Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren G. Harding/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 [1].

Warren G. Harding

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the least regarded American presidents. Yet, a look at Harding's career indicates that there was a bit more there beyond the president who managed his cabinet with slack reins, allowing Teapot Dome and other scandals to occur. The article has had a most thorough peer review. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Enjoy, indeed. I spent much time on this article during the peer review stages (detailed comments here), and learned a lot about this interesting and rather sad man. Does he deserve to be remembered as the worst president ever? I doubt it – I can think of a few in my own lifetime who might be strong contenders for that honour. Harding seems to me to belong in the Eisenhower/Reagan mould, though perhaps less well served by some his appointed officials. The only substantial reading on Harding I've done previously was an essay by Samuel Hopkins Adams, "The Timely Death of President Harding", in a paperback version of The Aspirin Age. Adams presents Harding as a boozy, slightly pathetic buffoon; this article provides an altogether more rounded and even-handed picture. Anyway, a first-class addition to our presidential series, with many more to come. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 3: Access to the whole article appears to be available, without subscription
  • Ref 63: pp not p
  • Ref 141: publisher missing
  • Ref 154: What is "Slate.com", and what are its credentials as a reliable source?
I've added a pipe. It is unquestionably a RS.
  • Ref 179: publisher missing
  • Bibliography: inconsistency in providing publisher locations
  • Morello: is this a book? If so, add ISBN
  • Walters: the OCLC according to WorldCat is 477641

Otherwise, sources clear on alll counts. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those reviews and kind words. I've taken care of those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review. It was a fine article then and is even finer now. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this at its peer review, and all of my concerns were addressed there. After another read-through, everything looks fine. Great article! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, support, and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

Looking nearly exclusively at references, reference formatting, and the 1c criterion.

  • There's some oddness with the formatting of the instructions associated with the Federal Judicial Center reference (#163). I think you need a space and a capital S, at a minimum.
  • The Lange article (ref #179) should have the publisher styled as HistoryLink.org (all lowercase is the URL, CamelCase is the publisher).
  • All ISBNs should ideally be given as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this handy converter as needed.
  • Is an OCLC number available for Nevins?
  • You provide some publisher locations for book sources, but not all of them; locations are optional, but be consistent.
  • If you opt to retain them, "Lawrence KS" needs a comma.
  • I'm not a big fan of "Further reading" sections. Do the Grieb and Pietrusza sources have relevant information not otherwise presented in this article? If not, why are they suggested as further reading. If so, why is that material excluded?
  • If retained, these need to be formatted just like the cited sources. So Texas Christian University Press should be spelled out (because you do so for University of Minnesota Press). Both sources need properly formatted ISBN-13s. And publisher locations should be handled however you decided to deal with them.
  • Related to my question about the Further reading sources, I have some concerns about whether this represents a comprehensive review of available sources. I know that's always difficult for broad or well-known topics, and that the comprehensive survey standard expressly doesn't mean "reference every source".
  • You cite Payne's work in Sibley's companion, but I wonder if there's more relevant material in his well-received Dead Last: The Public Memory of Warren G. Harding's Scandalous Legacy?
  • Likewise, Charles L. Mee's The Ohio Gang: The World of Warren G. Harding is a slightly older source (1983), but was considered (at the time, anyway, not sure if it's been re-examined) a trustworthy and thorough examination of the corruption issues that plagued Harding's background and administration.
  • One other random observation... Your mention of Chapple's hagiographical Life and Times (via Trani & Wilson) implies that these works were a reaction to his death, but at least for Chapple, that's not really the case. He was, by and large, a career hagiographer; his first such treatment of Harding was Warren G. Harding – The Man in 1920. Not sure if that's worth mentioning, or if anyone else has written about it. But anyway, there it is.

Anyway, I think I'm neutral at the moment. There are some reference formatting things that need to be fixed before promotion, but none of that seems time-consuming. And my 1c concerns may or may not play out, depending on how you did the sourcing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, it's not possible or necessary to work from every single book on a subject, nor am I certain an article would be improved if I put in a couple of references from a book just to be able to boast it in the bibliography. You will note Coffey's essay in the bibliography, that was the best guide to Harding biographies that I could find, and it was a good source in deciding what to work from, because in this sort of article, there are usually between three and six bios that prove to be workhorses. I selected Russell because it is a very good detail sort of biography, that mentions stuff more concise books do not, and because Russell and his book play a part in Harding's historical reputation, as he discovered the letters that proved Harding had an affair. Sinclair was an excellent source touching on the political side. Dean was a good, up-to-date bio. I was a bit concerned by who the author was, but the fact the editor was Schlesinger Jr. and it's a very reputable series of presidential biographies convinced me to use it, although with the caveat (mentioned in the article) that Dean is a bit friendly to Harding. I considered Mee, but rejected it in favor of Ferrell, both because it was more recent, and because it was commented on in Coffey. I figured one book would be enough on the scandals, Ferrell was more recent, and I could get Payne's views concisely in his essay. And of course Payne has read Mee and cites to him. Since we are a tertiary source, it's nice when you are piggybacking off a historian who has looked at the earlier work (I try to allow for bias. I hope I am successful most of the time.) So what I was shooting for were well-regarded, recent sources, especially ones discussed by other historians, that I could use to construct the historical view section (and also be tipped off as to Coffey's, or another writer's, view of any biases) It's not a perfect science, but I think it is broad enough to work. Of course I also had the ANB biography and found a handful of usable articles on JSTOR and other databases (the Harding administration is understudied). I think the only bio, in retrospect, I might have added was Murray, but he's really best at the pre-1921 material and I was afraid of straining the reader's patience.
So there you have it. I don't think there's a lot of facts on Harding that are must-have for this article in the books you cite. And we do cite a pretty broad range of opinion on Harding. I'll answer your specific points later, must run.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A completely satisfying answer. I wasn't really trying to encourage you to shoe-horn in a bunch more sources, but rather wanted to ensure that the available sources were curated in an appropriate manner. And this demonstrated that nicely. Once the other issues are satisfied, I will be happy to strike my neutrality for support, I do believe. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I meant Downes instead of Murray btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got them all. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support conditional on the last couple of reference formatting things getting taken care of. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are done.here. Thank you again, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a first for me in an article of this length. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There's really nothing for me to critique or add about this extraordinary effort. Most impressive and thorough. The Presidents and their wives have long been an area of interest for me. Not sure if you're aware of the C-Span3 series on the First Ladies wherein they usually also recap the President's administration. The one on Florence Harding is scheduled to air on August 30, and your effort here has certainly made me look forward to seeing that one. Thank you for all the time and effort, and expertise, you and the various reviewers put into improving this article. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review; that is high praise indeed. I will make a point of watching the program and I have Florence on my list, if GMU renews my affiliateship.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

edit

I enjoyed reading this. Just one irregularity: In the lead cause of death is heart disease, but in the Death section, it is "he died of a cerebral hemorrhage". Edwininlondon (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll tweak that. The heart disease caused the death, but the cerebral hemorrhage was the immediate cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Support: FA's are supposed to be stable, so I've tried to tread lightly with the breaking(!!!) DNA story about Nan Britton, her daughter, and Harding's descendants. This story only seems bound to generate more news coverage and reputational appraisals, so good work on what turns out to be a timely NPOV account of a mostly-neglected and under-appreciated figure. Here's hoping my recent edits are up to the FA standard. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It sometimes happens that there are news developments during FACs. You just roll with it and move along. I've been watching the edits and they've been fine. I'm certainly eyeing the news and if there is reaction against the result of the DNA tests, I'll probably start a thread on talk. It's one of those days! Thanks for your very constructive edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit

I left some input at PR, though still have quibbles:

  • Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the article explicitly states Harding was a Baptist, yet it is listed in his infobox
Sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the sources are saying right now. The sources aren't carrying doubt and neither did the wave of editing that came through the article last weekend. I can't justify holding back on it. Even people who I'd expect to be skeptical, like Dean, are going along. I don't think the article can express doubt about it out of thin air.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an affair by one of his mistresses"..... Nan Britton should be mentioned by name, and she might be worth including in infobox under "partner"
Done on the inline mention. I wouldn't call her his partner, they never lived together. More stolen moments sort of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Dr. Harding" refers to the President's father, I'd use his name for clarity
I'm trying to avoid using "Tyron", which isn't obviously a first name and might confuse the reader. His actual first name was George. "Dr. Harding" or "his father" seemed the best solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The usual purposes of illustrating the people who played key roles in Harding's life. I felt the one of Cox and Roosevelt useful because a) it actually shows his opponent, not just in caricature and b) because of the inclusion of Roosevelt, who is worth showing the reader as a young man. All these things are subjective of course, but I like to have images to break up the text, especially in these long biographical articles. I haven't seen, in particular, much early stuff on Harding. His campaign biography doesn't, for example--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If including them, at least give more detailed and informative captions; captions such as "Florence Harding (as First Lady)", "Senator Joseph B. Foraker in 1908" and "Harry M. Daugherty" don't really provide anything meaningful for readers. It's better to follow the examples of "Charles Evans Hughes, former Supreme Court justice and Harding's Secretary of State" and "Albert B. Fall, Harding's first Secretary of the Interior and the first former cabinet member sent to prison for crimes committed in office" as they provide more context. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how are those now?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do look better :), so I'll support now Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the the most searching review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite support this yet, though it has potential. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've either done or responded to the things you noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (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/Warren_G._Harding/archive1&oldid=1138475219"