Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Tyler/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:08, 23 January 2012 [1].

John Tyler edit

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for eight years and this is my first FA nomination. John Tyler was the tenth president of the United States, presiding a couple of decades before the Civil War. Now a hopelessly obscure figure, he was something of a Ron Paul character at the time: adamantly anti-Federalist, with a devotion to states' rights, and for that reason he was completely alienated from both political parties and only attracted a core band of supporters from his home state. In a twist of fate, his most recognizable accomplishments have nothing to do with shrinking government: expanding the Vice Presidency by unanimously declaring himself President, expanding the military and foreign treaties, and leading the charge to annex Texas from Mexico. He had no chance of re-election and ultimately renounced the Union government, making him a historical oddity.

I wrote this article last summer and took it to GA. After sitting on it for a while, I do think it approaches the FA criteria comfortably and I look forward to your input. —Designate (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very favorably impressed, and expect to easily support. The prose is very good, and it makes an obscure president interesting. There are a fair number of minor things, though: I will enumerate them over the next 2-3 days must do in parts, I'm afraid. Long article. Here's the first part. Feel free to question anything, or to disregard anything.

Lede:

"Brought him to power". Well, technically, what brought him to power was Harrison's death. The VPship wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit, famously. I would say "brought him to national office".

" vetoed several of their proposals." I would say "vetoed bills enacting several of their proposals."

"of expansionist Democrat James K. Polk over Tyler opponents Henry Clay and Van Buren." It may be unclear to the reader if Van Buren was running for president or vice president based on how it is phrased.

"As a result of his opposition to the Union, his death was the only one in presidential history not to be officially mourned in Washington." Technically, George Washington's death was officially mourned in Philadelphia. I know, picky picky.

Early life

" to be born Under the Administration of a President. " Why the caps?

"Benjamin Harrison V. " Having the sentence end this way is a bit jarring because of the V.
"Speaker of the House" of Delegates. Suggest a link or pipe to the article.
"state court" rather than linking to that, suggest a link or pipe to Virginia Circuit Court, if that was the sort of judge he was.
suggest you change the parameter in the convert template to get hectares, which compare better to acres.
Did Tyler live at home when he attended William and Mary? Next county over, wasn't it?
" the bar exam" Speaking as a Virginia lawyer myself, and knowing a bit about our legal history, the bar exam wasn't a set thing in those days. I would certainly not say "exam", but I would suggest something like "who examined Tyler as to his legal knowledge" or some such.

More later, long article and many review commitments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw those items mentioned by Noleander and similar things, but had not yet gotten to write them up. I took them as minor things easily dealt with as a most excellent newbie to FAC adjusts to reviewer expectations.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early political career

"seated on the Courts and Justice committee" I would capitalize Committee, as the proper name of an institution that actually still exists by that name. Also add the year in which Tyler was elected to the House of Delegates.
"against the legislature's instructions." An explanation of how senators were then elected, a brief one, may be useful here. I face similar troubles with my McKinley era articles.
" Tyler's education had impressed on him a strong sense of anti-British nationalism, and at the onset of the war he urged military action on the assembly floor." The first clause should be shortened. I'm a bit dubious by your calling it the "assembly floor" unless they happened to be in joint session at the moment, of course.
" but no attack came their way" I am uncertain, the technicalities of grammar not being my strong suit, but possibly "its way"? Others may have an opinion.
""he resigned" from the Assembly, or from the House of Delegates. Possibly you should mention his actual election to the Council of State, a significant honor for such a young man.
"Tyler's three terms in the United States House of Representatives would be his foray into national politics." If I recall correctly, not his only foray into national politics.
"He was sworn in as a Democratic-Republican[b] to the Fourteenth Congress on December 17, 1816, to complete Clopton's term. He was re-elected to a full term the following spring." OK, I grant the special election to fill the seat in 1816, which filled the seat until March 4, 1817. Are you saying they didn't bother to have the election for the next term until after it started? I realize Congress met in the winter, but wow. What if there was a special session? No Virginians? Also, out of respect for our Australian friends, we generally don't gratuitously refer to seasons of the year.
" had begun to adopt nationalist tendencies." Maybe say "wanted to strengthen the federal government."
"perceived corruption" If the corruption is not historical fact, suggest "what he saw as corruption".
" dawn of the Civil War" I would say "start of the Civil War", although I don't see why that was a particularly auspicious time to free slaves. It might be better if you could say he didn't free them in his will, as did, say, Robert E. Lee's father in law.
"physical violence against them.[13]" Perhaps "physical abuse of them"?
"regardless" anyway
" He resigned on March 4, 1821" Surely that was the date of the expiration of his term, rather than a resignation date.
"He was soon elected for a second stint in" Perhaps "After his departure from Congress, Tyler successfully sought election to the House of Delegates ..."
"The congressional nominating caucus" Can you say ten or twenty words at this point about how this system worked?
" from rural Williamsburg" You did not mention Williamsburg earlier. A link would be helpful on first usage, however it winds up.
"attendence" Enrollment.
"determinately powerless" intentionally powerless
"oratorical platform" By all means, if you have a chance to say bully pulpit, use it.

"A proposal was made " If accurate, say "Governor Tyler proposed" or some such.

"the Senate was already engaged in the 1828 presidential election" Not clear what is meant.
"Tyler served alongside his close friend Littleton Waller Tazewell, a fellow Virginian " Perhaps "Tyler's senior Virginia colleague in the Senate was his close friend Littleton Waller Tazewell"
"national infrastructure projects" I assume this means roads and canals? I would say at some point. You imply roads.
"sorely suggested" predicted
"to confirm several of the president's appointments (including Jackson's future running mate Martin Van Buren)" I would state that Van Buren became president, he is better known for that. Also, I would say what office he was confirmed for. As it is, it sounds a bit vague.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break with Democrats and following subsections

" twelve-vote plurality" From my studies of Hanna I know that at least in the 1890s in Ohio, you had to have a whole number of legislators voting to be elected senator. Was it different then?
"the bank" As the bank has not yet been mentioned in this subsection, suggest a more complete designation be given.
"state-run banks" state chartered?
"Shortly thereafter, the Democrats took control of the Virginia House of Delegates, and Tyler's seat in the Senate was threatened. " His term was not to expire until 1839, no? Wouldn't there be another election before then?
"the Vice-President" I would name the incumbent and omit the hyphen.
"van Buren" You are inconsistent in the capitalization of "van Buren" (the V)

Later state politics (I would change the name of this section, perhaps "Return to state politics"

Is it really worth noting that Tyler was drawn into state politics as a senator? After all, the legislators were his electors. He couldn't avoid it.
Since you seem to be using Conservative Democrat as a term of art, it should be linked to something.
Who filled Rives' Senate seat after the term expired on March 4, 1839?

Vice-presidency

I would avoid the hyphen in the section name.
Since Harrison famously famously caught cold during his inaugural address, it would be interesting to know if Tyler suffered any ill effects.

Presidency

You mention, in the lede, Tyler immediately moving into the White House. You don't in the body.
"Yet it was not until 1967" I would strike "Yet"
"" a reference to his having become President, not through election, but by the accidental circumstances regarding his nomination and Harrison's death." I would shorten to "a reference to his having become president because of Harrison's death." Note MOS on capitalization of titles.
", Senate President Pro Tempore" You capitalized and italicized this correctly when you were referring to Tyler's brief tenure in this office.
"A national backlash ensued, as Tyler was lambasted by Whig newspapers " Given the last thing that you were discussing was Congressional Whigs expelling Tyler, "backlash" would be taken to refer to them. Yet it seems to be falling on Tyler.

Cabinet

" to reform the Democrats" from here on, this sentence becomes increasingly hard to follow.
" Tyler aggravated this problem " What problem? Perhaps "Tyler aggravated the conflict".
"six other federal judges, all to United States district courts." Were there any other federal judges at the time besides Supreme Court and district court?

Foreign affairs

"His presidency was largely continuous with Jackson's earlier efforts to promote American commerce across the Pacific" rephrase
" told Britain not to interfere there, and began the process ..." Perhaps "telling". And I don't think you mean the "process".
"concluded where the border between Maine and Canada lay" Suggest "determined the border between Maine and what is now Canada"
"the civilizing, so to speak, " Perhaps you can quote a term Tyler used, and then say (as Tyler saw it)
"With their dispersion, they accepted the expansion of suffrage." I would simply note whether Rhode Island expanded the franchise. I recall that they did. The paragraph would flow better if you would put early on that at the time, few Rhode Islanders could vote.

Annexation of Texas

Rather than see also, suggest {{main|Annexation of Texas}}
" his platform" Suggest "his agenda"
"as the Constitution required Congressional approval for such military commitments." Suggest a "it was believed" be thrown in here.

Princeton

"It was only one day after completing the treaty" The one completed in February 1844, I assume. I would put a date on the disaster, then say "one day after completing the Texas treaty ..."
" ditty" link
"Prior to the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln," I would paraphrase this, it really doesn't do anything as a quotation.
"Tyler considered his work vindicated" I would add "by the nomination of Polk".
" for completing the resolution" I would say "for the annexation of Texas" or some such.
You need to source the statement on Texas entering the Union. It should not be hard.

Post-presidency

"as an effort to devise means to prevent a war" strike. The name makes it self-evident what they were trying to do.
"The convention sought a compromise to avoid civil war while the Confederate Constitution was being drawn up at the Montgomery Convention." Implies the two were connected, if they were not, omit.
" He was sanguine about a peaceful secession, predicting that a clean split of all Southern states would not result in war." You are really saying the same thing twice here. Avoid the word "sanguine"'.
Put the source for the poem at the end of it.

Legacy

I see no need to list the titles of the books inline; just say things like "according to historian Joe Schmoe".
I like the end.

That's about it, plus the stuff connected with what other reviewers have stated, which I've tried not to repeat. Well done and I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Prose quality: Very, very good.
Peculiar attribution: "In what the Miller Center of Public Affairs considers "a serious tactical error that ruined the scheme [of establishing political respectability for him]",[78] Tyler appointed former Vice President John C. Calhoun in early March 1844 as his Secretary of State." If that interpretation is mentioned by several RSs, there is probably no need to attribute it per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; but if that interpretation is held by only the one source, then it probably does not belong in the article. If the interpretation is a notable minority opinion, then the facts of the appointment should be stated first, and the minority opinion appended afterwards.
Too much detail? - ".... originally named Walnut Grove (or "the Grove") ..." The plantation is not important enough for a WP article, so I'm not sure that the reader needs to know the alternative names.
Move attribution into footnotes? "The Tyler presidency is generally held in low esteem by historians. Edward P. Crapol ..." This is followed by quotes from three named historians justifying that fact. The quotes seem a bit out of place, following the great prose above. Why not just put those names and quotes into a footnote? Or, as a compromise (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) just include the names of the historians in the prose, and summarize their opinions in the prose?
Add update to footnote: "Harrison's unprecedented death in office caused considerable disarray regarding his successor. ...". Perhaps mention in a footnote that the US constitution has been amended to clarify the succession rules.
Section title - "His Accidency". Why was that chosen for the section title? It could be perceived as disparaging. I'm not sure the accidental nature of his term (or his contemporaries perception of the accidental nature) is the main theme of the section.
Paragraph cites: "Although his accession was given approval by both the ..." That paragraph contains several key facts, yet it is sourced with a single footnote at the end, to a single page in a source. Even if that page supports the entire paragraph, the WP:INTEGRITY guideline suggests that the footnote be repeated a few times (perhaps after every sentence) in case, in the future, other editors edit the paragraph and move things around, then the connection from the source and material is not lost.

End of Noleander comments

Comments – after a rapid skim (Wehwalt has awakened my interest in obscure 19thC US politicos) I have just a few points:-

He was elected VP in 1840 not 1841
The "Presidential election, 1840" section has no citations
In that same section, the meaning of Tippecanoe in the slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" is unexplained. A brief mention that this was an old nickname of Harrison's would save readers having to use a link to find this out.
I notice uncited material in other sections, e.g. in "Cabinet and judicial appointments", end of "Ratification and 1844 election", and possibly elsewhere
Number ranges, e.g. "234–60" need an ndash separator, not a hyphen

I hope to get the chance for a full reading; it looks very promising. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Per MOS, citations should be before, not after, bibliography. The standard order is Notes → Citations → Bibliography
Information included in notes requires citation, as though it were text
You should be consistent about providing publisher location details (all or none)
It may be possible to add OCLC numbers for the pre-isbn books. This is not a FAC requirement, but it could be useful
I note that the White House presidential biographies are from The Presidents of the United States of America, by Michael Beschloss and Hugh Sidey. Copyright 2009 by the White House Historical Association. You should extend source information to include this (lest some bright spark raises the issue: "What makes the White House a reliable source?")
Page ranges in citations require "pp.". See citations 2, 3, 5 and a few others
Citations 49 and 67 appear to refer to the same source, so why are they formatted differently? (see also 69 and 78: shouldn't all these be combined?)
Citation 55: publisher and ISBN lacking. Why is this treated differently from other book sources? Also, "pg." is inconsistent (see also 83)
91: Why is this not listed among the article sources?
What makes http://www.sherwoodforest.org/Genealogy.html a reliable source?
Retrieval dates required for online sources that don't exist in printed form. That applies to 99, 100 and 101; check also for others.
External links should not include listed sources, e.g. the first one. The list of external links is rather long, probably with some replication of information and could probably be culled. WP articles should be comprehensive; too long a list of external links might suggest otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look reliable and information is properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks very good so far. I'll withhold my comments until the ones above are addressed, to avoid duplication. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I am concerned that, despite considerable reviewer input, the nominator has not responded; some comments have stood for over a week. There may of course be a reasonable explanation, but I can't see any evidence of this editor's recent activity. Does anyone know where he is? Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on this offline but it's a lot to go through. I appreciate all the comments and I'll get back to everyone soon. —Designate (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Could you leave a note on my talk page when you are done so I can do a re read?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
On what source(s) was File:United_States_1842-1845-03.png based?
How do we know that File:John_Tyler.png is a US government work?
File:John_Tyler's_grave.JPG needs a licensing tag for the memorial itself as well as the image
File:Julia_Tyler.gif: given that the Executive Office of the President did not come into existence until the 1930s, how could this work be by an employee of that office?
File:Tyler,_Texas,_sign_IMG_0444.JPG: what is the copyright of the rose image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't heard from the nominator in nine days, after earlier concerns were expressed about same. There is lots to work on here-- a fresh nomination after these items are addressed may be the fastest route forward. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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