Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Adams/archive2

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 [1].

John Adams edit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams was an American Founding Father who served as the second President of the United States. When I previously nominated this article in July, most people seemed concerned about the length of the article. The article was failed after only five days, so I didn’t have much time to address these concerns. I now believe I have done so. The article has gone from 190,336 characters at the beginning of the last review to 172,937 now, a decrease of 9.14%. The total size of the article is 99 kB, which is considered within the guidelines of “readable prose size” according to WP:SIZERULE. Especially considering how important Adams is, I do not see how any further reasonable objections can be made to the size of the article, and hope that it will pass this time, as there do not seem to be any other major issues. Display name 99 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not yet expressing an opinion on whether the article is too long (I haven't read it), but I thought a comparison with some other very large FAs might be useful. For the top five on this page, the page size script gives word counts of 12K, 16K, 13K, 10K, and 11K. The largest is Hillary Clinton, with 16,016 words, but the promoted version was only 12,411 words. John Adams clocks in at 16,160 words. It seems probable that this would be the largest FA at promotion by word count. The next five on the list were (at promotion) also much smaller, though a couple have ballooned since then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but there are a few points I would like to make. The Clinton article became an FA in 2014. She's done plenty of notable things since then, which inevitably caused the article to grow in size. Adams is long dead, and with no major biographies or other studies of him in the works, it seems unlikely that there will be any major attempt to balloon the size of his biography at all. I would also like to point out that Ulysses S. Grant currently has 16,504 words, more than this article by more than a few hundred, although it was only 13,541 at the time of promotion in 2015. Byzantine Empire is even larger at 16,637 words. It became an FA in 2004, when the ideal word count was obviously nowhere near our current standards, but it's survived two FARs, most recently in 2012. My central point is that while this might set a new record for longest article at the time of promotion, it would not be the longest featured article overall. Display name 99 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, just a quick update: The article is now down to 97 kB and has less than 16,000 words. Display name 99 (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another update on length: at the time of its promotion, Andrew Jackson had 15,937 words. This article has 15,809 words. We can now say with certainty that it should it pass the review, this article would not be the longest FA at the time of promotion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Lead, 1a:

  • I'm being picky. Pity to go along with this fiction that leaders "serve" the population. Um ... too much of a stretch for me. So I'd personally prefer "who became the first". You know that the Queen is described as having a lifetime of "public service". Don't make me laugh.
"Public service, "served in office," etc. are all common phrases that everyone understands. I don't see how there are any reasonable grouns for this objection. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." Also picky: makes it sound like he was a diarist with his wife, whereas you mean just "correspondent" with her, right?
I think the meaning is pretty clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not working, unless you mean they sat together and wrote his diary. Tony (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another user just changed this. Is it any better? Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams collaborated with his cousin"—what, in writing his diary?
This part is rather vague and isn't closely supported by the main text. Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and successfully defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre in court"—"and successfully defended in court the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre"? Over to you. Rest of that paragraph: good.
Done. Added "perpetrating" after of. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to trim out "also" from your writing. (Audit MAFIA ... moreover, also, furthermore, in addition). "Adams' credentials as a revolutionary secured him two terms as George Washington's vice president and also his own election in 1796 as president." Consider comma before "and" ... I'm not sure. Then: "During his single term, he encountered"—can the single term be relocated into the previous proposition? I had to pause and think momentarily, having seen three terms flash past.
I could only find one instance of any of these worth trimming out. Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then. I don't know what three terms you're thinking of and I think it's pretty clear that the article means his single term as president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Commas are only necessary before and if three or more things are being listed, and sometimes not even then."—I don't know where that idea came from. Please revise your take on comma usage—it's more complicated and nuanced than that. On "also" (there are 21 of them, and only a few are needed): what is it adding to this: "He was also a dedicated diarist and correspondent, particularly with his wife and closest advisor, Abigail." And here: "Ferling also surmises that ...". And here: "In 1771, Adams moved his family to Braintree, but kept his office in Boston. He also noted on the day of the family's move, ...". If you like, I'll add "also" to almost every sentence. Let me know and I'll do it. Tony (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, this article here says that commas should be used to separate two INDEPENDENT clauses. The second clause in the sentence you quoted is a dependent clause. A comma would not be needed there. I removed 11 more instances of also. Display name 99 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I must inform you that that's an amateurish writing guide. Full of simplistic advice. Tony (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMOS says "that" unless there's a comma before it: "a correspondence which lasted fourteen years".
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern historians have favorably ranked his administration."—sounds very numerical/tabular. Do they all indulge in this?
Changed to show that the rankings do not include all historians. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising. Tony (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, thank you for your review. Please see my above comments. Display name 99 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1, I don't think we're going to agree on the comma. Are there any other comments you wish to make about this article? Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go beyond that amateurish online guide for comma usage.

You have yet to provide any justification for how the guide is "amateurish." And as you haven't produced a supposedly better guide which supports your own position instead of mine, I feel no urgency to change the article here. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Career before the Revolution":

  • "rights to only be taxed by consent"—"only by" would be less clunky.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Causality needs to be clearer (IF I'm understanding it correctly): "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts, which operated without a jury, were corrupt and unfair." Do you mean: "Many colonists, including Adams, believed these courts were corrupt and unfair because they operated without a jury."? Whether causal or not, it should be clear.
Your version is better. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relations with Britain temporarily eased"—can a relationship ease? Or "tensions ... eased"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known locally as the "White House.""—tsk: MOS breach.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the family" ... "They" ... "He and Abigail and the children" ... "they". Check there's not a more efficient way—unsure.
I've changed this around a bit. Please take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a lone British sentry was accosted by American men and boys."—sounds vaguely sexual. Do we need to make the distinction? And since in those days women hardly ever accosted anyone, can they be characterised as "civilians", without gendering them?
Changed to "mob of citizens." Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following day, Adams was asked to defend them after others had refused, and he immediately agreed to do so." Simpler and shorter? "The following day, after others had refused to defend them, Adams agreed to do so." Tony (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, the review is still incomplete. Do you want to finish it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong Support – There have been few structural changes made recently, but the fact that there have been any at all may cause the article to fail the Stable criteria. The article is definitely well researched as is and well written, and it already is a GA, so I could see this nom successfully going through. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, I fail to see how the structural changes can be seen as the result of anything but the standard process of getting this article reading for featured article candidacy. There's no ongoing edit war, and the stability criteria only mandates that "its content...not change significantly from day to day." You even admit that the changes are not significant, so I have to wonder if you even read the FA criteria and if so, how closely. If you have misgivings about this article because some changes were recently made in order to get it ready for the FA process, I don't see how you would not have the same objections for virtually every article that comes on here. I do however thank you for your support. Display name 99 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed from Weak to Strong. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be cited, such as the exact end date of his ambassadorships
These are largely discussed in the main text. I've encountered other FAs in which the EXACT dates in the infobox aren't directly cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the text says eg. just "1788" for the ambassadorship end, rather than giving the exact date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source added for ambassadorship dates. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn14 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now FN15, looking at the original there appears to be a publication name not currently included. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Right now, the only untemplated citation under References is 286. There is no author (it was written by an organization), so I wasn't sure how to put it in the Bibliography. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the GBooks link, there appears to be an author named on the title page? It also looks like some citations are partially templated and partially not, eg. 28, or not at all, eg. 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that. Added. I also properly templated those two citations. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN34 and 27 are the same
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN39 is incomplete
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN43 is broken
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might've missed a couple, eg. FN157. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took care of one. I looked through again and haven't found any others. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing some inconsistencies here. For example, 126 has a location, 227 does not, 310 does not but other books do, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN147 date format doesn't match other sources
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Leip a high-quality reliable source?
Replaced chart with electoral map. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN225 should cite the NHHC
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes is a publication, Library of Congress is a publisher - check italics throughout
I'm a little bit confused about what you mean here. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is typically to do with which parameter is used for which data, although it appears in some cases you've actually added italics to an instance of |publisher=. Organizations like LOC should use |publisher= and shouldn't be displayed in italics, whereas publications like Forbes should use |work= or a related parameter (|website=, |newspaper=, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added italics for Forbes and removed it from Library of Congress, as well as from publishers in a few other sources where it didn't seem needed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still some inconsistencies here - channels are not publications (though programs are), website names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I added italics to a website but I'm still a bit confused here. PBS is a channel but isn't it technically a program as well? Should it be italicized? Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a program called PBS NewsHour, but I don't see one just called "PBS" at List_of_programs_broadcast_by_PBS? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Italics removed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN276 seems to indicate Reagan was 89 at the time, not over 90
Replaced source. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new source supports that Reagan reached age 90, but not that he surpassed 90 years 247 days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that part of the text. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN320 doesn't link to anything
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how book editors are formatted
I think I've fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Foot and Hogan. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of this. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a few unabbreviated under References. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the double publisher in McDonald 1974?
This was a mistake. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the entries under Primary sources appear incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little work on this. Will continue. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is taken care of now. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a few still incomplete, eg. Richardson. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I think it's finished now. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thank you for your thorough review. I have addressed most of your concerns thus far. Display name 99 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I've responded further to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how many changes have been made by both the nominator and others in the last week, I think that exemplifies the fact that this article isn't done. It needs further review by WP's best editors before becoming a featured article. I still support the nomination, as stated in my previous vote, but the nom needs to be extended. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I already explained that your objection to how frequently the article has been edited recently did not make sense. You didn't defend it. Instead, you seem to have just reiterated it. And for what purpose? It doesn't add anything to the review process and the criticisms are completely illegitimate. Most of the changes in the past week were made in response to the FA review. I'm not sure how much experience you have here, but the way the review process works is, editors suggest changes. Then, the changes are discussed and made. Of course the article isn't done; it's still on review, and it won't be done until one of the coordinators either promotes it or closes the nomination. I welcome any further constructive suggestions that you may have, but I also don't understand what comments like this are meant to accomplish. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which means Redditaddict69 thinks it was a premature nomination. I agree. You've asked me to go through the rest; but I've done far more than FAC should have to in sifting through prose issues. Please find one or two other editors to assist. Tony (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, I disagree with that assessment. I've seen and been involved with FACs that have undergone prose evaluations similar to this one. I've also seen and been involved with reviews where a considerable amount of content was either added or subtracted from the article during the review itself. That hasn't happened yet. Like Redditaddict69, you express misgivings but haven't quite clearly stated what the remaining problems are in the article. If it's about the comma, I suggest you either get over it or find a guide better than the one I cited to prove me wrong. Otherwise I simply want to know what the outstanding issues are. I remind you that I have implemented the vast majority of your suggestions. I think the prose in the article were good to begin with and that most of your suggestions simply made them better and more concise. I can't see why you can't continue to do that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—prose quality is inadequate. Tony (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, Can you provide any specific suggestions to help in the continued review? As they say, the devil is in the details. Hoppyh (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there a good way to reduce whitespace on the right side of the Notes section? Perhaps you could merge it and References into one section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tonystewart14, sorry for the late response. I think it depends on your computer view because on mine I don't see any white space. I'm against merging it with the References section just because I feel that having a separate notes section makes the notes easier to find than if they're mixed up in a bunch of citations. I don't know that much about formatting so I'm afraid there don't seem to be any remaining options as far as I can tell. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 edit

  • After reading several times... here are my initial observations:
Many sentences could be split into two to help with the flow. Equally as many sentences can be combined into one. This will help the article meet the requirements of being a very-well written article.
Can you give a few examples? Right now it's hard to know which sentences you think should be combined or stay together or which ones you think should be split. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subsections with further information pages could be shortened, others can be expanded. Someone coming to read about John Adams probably doesn't want 7 paragraphs on his election when they can just click on the separate article for it. Furthermore, they may want more than 3 paragraphs of info on his later years, after the presidency.
The section on the election of 1796 has four paragraphs. The section on the election of 1800 (one of the most turbulent presidential elections in history) has five paragraphs. Furthermore, there are a total of 11 paragraphs discussing Adams' post-presidency, including his correspondence with Jefferson, political commentary, family life, etc. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: While it was a very highly contested election, not everyone wanting to read about Adams will want to see that. They may only want to see a brief summary, or only the info that he was directly involved in. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, I'm checking this review page every couple of hours so you don't have to ping me. And you certainly don't have to do so four times. Anyway, to the point, biographies have to include a certain amount of context and background or else nothing will make sense. Insisting that everything not relating directly to Adams be taken out would be in extremely poor judgment. All FA biographies have context and background information. They have to. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that some sections are out of order. Last years and death should probably come before Legacy. This is just an opinion, and if people disagree, that's fine.
It does come before Legacy. You may have glanced at the article several times but it's clear from this comment and the one before it that you didn't look too closely. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: I meant as in the section directly after should be where it is located. I'm busy now so I'll reply to your other replies later, but I do think that Legacy should come directly after later years and death. That would look much more organized. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Legacy section is meant to sum up how the individual has been viewed after they died. Therefore, it would make sense to discuss that only after discussing all of the things they did and said before they died. It's done that way in literally every biography I've seen. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People said that this was a premature nomination but I think it can be saved. After the changes are made and they slow down to just a few dozen or so a week (at most), then would be a good time for a close.
I'm glad you think that the article can pass, but this is now the third time you've advanced the idea that frequent changes in themselves are enough to derail a nomination. I've refuted it twice. You haven't bothered to defend it. You just keep repeating it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: I only reiterated it once I saw that not many changes were being made anymore. If changes are still being made, that is usually a good sign (from what I understand) that the article is still undergoing edits before becoming a featured article. A successful candidate for FA does not have many changes being made (as it was about a week ago), but it's slowed down – because of that, I am arguing for the article being passed. Few editors seem to be requesting and/or making more changes as of now. I don't think I made that clear before. Even though it's not a requirement for FA, that's a consensus I've seen that many may agree with. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You reiterated it twice. Frequent edits are generally only a problem if there's an edit war. This is never an issue that I've seen come up at FA nominations and I don't see why you're so worry about it. FA nominations aren't determined based on how many editors request or make changes but whether the changes that are recommended are made and whether there is consensus for the nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is good (that's why it's a good article), but I don't think it's great (hence, why it isn't featured).
Last thing: While this is on the "readable" size guidelines at 99kb, that's still a bit much when so much content can be merged to separate articles that already exist. Anything that isn't crucial info should likely be moved.
I've made a little more progress today. It's down to 98 kB. I've gotten rid of so much content already since the last time this was nominated that future cuts will be difficult. But I'll try. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: And I think, to make it shorter, anything that doesn't directly relate to him that can also be moved to an existing article could be done. As I stated before, the election section is quite long. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your concern about material not directly relating to Adams above. The article is now down to 97 kB. There are fewer than 16,000 words. I'm tired of shortening just for the sake of shortening and I don't think it's necessary any more. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks–looks much better now. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing more specific details about what you want to see fixed. This is a step up. Display name 99 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Humphrey Ploughjogger’s initial seven essays could use a brief description of the topic raised, as well as the reason for the use of the pen name. Hoppyh (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppyh, I briefly expanded on their discussion in the article. They're discussed in two places: one for 1763, when they first started, and again after 1765, when Adams started them up again to oppose the Stamp Act. We have a handful of sentences in there about them right now which I think is enough. Thanks for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed split of "Later years and death" (see Jefferson Davis for example) – Move the paragraph on death to a section directly before Legacy. Later years will remain where it is. This will help the timeline of the article and address one of my previous concerns. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, as an alternative, move the entirety of the Retirement section to directly before Legacy. Why should political writings come after retirement? Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these suggestions work for me. For biographies of individuals who have done extensive writing on politics, philosophy, etc., it's common practice (and I think a good practice) to cover their chronological life first, which of course includes death, before discussing their theories. Analysis of writings interrupt the chronological flow of the articles and so it's good to save those from last. The chronological events in Adams' life should remain together. This is how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are written. Display name 99 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I gave the Jefferson Davis article as an example because that is a Featured Article already, but nothing there applies here. I guess that makes me satisfied with the way it currently is. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, yes, I'd consider the Davis article more of an anomaly. I looked at other FAs on US Presidents (Jackson-written by me-, Polk, Johnson, and Grant) and they all do it the same way as this article. I'm glad to know you're satisfied with everything. That said, do you still consider your support "weak" or is it stronger now? If any other concerns come up please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely stronger. Seems that almost all problems have been taken care of (I don't see any more, nor does anyone else, because none have really come up). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Redditaddict69. Since you said right above that your support was stronger now, would you mind striking "weak" from your vote up above, just so that the coordinators now that you feel more comfortable now than you did then with this article being promoted? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt edit

  • "Adams was a Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress, and became a principal in the decision for independence." I might say "leader" for "principal"
I added leader after principle. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As a diplomat in Europe, he helped negotiate the peace treaty with Great Britain and acquired vital governmental loans." I might say "secured" rather than "acquired".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams' early education included incidences of truancy, a dislike for his master, and a desire to become a farmer." Should "incidences" be "incidents"?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deacon Adams hired a new school master" I would render the end "schoolmaster" or perhaps better, "teacher".
Substituted "schoolmaster." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as his contemporaries largely spectated or joined the war for money. " I would avoid "spectated" and would simplify "as many of his contemporaries joined the war to earn money" (if the source supports this). It's not necessary to state the converse. The reader gets that not everyone went to war.
Removed "spectated." The source says that many people signed up for large cash or land bounties, so I kept the part about money. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " recognizing that he was the first of his family to "[degenerate] from the virtues of the house so far as not to have been an officer in the militia."[13]" maybe the first word "regretting" instead of what you have.
I have to differ here. While Adams does seem a bit troubled by the fact that he never served in the military, he did not, to my knowledge, ever state that he would do things over again if he could, which is sort of what's implied by the word "regret." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was soon admitted to the Massachusetts bar," Was there such a thing at that time, or was he admitted to practice by his local court that would be accepted by other courts? If the latter, I would strike "Massachusetts".
Removed "Massachusetts." Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Susanna died after about a year,[24] " I think better to say "Susanna died at about age 1"
Replaced by saying that she died at one year old. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, thank you for your review. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of the Stamp Act and trial by jury seems very muddled. First you mention that Adams favored trial by jury, but you haven't mentioned the provisions of the Stamp Act that are relevant. Then you come back with a fuller exposition somewhat later.
I moved it up to the opening section. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams, among the more conservative of the Founders," this conclusion is interesting given we are discussing the 1770s and Adams was not considered conservative on independence. I think there might be ambiguity between conservative in outlook and conservative in politics. I might throw "in viewpoint" or some such after "conservative".
Added "had been" to indicate past tense. Basically, Adams refused to get involved in mob violence and street protests in the 1760s despite being pressured by Sam Adams. He preferred to articulate his objections in newspapers and through petitions. I added more information to make this more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His ideas began to change around 1772, as the British Crown assumed payment of the salaries of Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson and his judges instead of the Massachusetts legislature.[45]" I would cut one of the Massachusettses and clarify why this concerned Adams.
Done. More detail added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two consecutive subsections, those dealing with the Boston Massacre and Tea Perty, tell of Adams moving his family/office etc. I cannot tell if these periods overlap or not behind such words as "later". Consider consolidation.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1774 came the Intolerable Acts, which singled out Massachusetts for punishment for previous insurrection and attempted to ensure colonial obedience. Additional customs revenue from these acts were used by the Crown to pay colonial government wages." I think the passive voice unnecessary in the first sentence. Start with something like "In response to the Tea Party and other unrest, Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts ..." In the second, was there actually additional customs revenue? Also watch the POV, this is starting to sound like my super-patriotic seventh grade history textbook.
Passive voice removed. The revenue issue seems to have been conflated with the question over salaries This paragraph has been removed. I think the recent changes may have reduced some POV, but if you find any evidence of that remaining please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to proclaim their objections." I don't like "proclaim" much. Maybe "to explain their objections in a pamphlet (or whatever it was)"
Replaced with "articulate." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1775, in response to a set of essays" For reasons of length and the subject of this paragraph's relative obscurity, I would consider either omitting or cutting back this paragraph.
The paragraph has been deleted. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wehwalt, do you think you'd be able to continue with the review? I'm sorry about some of the errors that were in this section. For some reason, I didn't make as many changes to the pre-Revolutionary War parts of this article as I did to the rest of it. I think that once we reach discussions of Adams's service in the Second Continental Congress, as a diplomat, and as president, things will look a lot more like FA quality. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Objections to British Parliamentary authority" this seems wordy and the reader may be unsure what the contents are from the title. How about "Becoming a rebel" or "Becoming a revolutionary"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams agreed to attend,[49] despite an emotional plea from his friend Jonathan Sewall to do otherwise." The last three words are unneeded or can be condensed to "not to"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the First Continental Congress, was Adams placed on the lead committee, that charged with drafting a statement of colonial rights, or some other committee, and why? Did he form alliances with other delegates?
The article already mentions the committees he was on, including the Committee of Five, which drafted the declaration. As for alliances, Smith and McCullough say little on the matter aside from what is already discussed. Initially, I imagine the answer was no. As the article states, in the early days of the Second Congress, few people outside New England truly wanted independence, and Adams was the most radical of all the Massachusetts delegates. He eventually had to do so when it came time to declare independence, something the article makes clear. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the First Continental Congress, which had a more limited purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed "First." More information added. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the Massachusetts delegation was largely passive, Adams felt strongly that the conservatives of 1774 (such as Joseph Galloway and James Duane) were no different than loyalists like Hutchinson and Peter Oliver, and he denigrated them, although his views at the time did align with those of conservative John Dickinson." This sentence really needs to get down to cases. It's probably true but may not illuminate the reader much.
I've made it a little more specific-basically stating that they believed that the Americans should remain loyal to the British or continue to compromise and conciliate as much as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be interesting to know Adams' reaction to Lexington and Concord. In fact, talk of Adams' views at this stage should probably precede the discussion of his tactics at the Second Continental Congress.
Agreed. I added a brief discussion of his views on Lexington and Concord. I think his views on other matters are made clear as the events are discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent with the capitalization of Loyalists and its link is not on first use. Also inconsistent on "Colonists".
I think I've fixed this. The former should be capital and the latter shouldn't be. Loyalists is now linked on first use. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then-assembled " no need for the hyphen.
Yeah, sorry I didn't catch that. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He drafted the preamble to the Lee resolution of colleague Richard Henry Lee that spring, which called on the colonies to adopt new independent governments.[65] On June 7, 1776, Adams seconded the resolution, which stated, "These colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states."[66]" I would merge into one sentence by losing the description. The resolution speaks for itself.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Adams choose the Declaration Committee? Our article doesn't say that.
First sentence of the second paragraph under "Independence:" "Prior to independence being declared, Adams organized a Committee of Five charged with drafting a Declaration of Independence." Added "and selected" after organized. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these long paragraphs could be split.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debate was held in Congress as to whether to approve the declaration." Maybe "the resolution was debated in Congress".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Benjamin Harrison V" I might cut the V.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who offered Adams the position as commissioner? The Congress? What were the motivations involved in the offer and acceptance?
More information added. Thank you for the suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "imposed order and methods needed by his" I might substitute "managed"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but wrote infrequently to Abigail, only about once every ten days.[95]" I don't see why this is infrequently, when the letters would take weeks to months to reach their destination.
Ferling describes it as such, but I doubt all would agree, and I see what you mean. Changed accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dutch, fearing British retaliation, refused to meet Adams; after discovering of secret aid the Dutch had already sent to the Americans, the British authorized reprisals against their ships, which only increased their apprehension" "Discovering of" could be improved, but in general this sentence seems out of order and a bit disjointed. After all, these events had already happened before the refusal to meet Adams.
I tweaked it a little bit. Please take a look. I think it's placement is correct because it provides the appropriate background and context for why the Dutch were hesitant to listen to Adams. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Adams an ambassador or a minister? And was the government to which he was credentialed in Amsterdam or The Hague?
Originally he was neither, something I made note of. He stayed at Amsterdam but the government was at the Hague, something I made more clear. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will see things like "Adams was ambassador" in sources, but they may be using it loosely (anachronistically). I was researching a later US diplomat a while back, and I think technically the United States sent no ambassadors before the late-1800s (they were all headed by 'ministers plenipotentiary'). See also, Diplomatic rank which is not a great article but generally, it is what I found. Basically, republics did not send "ambassadors" only monarchies did, at the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that he was named minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain during the war. The sources explicitly use that language, but for his later diplomatic assignments they don't, and simply use the word "ambassador" or something similar. If Adams represented his country in a formal diplomatic capacity, the sources say ambassador, and no better word can be proposed, I think it's best to leave things the way they are. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in effort to seek recognition from Russia," probably should be an "an" before "effort".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "News of the American triumph at Yorktown convulsed Europe. In January 1781, after recovering, Adams arrived at The Hague to demand that the States General of the Netherlands answer his petitions." Should the date mentioned be 1782?
Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem very reticent about who is ordering Adams about, from the United States. You generally use the passive voice. Some mention of who's doing this might be in order.
At first he had no official status, and even after that most things that he did were at his own initiative. But overall, can you be a little more specific by pointing out the exact areas which you think ought to be revised? I'm not sure how to respond to this right now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams insisted that not only should American fishermen be allowed to travel as close to shore as desired, but that they should be allowed to cure their ships on the shores off Newfoundland.[107] " Should "ships" be "fish"? And "off" might be "of".
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams mentioned to the British that his proposed fishing terms were more generous than those offered by French in 1778," "French" should either be "France" or preceded by "the".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the treaty, Adams was an architect of extensive trade relations between the United States and Prussia.[111]" I don't see the point in one sentence on this. If it is significant, say more, if it is not, say nothing. As it is, "an architect of extensive trade relations" seems a bit vague.
McCullough and Ferling don't address this. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account of Adams becoming VP comes in rather in the middle. Was he a candidate?
Yes, I should have done better here. I added some background information so that the reader has more context for how he got elected. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As vice president, Adams largely sided with the Federalist Party." Can we really say there was a Federalist Party until quite late in Adams' VP ship?
After with, added "the Washington administration and the emerging." that should take care of it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams played a minor role in the politics as vice president. He attended few cabinet meetings, and the President sought his counsel infrequently.[126] " I would cut "the" before politics. As for the cabinet, there was no expectation that Adams attend, and wasn't for VPs until the 1950s. I'm concerned it makes him look slothful by modern standards.
First part done. As for the second, there was originally no expectation that he wouldn't attend either. It was up to Adams to set the precedent for how influential the VP would be within the confines of the Constitution. There are a number of reasons that historians propose for this, but the end result ended up being not very. As the article alludes to, some people think that the reason Adams had so little influence with Washington was related to the latter's displeasure over the former's handling of the issue over titles. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Adams predicted in a letter to Abigail that passage would deeply divide the nation.[146]" I might say "ratification" rather than "passage".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As president, Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[170]" I might move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Europe, Britain and France were at war as a result of the French Revolution. " That's a somewhat sweeping statement that I'm pretty sure historians dispute over.
The statement has to be brief in order to avoid getting into unnecessary detail. As for the second part of your statement, that's not true so far as I'm aware. Many European powers around France were disturbed by the Revolution. They either wanted to restore King Louis or take advantage of the chaos to augment their own power. France anticipated this and declared war. None of that would have happened if not for the Revolution. All that information can be found in the lead section of the French Revolutionary Wars article, and I didn't think it was all that controversial. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the political and anti-religious radicalism of the French Revolution," of the revolution itself or of later aspects such as the Reign of Terror?
The revolution technically continued until the overthrow of the Directory in 1799. The Reign of Terror is therefore simply a stage in the revolution itself. Also, the sentence refers to the Federalists' perception of the Revolution, not the Revolution itself. Hamilton and a few others were already skeptical of it before the Reign of Terror. In 1789, Adams himself wrote, "The French Revolution will, I hope, produce effects in favor of liberty, equity, and humanity as extensive as this whole globe and as lasting as all time." (McCullough, 416) This is certainly an expression of optimism, but it isn't a rousing endorsement, suggesting he was already a little worried. He also worried that the single French legislature would produce "great and lasting calamities." (Ibid) Not long after he wrote letters to Richard Price and Sam Adams expressing concern and apprehension. Basically, leading Federalists such as Adams foresaw problems with the Revolution based on the manner in which it was conducted just about from the start. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most Americans were still pro-French due to France's assistance during the Revolution, the perceived humiliation of the Jay Treaty, and their desire to support a republic against the British monarchy, and would not tolerate war with France.[174]" I might cut the "still".
There were plenty of reasons for them to have changed their support: The Reign of Terror, the behavior of Genet, peace and commercial alliance with Britain, the violation of American shipping rights, etc. This just emphasizes that despite all that, American support for France remained strong by the time Adams became president. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, sorry for the minor delay. I got caught up in my academics. All of your comments so far have been addressed. Thank you for your time and patience. Display name 99 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours as I've been quite slow. I hope to get back to this tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams spent much of his term at his Massachusetts home Peacefield, ignoring the political patronage nursed by other office holders.[171]" I have no idea what the second part of the sentence means. And wasn't Adams needed in the capital? It might be explained.
He just grew tired of being in the capital and felt like he could easily conduct most business from Peacefield. The second part is meant to indicate that he ignored job petitioners who even in this age could annoy political leaders. I adjusted this. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hamilton had grown accustomed to being heavily consulted by Washington." I might say "closely" for "heavily".
Substituted "regularly." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an attempt to quell the uprising," perhaps outcry for uprising
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not consistent on the hyphenization of Quasi War
I noticed one usage without a hyphen and added one. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the back and forth regarding whether Washington would head the army could not be summarized more briefly?
Unfortunately I don't think so. It's rather complicated and I'm afraid of losing important details. The article has been considerably shortened by this point so I'm not worried about length. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More dates in the Quasi War section might be useful. Also, Washington's advanced age seems to be 66.
I added dates for the Murray nomination and Adams' return to Trenton. I tried to find a source for the exact date of the infamous Hamilton meeting but neither Smith, Ferling, McCullough, or Chernow mention it. Chernow says that the location of the meeting is not known with certainty, and I suspect the same to be true of the date, although we do know that it happened between October 10 and October 15. I don't think that Washington's age is necessary to state specifically because anyone unsure and interested in finding out can easily look at his biography. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the nomination of Patrick Henry, our article on him says he declined the nomination. As written, the Adams article can be seen as saying Henry sailed for France as one of the commissioners in late 1799 (he died in June 1799). I might play around with that.
Thank you for catching this. Yes, Henry did decline the nomination by reasons of health. Adams replaced him with William Richardson Davie. I have modified the article accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 5, Adams' frustrations with the Hamilton wing of the party exploded " 1799?
1800. Added. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which, with Washington now dead," Washington lived just over a month after the Coup of 18 Brumaire. Suggest this be cast in terms of word arriving of the coup.
News of the coup did not appear to reach the U.S. until the spring of 1800, by which time Washington was already dead, and the army was not disbanded until the summer. Added "News of this event" in order to account for the time gap. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Convention of 1800," "By", not "At", as the convention is not a meeting but a treaty.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would pipe to the appropriate article on treaty reservations, a term you use, by the way, twice in four words. I'd rephrase a bit.
I couldn't find a link to the reservations so I don't think they have their own article. I did rephrase this content. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think names of acts, such as that for the seamen, should be in title case.
I thought about that, but the title of the article for that act isn't in title case, so wouldn't it just be best to leave it as it is? Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity (no action needed), do the biographers think Adams spread rumors in the 1800 election that Jefferson had died and so people might as well vote for Adams?
I saw that on a Drunk History episode. It may very well be true that people working for Adams, though probably not Adams specifically, did so, but I haven't encountered any mention of it in my readings. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Secretary of State John Marshall.[250] Marshall, " Marshall/Marshall
Replaced second instance with "He." Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adams signed his commission on January 31 and the Senate approved it immediately.[251]" The commission, to my knowledge, only comes once the Senate has confirmed (excepting a recess appointment which this does not seem to be).
The source (McCullough) uses this language, so I have decided against changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done with presidency.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, thank you for your continued work on the review. I've gotten up until here and should have everything completed within the next couple of days. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The work had numerous gaps and was eventually abandoned and left unedited.[254] " I might cut the last three words. If it was abandoned, it follows it wasn't edited.
By that I mean that he never attempted to go over the parts that were written, so they don't flow very well. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His frugal lifestyle left him with a considerable fortune by 1801." Four years of the presidential salary ($25K, I think?) had something to do with it? I see no harm in mentioning it if so.\
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Quincy resolved the crisis by purchasing from him his properties in Weymouth and Quincy, including Peacefield, for the sum of $12,800.[255] " I might omit "purchasing from him" instead "buying", and omit ", the sum of".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "angry at not receiving an appointment," maybe "angry at not being appointed to office"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, Lafayette visited Adams twice during the visit, though the second was in 1825.
I believe you are mistaken. I checked four biographies-Morse, Smith, Ferling, and McCulloch. Morse and Ferling don't mention a meeting between Adams and Lafayette occurring at any time at all around this period. Smith and McCullough both describe the 1824 meeting in considerable detail but make absolutely no mention of an 1825 meeting. I can therefore only assume based off of that alone it did not take place. Also, our biography of Lafayette only mentions one meeting with Adams, and says that he spent 1825 touring the southern and western United States. So a meeting in Massachusetts wouldn't really make sense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thoughts on Government was referenced as an authority in every state-constitution writing hall." I gather what is meant, but it is phrased obscurely.
Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning from his first mission to France," a year, here, would be helpful.
Added Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that would provide free schooling for three years to all citizens.[290]" I assume this applied only to children?
Added that it was for the children of all citizens. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the religion section, I'm puzzled by your present v. past tense rationales. The sources mentioned that are dated are present tense, but Holmes is in past tense even though more recent than any of the dated sources.
Changed to present tense. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He criticizes him for his "pettiness...jealousy, and vanity,"" I think an ellipsis should have spaces
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final paragraph of Legacy, you introduce the McCullough biography but you refer to him in the previous paragraph. I might adjust this.
I don't see a problem here. The first quote isn't taken from the McCullough biography. It's from an interview. Its purpose is to show how Americans through the centuries have viewed Adams, and how he often did not occupy the same place of high honor as other Founders. That's especially true of before the McCullough biography and the miniseries adaptation, both of which have made him far more popular. Because of the post-McCullough shift I think it's appropriate to include the McCullough quote where it is. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I've responded to all of your comments thus far. Your review was very thorough and helpful. It's always nice to hear from people who know the content and can make good suggestions. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do here. Display name 99 (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The prose is a little stodgy at times, but it's passable. Everything else seems to be in order and squares with what I know of the subject. Note: due to pressure of time and the length of the article, I've only spot-reread.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Wehwalt. If you had time I'd appreciate knowing where you think the prose can be improved. If not, no worries and I'll do my best to fix it, hopefully with the help of some other reviewers. Display name 99 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I have no objections to polite critiques of my writing style. :) Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 edit

  • Support - with perhaps different reasons than all above. I began reading the article several weeks ago, taking note of the changes as this review went along. I have now finished reading the article, and am giving my basis for support here. I am, and always have been, fascinated by John Adams. Enough so, that when David McCullough's 600-plus-pages bio on him came out, I spent a month or so devouring it all, and was bored with none of it. Adams was such a vital linchpin in this nation that who knows if we would have our current form of government had he not been part of the foundation. That said, I perhaps used a different criteria than you all are using.
The FAC process is important, if for no other reason, than that it really is an encyclopedia used as reference material. Unverifiable as to whether or not the public really takes a long article and reads it all the way through. Not a week goes by that I don't see several talking heads on TV say, " ... according to Wikipedia ... " and we want them to have correct information when they check us. This was not a quick read, nor should it be. It conveyed to me the accurate story of the life of John Adams, and why he is important to this country. It has a clear chronological flow. Events, time periods, and individuals are explained clearly enough for the first-time reader of the subject. And maybe most importantly - I will not be embarrassed if my favorite talking head on TV blurts out, "According to Wikipedia, John Adams ... "
As a side note, Display name 99, I adapted your style on Bibliography of John Adams as a basic style for how I eventually created Bibliography of Kalākaua and Bibliography of Liliʻuokalani. Those two had slightly different needs, but I thought you'd like to know the style you used worked best for my own needs. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, thank you for your support and kind words. I originally came up with the bibliography style when writing Bibliography of Andrew Jackson, which is probably my best one. Yours overall seem more comprehensive and more detailed. Again, thanks! Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

I had intended a quick spotcheck of prose prior to promoting but pls note:

  • Re. this edit and its summary, you should be avoiding seasonal terms for the simple reason that not everyone lives in the same hemisphere as you or your subject. See MOS:SEASON; if we don't have the exact month of the year in the source, then "early", "mid-", "late" or other terms should be used.
  • I can see some duplinks that may be justifiable given the length of the article but pls review and rationalise as needed -- let me know if you'd like me to point you to a duplink checking script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, after reading that policy, I undid my revert. I accidentally undid another edit of yours but was able to rectify it. I'd appreciate you point out that script for me. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, no prob. Pls check elsewhere in the article for seasonal terms though -- there were several that needed replacing, not just the one I did myself. Re. the tool for highlighting duplinks, see here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I got rid of the four more that I was able to find. Display name 99 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian Rose. Sorry for the delay, but I've removed two more duplicate links since I last commented here. I do think there is consensus for promotion, but as you may have noticed, two editors voiced concerns over the quality of the prose in the article. If you have any suggestions to make in that area prior to promotion, they would be appreciated. Otherwise, no worries. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I couldn't return to this sooner. Tks for all that -- there is one "fall of 1787" remaining that I'd ask you to change but I won't hold up promotion over it. As to the initial prose concerns, a good deal of work has taken place since and I consider them actioned as far as is reasonable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2018 (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/John_Adams/archive2&oldid=871426431"