Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive3

Introductory Remarks on the Nomination

Comment: I see you have no edits to the article (under this username). My past experience with nominators who couldn't find anything to improve ... not a typo, not a reference, not a word ... before they nominated it has not been good, but who knows, this might be the exception. Can you explain in a paragraph why you think the article is perfect just like it is? - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Well, if you see, I put the article through a peer review to see what can be improved. I was busy when the peer reviewer replied and I was busy so another user made the edits for me. Of course, I don't think the article is perfect because no article is completely perfect, but I do think it is featured article worthy because it is heavily sourced along with being comprehensive and very well written. I am doing this to see if anyone else thinks so, with the main contributors permission to do this, and I intend to edit to their wishes. I must also point out that the main contributor said he will help me on this. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I would be hesitant to leave any kind of detailed feedback here unless I knew that my concerns would be addressed by someone who was intimately familiar with the sources, as it simply wouldn't be worth the time otherwise. I suspect other reviewers might share the same concern. At the very least, I would want to see this mysterious main contributor leave some sort of note here to acknowledge his consent. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I had the same thought. I'll be glad to give a thorough review if I know someone with access to the sources will respond to it. --Coemgenus 22:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Don't worry, I asked him. Guy546^(Talk) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I do of course consent to FA consideration for the article. During my participation, I can say that the article has certainly been closely scrutinized. The archives will show it has been extensively reviewed for FA just several months ago, with every comment/objection addressed. It was then reviewed for GA and again all comments and objections responded to, before passage. The Editors Guild has also worked thoroughly on AL. I have been so very impressed to see so much attention and hard work by Wikipedians here! Carmarg4 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment to be clear, the last nomination had no supports as well as no opposes, & the reviewers clearly thought it wasn't ready then. "Not promoted" is not "no consensus". Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Reply: The question now is whether the subsequent edits and the GA pass, as complemented further by peer review, have brought the article within reach of the FA standard. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: In the Early Career Section, statement re bankruptcy is not supported by the cite. Also, Donald (p.54) indicates the debt was paid off in "several years". Reference needs work or statement modified/removed. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Are you nominating or reviewing? --Coemgenus 13:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I apologize for the confusion – I'm not intimately familiar with the FA process. My input on the nomination was requested which I gave; I hadn't looked at the article in quite a while, skimmed through it, and saw a new reference to bankruptcy, of which I had no recollection. I checked it out and felt it appropriate to bring it to your attention. That's the extent of my review here. Perhaps i should have done that on the general talk page, as I would normally do. My bad. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize -- the process can be confusing when you haven't done it before. I think you've done a lot of good work on the article, but if even you're not convinced it's ready for FA, maybe the original nominator should withdraw it for now and renominate it when it's done to your satisfaction. --Coemgenus 15:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, my ignorance of the FA process is not helping. As I indicated above, I definitely think AL is worthy of FA consideration, based on the work that's been accomplished since the last nomination. My problem is I'm not comfortable aggressively promoting an article on which i am a major contributor, only because to me it seems inappropriate to be, in a way, nominating my own work. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, enough of this. Someone will have to actually read it & comment. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

McClellan

After the Union defeat at the First Battle of Bull Run and the retirement of the aged Winfield Scott in late 1861, Lincoln appointed Major General George B. McClellan general-in-chief of all the Union armies. McClellan, a young West Point graduate and railroad executive, and Pennsylvania Democrat, move too slowly for Lincoln's likes, taking several months to plan and attempt his Peninsula Campaign. The campaign's objective was to capture Richmond by moving the Army of the Potomac by boat to the peninsula and then overland to the Confederate capital. McClellan's repeated delays frustrated Lincoln and Congress, as did his position that no troops were needed to defend Washington. Lincoln insisted on holding some of McClellan's troops in defense of the capital; McClellan, who consistently overestimated the strength of Confederate troops, blamed this decision for the ultimate failure of the Peninsula Campaign.

Quotes

In general, there are only two reasons to use brief quotations. The first is when the source uses archaic or illustrative language that should not be paraphrased, such as "military glory—that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood." The second is when it is difficult to construct a phrasing that adequately conveys the meaning of the original statement without plagiarizing it; sometimes there is only one way to phrase a point, so it is better to have a brief quote than to intentionally make a sentence awkward to avoid plagiarism. The use of a quotation becomes problematic when the meaning is ambiguous or it is unclear why the phrase appears in quotes at all. Examples:

• Ann wanted to notify a former love before "consummating the engagement to Mr. L. with marriage." Language is not particularly interesting and can be easily paraphrased.
  • Is this quote by her essential to her thoughts/expectations about the relationship with AL? Carmarg4 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't tell if this is meant to be a rhetorical question. I think the quote is not essential (and neither is the sentence itself, for that matter); that is why I commented on it here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Done. Sentence removed. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Twice a year for 16 years, he "rode the circuit"... Meaning of quotation may not be clear to those unfamiliar with the US legal system.
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • New problem introduced: "Twice a year for sixteen years, ten weeks at a time – appeared in county seats" Shouldn't the dash be "he"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• In 1849, he received a patent for a "device to buoy vessels over shoals." The purpose of the device can be explained more clearly in modern language.
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• and the South was "'preparing for war'." What is the purpose of having such a short phrase inside iterative quotation marks?
  • Fixed. (typo) Carmarg4 (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• ...who resented "civilian" interference with their plans. Placing "civilian" inside quotation marks may suggest irony to some readers. Were these civilians not actually civilians? Or is there some other reason to quote this single word?
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• and so it was a necessity "to do more to help the cause": Again, language is not particularly interesting and can be easily paraphrased.
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Lincoln led the "moderates" regarding Reconstruction policy If this "moderates" refers to an established group, it should be wikilinked and not quoted. If it is just a generic word to describe those members of the party who were moderate, it should also not be quoted.
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• At the end of "Reconstruction": Lincoln was very grateful that his home state of Illinois was the first to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment saying, "This ends the job." This is somewhat confusing. Who said "This ends the job", Lincoln or a representative of Illinois? Also, why would anyone say that if Illinois was the first state to ratify the amendment? Surely such a phrase would be more logical after after the last state had ratified it.
  • Fixed. Quote removed. No support for the context of the statement found in the cite. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• In "Redefining Republicanism": and then in terms of the national duty to guarantee a "republican form of government" in every state Non-illustrative language. Phrase is short enough that it can (and should) be simply copied verbatim without quotation marks.
  • Done. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• It was Lincoln's reading, rather than his relationships, that were most influential in shaping his personal beliefs. No quote here, but this sentence struck me as being rather not good. It attempts to represent the opinion of an expert(s) as fact. This should be rephrased to avoid this misrepresentation.

Done. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• At the beginning of "Legacy": To abolitionists, Lincoln was viewed as a champion for "human liberty". Whose words were these, the abolitionists or Lincoln himself?
  • Fixed. Not in quotes now. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Okey doke, I've gone through the rest of the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Headers

I hop no one minds the new headers. I'm on an iPhone, and navigating around the page was difficult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)