Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1

Stability, 1e

In already long article, we now have a stability issue endangering the FA status, along with possibly UNDUE content, and MOS issues being introduced. Gwillhickers, when you've been reverted once,[1] please gain consensus before re-instating content.[2] Also, please take care when editing an FA to adhere to MOS.[3]

Can you state, based on the preponderance of sources, that an entire section and gallery of postage stamps is given the same weight in the highest quality sources? If so, you need to make that case on talk before editwarring content back in to an article. There are sub-articles where you can discuss individual postage stamps; legacy here should be in proportion to how the highest quality sources handle them, and the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are on you to demonstrate that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to be told twice in the article when he died, and there is repetitive prose here for EW or Wtfiv to clean up, if the content stays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia — Some facts are mentioned more then once when they are presented in context with other topics or issues. This occurs in many articles and historical texts. Nothing unusual. Again, the stamps in question were already in the article when it passed an FA review, and I don't see how this one small paragraph is responsible for making the entire article unstable. Making a bold deletion of long standing content without a discussion creates instability. Who besides yourself is claiming the article is unstable? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned on the main page of this FAC, EW is still working on prose trimming, redundancy and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

That one paragraph is not responsible, in itself, but is contributing overall, especially when there is a sub-article the information can be placed in, to the stated issue. Again, we do not need everything that has ever been about Andrew Jackson in this article. That is the terrible premise this article was started with and only grew from there along with the lack of neutrality in the language of the article, primarily due to the article creators summation of the sources. The latter issue has largely been addressed and now the former about the articles length and verbosity is being addressed now. We certainly don't need content re-added without a very clear reason why it is important to have it in this particular article in the manner which it was added. The fact that it was in the article at the time of the original FA review is not a good enough of reason for inclusion. By adding the content without a good reason at the same time this review is attempting to trim the article to an acceptable length and then re-adding it when it has been reverted without first gaining consensus to include the content is causing instability. --ARoseWolf 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ARoseWolf. Let me just say, however, that, I'm not in entire agreement with the idea that the content in question was a factor in the article's length, but as I said on the Jackson talk page, adding a brief sentence, and perhaps one small image of the first Jackson stamp, would work well, with links to other articles. Yes, if there are items that are inconsequential, extremely tangential and there are blatant neutrality issues, by all means, they should be addressed. Hopefully reviewers can simply fix things as they go along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Friendly reminder:  WP:AS#Content removal – Content should not be removed simply to reduce article length.
See also: Valid reasons for removal-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Apt reminder; consensus discussions have been underway for months, and the content is in a sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I've no issues with consensus, but let's not forget that consensus can not go against policy, not that anyone wants to ultimately. In any case, I'm grateful that someone added the content and the images to the other article. One of the highest honors bestowed on a president after death is the appearance on postage and currency, which should not be ignored in the main article entirely, regardless of any sub articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wounds from Sword

Humphrey Tribble, the early Eaton and Reid work mention only a single wound in the hand. But I think the final word should go to Andrew Jackson, who states in his January 9, 1844 letter to Amos Kendall that he received wounds to both his hand and head. Almost all biographers since Parton 1859 p. 89 go with Jackson in this regard.

The Eaton and Reid, like the Parton, don't show up as sources in the article because featured articles tend to avoid using older sources if newer ones are available. However, I think the Eaton and Reid may be something you'd may want to put in the Bibliography of Andrew Jackson article. Parton is already there. Wtfiv (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Humphrey Tribble, I just wanted to let you know I added the accessible 1824 version of Eaton and Reid to the bibliography article. I also added the 1885 amplification by Jerome V. C. Smith (van Crowninshield). Wtfiv (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

EW's section

Alrighty, I've finished my first pass through for prose. (Again, sorry for the delay.) We've cut about 500 words since when I started (though that wasn't all me!), and I think the prose is generally tight enough, with the caveat that I'll probably make some more changes before we're done. There were a few places where it seemed like the cited page number didn't align with the text, so I think the next step is going to be to spotcheck a couple dozen randomly selected references to see where we stand in terms of verifiability. (This shouldn't take too long.) At some point I'll also have some general comments that came to mind during my read-through. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Unless otherwise indicated, I'm using whatever version is linked in the citation (usually the Internet Archive). Numbers are as of Special:PermaLink/1187721674.

• 4: Checks out.
• 15: The brothers were taken to a prisoner-of-war camp in Camden, South Carolina, where they became malnourished and contracted smallpox. – not seeing any of that in this page range.

  corrected reference (a) to pg. 15, where Wilentz discusses the issues.Wtfiv (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• 26: Checks out.
• 45: Fine.
• 62: Yes.
• 82: Checks out.
• 103: Looks like it's on 26 rather than 27–28 (now fixed), but otherwise fine.
• 122: Checks out.
• 138: Yes.
• 160: Fine.
• 185: Checks out.
• 198: seems to be on page 278 rather than 293 (now fixed).
• 220: Fine.
• 225: Checks out.
• 249: Checks out.
• 266: This is pretty much fine, although it might be good to make clear that Howe is referring to 1828—otherwise it implies that the economy was always healthy under the Bank, which of course wasn't the case. Maybe add "by the time Jackson took office" or something like that.

Sentence modified and begins with 1828.

• 289: Verifies.
• 300: A page off, but close enough. (Now fixed.)
• 315: This originally checked out, but someone else came along and removed "minor", so now it just says "slavery remained a political issue", which is kind of the opposite of what the source says. (Not your fault, of course.) I'll let you decide whether to revert or rewrite.

"minor" has been put back in. Wtfiv (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• 327: Fine.
• 341: Checks out. I guess it doesn't matter since these are obviously uncontroversial facts, but a Library of Congress children's website (cited here and in 342) probably isn't the highest-quality source out there.

Deleted references for both states. The Remini, 1984 citation at the end covers both of the preceding sentences. Wtfiv (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• 367: Yep.
• 380: Fine.
• 399: Fine.

It doesn't look like there are any serious verifiability problems here. There are a handful (3 or 4 out of 24) of page number errors, but they seem to just be typos rather than a sign of deeper issues. It would certainly be nice if all the page numbers lined up, but I know going through all 409 references wouldn't be a good use of either of our time. Keep a lookout for any mismatches, though. Further comments (on other topics) to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and just for the record, everything I saw was fine from a copyright perspective too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you EW! I should be able to read through in the next few days to week ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

HF comments

• ""Andrew Jackson Cottage and US Rangers Centre". Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Archived from the original on October 25, 2007. Retrieved April 11, 2017." - I would not consider a tourism destinations website to be high-quality RS for this topic, even though it's not supporting anything controversial.

deleted, there's Brands as a reference as well. Wtfiv (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• "He had almost gone bankrupt when the credit he used for land speculation collapsed in the wake of an earlier financial panic" - this doesn't seem quite right. Sellers 1954 partially attributes this to the 1797 panic, but also to losses from a mercantile business. Remini has the information about this spread out off-and-on for a spread of about 50 pages, but seems to suggest that some bad land speculation decisions from 1795 related to him selling land on credit to a friend who quickly became insolvent was a lot of the problem

reworded to "He had almost gone bankrupt when the land and mercantile speculations he had made on the basis of promissory notes fell apart in the wake of...". I added Howe as another source. I think this catches the gist of both Sellar's statement: none of the frontier nabobs of the Blount group had been more assiduous than he [Jackson] in land and mercantile speculations based on paper credit. But Jackson's land holdings had been swept away in the panic of 1797, and his mercantile business had dragged him deeper and deeper into debt and Howe's statement: Jackson had speculated extensively in land and promissory notes. When some of the complicated deals soured, he narrowly escaped financial ruin.

• " it provided European settlers on the southern frontier the opportunity to overcome Native American resistance to settlement," - is European the best word here? I'm assuming you mean white Americans of European descent but given continued Spanish and British involvement in North America at this time I think this becomes an unclear word choice.

changed to "white Americans". Wtfiv (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is the melodramatic Moran image really accurate enough to include in this article?

Swapped out Moran for an 1890 image that features Jackson too, but he's on horseback and slightly behind the troops. We'll see how that goes over. Wtfiv (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ may have thoughts on this as well. The Kurz & Allison illustrations for the Civil War are notorious for being heavily divorced from historical reality. Do the source indicate if Jackson actually was at the front lines at New Orleans? If not, we probably shouldn't be looking for an image that presents him there. The mythic/legendary qualities of the battle of New Orleans looms large in American history and I don't think we should really be pushing the mythic elements of history over the accurate elements. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Jackson was at least on the battlefield (Remini 1999 says he "stood in a prominent position slightly to the right of Plauche's battalion"), but yeah, any illustration is going to exaggerate his role. File:Andrew Jackson in New Orleans 1815.jpg (by Frederick Coffay Yohn) is another option, although it has its issues too. It may be easier to just go with a non-Jackson image or even no image at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the Yohn looks fine. I'll put it in, but if anyone thinks it should come back out, no problem. I do think a picture here would be good if we can find one that works. Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm good with the Yohn, that American circa 1920s style adds a bit of variety to the standard historical painting, and Yohn gives a sense of the hodge-podge makeup of Jackson's force. But if there is a problem, we could default to full-length portrait of Jackson as the hero of New Orleans, though I'm not sure how much the article needs another portrait of Jackson, but I think this critical point in Jackson's career is worthy of some kind of historical illustration. Wtfiv (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There's also this painting from 1856 by Dennis Malone Carter. I've put it in for the time being to see how it sits. Any thoughts, which is preferable? Wtfiv (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ and Hog Farm, the Carter painting has been in the article for about two weeks now. Do you think it covers what is needed? And Hogfarm, I think all your concerns to date have been addressed. The last one regarding the maintenance tag was near the bottom of the article. Have most of your concerns been addressed or do you need more time? Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• "European settlers were in constant conflict with Native American people collectively known as the Seminoles" - again, I don't think European is the best word here. I'm pretty sure this is intended to refer to Americans of European descent, but using European here would be more likely to be interpreted as a reference to Spanish and/or British involvement

Changed to "White American settlers"

• "Under the Bank's stewardship, the country was economically healthy" - this claim should probably be reworded to be a bit less strong, see But if the Bank had done a good job under Biddle, it had not always done so under his predecessors from the cited source.

I think the key sentence cited was Times were prosperous, the BUS was helping them stay that way. Reworded sentence in article to "In 1828, the country was prosperous". I left the bank out of the sentence, eliding the direct or indirect role of the bank, in that prosperity.

Ready for Panic of 1837, will continue later. Hog Farm _Talk 04:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• There is a [when] tag towards the end of the article that needs addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I missed this comment until now. I fixed the maintenance tag on Dec 8. Wtfiv (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)