 September 2011 [1].

---

Chester A. Arthur

Chester A. Arthur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Chester A. Arthur/archive1

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a peer review and a good article approval, I think Chester A. Arthur is ready to run the FA gauntlet. Enjoy the article -- there's more to him than those muttonchops! Coemgenus (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the peer review, all issues that could be addressed were, and a look this morning convinces me it meets the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to New York politician, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for peer review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Continuing:
• So far, I've made the following edits: Here are some edits that I didn't explain in the edit summaries:
• "a lucrative sinecure": a lucrative job with few responsibilities
• "after Tweed's fall from power in 1871, he never spoke ...": ... Arthur never spoke [correct this please if you meant Tweed never spoke]
• "re-appointment": reappointment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Once there, he traveled with Conkling to Albany, where the former Senator had hoped for a quick re-election to the Senate and, thereby, a rebuke to the Garfield administration. To their surprise, the Republican majority in the state legislature was divided ...": The "their" in this sentence seemed to me to refer to the Republican majority. Fixed.
• "which would have the effect of reducing": in order to reduce (one of the "in order to" exceptions, since "to" could be misread here). - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "would only reduce tariffs": only reduced tariffs. Only use the "future-in-past" tense ("would", here) if you actually need it ... if you're signalling the reader that you're talking about something off in the future before returning to the time of the narrative. I'm guessing that the reduced tariffs weren't years off in the future, since you say they "didn't help", so they're close enough to the time of the narrative that the past tense is better. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Despite Arthur's objections, Congress overrode his veto, enacting the bill into law. While successfully reducing the surplus by $19 million ...": Congress overrode his veto, and the new law reduced the surplus by $19 million.
• "Arthur believed the twenty-year ban was a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880, which allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration; as a result, he vetoed the bill.": Arthur vetoed the bill, seeing the twenty-year ban as a breach of the renegotiated treaty of 1880, which allowed only a "reasonable" suspension of immigration. [ Avoid "as a result" and similar phrases if it's implied by context.]
• "would deny": would have denied. The future-in-past tense is for things that did (later) happen, not for things that didn't. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "The contracts to build the ABCD ships were all awarded to John Roach & Sons of Chester, Pennsylvania. While Roach was the low bidder on all four contracts, assigning them to his shipyard sparked controversy, as Roach once employed Secretary Chandler as a lobbyist. As a result, Democrats ...": The contracts to build the ABCD ships were all awarded to the low bidder, John Roach & Sons of Chester, Pennsylvania, even though Roach once employed Secretary Chandler as a lobbyist. Democrats ... - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "New London, Connecticut": New London, Connecticut, - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Squadron of Evolution.": see WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't made these edits:
• "forbade federal office holders from being required ...": you can't forbid someone from being told by someone else to do something ... they don't have any control over that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've re-worded it after consulting the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• "in January 1880, his wife died ...": A specific day would help; without it, the readers will be wondering if the previous events happened in December. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed this one (it was January 12). --Coemgenus (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)- Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and the thorough copyedit! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Use a consistent date format
• Check for small formatting inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the ISBN and I couldn't find any doubled periods, but I'll keep looking the doubled period. I thought the dates were consistent. What do you mean? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see Brad101 has fixed them. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I think I got them.See my last couple of edits. Brad (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were found by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Coolness! I haven't seen that service before. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• The article is a bit over referenced if you can believe that. In a lot of areas I see the same cite number used repeatedly where it would be just as well to use it once or twice per paragraph. For example, in the last section of the article [155] appears 6 times. Brad (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose I could cut them back some. I like to reference each sentence to avoid any ambiguity about where the information is sourced from. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Whichever you prefer. This isn't anything holding up promotion. To me the page looks too "busy" but I'm often considered to be wrong ;). Brad (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll give it a look tomorrow and see if I can't reduce the clutter. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I've trimmed the worst of it, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Involved support I helped bring media files to standards and also did the GA review. Brad (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Criteria 3 media meets standards. Brad (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The first thing that jumped out at me as I skimmed the article was the lack of pronouns:

The Senate confirmed Arthur's appointment. As Collector, Arthur not only controlled nearly a thousand jobs, but he also stood to receive personal compensation as great as any federal officeholder. Arthur's salary was $6,500, but senior customs employees were also compensated by the "moiety" system, which awarded them a percentage of the fines levied on importers who attempted to evade the tariff. In total, Arthur's income came to more than $50,000—more than the president's salary, and more than enough for him to enjoy fashionable clothes and a lavish lifestyle. Among those who dealt with the Custom House, Arthur was one of the era's more popular collectors.

Arthur urged Congress to increased funding for Indian education, which it did in 1884, although not to the extent Arthur wished. Arthur also favored a move to the allotment system, by which individual Native Americans, rather than tribes, would own land. Arthur was unable to convince Congress to adopt the idea during his administration but, in 1887, the Dawes Act changed the law to favor such a system.

etc. This is part of the reason why fewer footnotes are good, as they make textual problems a little easier to spot. —Designate (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I'll try to trim back the Arthurs when I examine the footnote cluttering. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The pronoun situation should be under control now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A minor thing: you have party lowercase in Republican party but capitalized in Whig Party and Greenback Party (and Republican Party in the infobox).

Also, is it necessary to say he was born in 1829 in the second paragraph of the lead? —Designate (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed both. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - just beginning to read through. I have a quick question - the piece about moving to Kansas is a bit confusing. He got engaged, then moved to Kansas and then moved back because the frontier didn't agree with him, and then got married? Is that correct? First, I'd suggest rewording that the frontier didn't agree with him. Then, clarify why he went to Kansas. Did he intend to move there with his fiancee? Anyway, slightly confused in that section, but otherwise good. Will continue reading. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got the sequence right. I tried to clarify it, but even his biographers aren't clear on Arthur's motivations. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead

• Should Rivers and Harbors Act be linked in the lead? I'm uncertain whether you're referring to a specific act, or a generic rivers and harbor act.
• "...that appropriated federal funds..." related to the above act; if it was vetoed, shouldn't this read "would have appropriated"?
• "...than the modern Presidency..." would this read better as "a modern presidency", with a lower case "presidency"? I don't believe this is a valid honorific or proper noun.

Birth and family

• Could use a link to the article for Belfast College. There are several, and I'm not sure which one it is.
• "...the Arthurs moved to Burlington, Jericho, and Waterville, Vermont, in quick succession as William moved to jobs with different schools." could be rephrased as "...the Arthurs moved in quick succession throughout Vermont, to the towns of Burlington, Jericho and Waterville, as William took jobs with different schools." I think eliminating the serial comma and ", Vermont" here would be preferable; the first time I read through this, I thought that Burlington was a city in a region called Jericho.

Education

• "...began to pursue an education in the law. While studying the law..." The phrase "the law" is slightly repetitive here, perhaps the second instance could be shortened to just "law"?

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• • I fixed these, except for two. I left Rivers and Harbors Act unlinked, because there's no article for that exact bill. As for Belfast College, I've been unable to figure out which one it was, either, though I spent some time looking when I wrote that section. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• • That's fine; if the sources don't say, then there's nothing you can do. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Conkling's machine

• "As a rule, these jobs were dispensed to adherents of the political machine..." Was this a formal rule, or just traditional practice?
• "...which made the job a choice political plum." While wp:euphemisms can really make the text pop, is there a better way to phrase this to convey a more comprehensive meaning?

Clash with Hayes

• "...assured his protégé's re-appointment by President Grant." Could this be rephrased slightly? I'm unsure whether Grant personally assured Conkling, or whether Conkling just assumed it would happen.
• "Hayes's opponent, New York Governor Samuel J. Tilden, carried New York but, after months of disputes over certain electoral votes, lost the Presidency." This sentence appears at the end of a paragraph and is uncited.

• I think I've resolved these, although I admit I liked the "political plum" language! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I did too, and if it could be used as a quote I'd support it; I just felt that it was a little too idiomatic on its own. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

--Gyrobo (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Election of 1880

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Vice Presidency

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.
• "...and Arthur boarded a train for the capital two days later." Could you please specify the city? You mention Albany, the capital of New York, but presumably he'd be going to the national capital.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Right, it was Washington, not Albany. I've clarified it. Your copyedits seem fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, and I've re-added the political plum. I think my issue was "choice political plum", mentioning that it's highly coveted should provide adequate context while preserving the passion of the original wording. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking office

• "...because of concerns that his first oath was given by a state judge." Should there be a mention of why this was a concern, similar to how Calvin Coolidge's initial swearing in is described?
• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. I explained that a little. I made a small edit to your copyedits, but otherwise they seem fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Civil service reform

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.
• "...the kind of corruption that reformers feared Arthur would countenance..." The word "countenance" seems a bit archaic here, perhaps this could be rephrased slightly to be more straightforward?

--Gyrobo (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that's that archaic -- I think people know what it means. What word do you think would be better? "approve of"? "permit"?
• Your copyedits were helpful. It reads better now, to my mind, and doesn't change the meaning. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. And countenance is fine if changing it would make it less clear, it's just that I always think of countenance as a synonym of visage. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• My wife had the same reaction you did. Maybe my language is archaic. I changed it to "permit". --Coemgenus (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Surplus and the tariff

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Foreign affairs and immigration

• Frelinghuysen hasn't been discussed for two sections, maybe he could be quickly reintroduced? Is there anything one why Frelinghuysen was chosen that could bolster such a reintroduction?
• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

--Gyrobo (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I wrote out his first name and linked him. Your copyedits are fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Naval reform

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Civil rights

• Some copyedits, involving the consistent capitalization of "West" throughout the article, specifying what "Solid South" meant, and the last sentence was a little jumbled. If my edits distort the sources, please revert. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Copyedits are good with me. Nice link on "disenfranchised". --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Health, travel, and renomination

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Administration and cabinet

• Nothing amiss.

Judicial appointments

• I've made some copyedits, please revert if they distort the intent of the sources.

Retirement and death

• Copyedits, and I've broken the section into two paragraphs, which I believe gives more weight to each part of his life/death. How does the article look to you now?

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• All of these are fine with me. I think the article has been improved. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the article one more time, inserting non-breaking spaces per MOS:NBSP to prevent dates from being inadvertently split across lines. The prose looks very good right now, but one thing that struck me was the absence of a Legacy section. The other president FAs include such a section. I don't know if the sources provide enough information for it, but if they do, it would be nice to have, even if it's a few sentences about a statue unveiling and postage stamp. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to avoid a Legacy section, if possible. The sources don't really provide much information on a legacy, possibly because most Americans know almost nothing of Arthur or his works, so anything I wrote would verge on original research. There's not much legacy to speak of. Those sections usually end up being just lists of non-notable stuff named after him. Among the FAs of Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes has no legacy section. Coolidge has a legacy section without the name here, and it's not good. Cleveland has an "honors and memorials" section that is also mediocre. I'd just as soon do without. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing, but I was afraid that saying so would trivialize the subject (he is a former president after all, his life should have had some kind of notable implications!). But since you, his biographers, and the public in general feel the same way, then there's no reason to devote a section to, say, Arthur's portrayal in the Futurama episode "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid", wherein he utters the immortal line "Chester A. Arthur fall down!"
• Support this comprehensive, well-written article. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecked two online sources (Abbot and Marszalek) and found their data to be accurately reflected in the article text, with no evidence of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecked Bastert (regarding Frelinghuysen) and the information is all found in the source without close paraphrasing. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The prose is both clear and lively, and the sourcing is excellent. The article is well-organized and informative, with no major gaps. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.