|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Everett article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Edward Everett has been listed as a History good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: October 10, 2013. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Edward Everett Hale?
Was the orator (Gettysburg) Edward Everett a relation to Edward Everett Hale ("A Man Without a Country") and therefore, a relation to Edward Everett Horton, the actor (E.E.Hale's grandson)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 19:53, Jan 2, 2005
"In 1863 he delivered a two-hour Gettysburg Oration that has been eclipsed in history by President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which he praised as superior to his own." Who? Everett praised Lincoln's address, or Lincoln praised Everett's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 22:24, July 11, 2007
- I fixed this, text later in the article makes it clear that Everett praised Lincoln's speech, not the other way around. Rickterp (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- He may have died Jan 1865, but in 1863, he sure had speech stamina! Full transcription of his Gettysburg address (including a lengthy footnote apparently added for this print version): http://www.nytimes.com/1863/11/20/news/address-delivered-gettysburgh-nineteenth-november-consecration-cemetery-prepared.html?scp=55&sq=bold%20robbery%20by%20river%20pirate&st=cse Enjoy on some sleepless night! B^) Wordreader (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
ummm, not THAT famous...
In the Last Years section, the last paragraph:
". . .had a love for mathematics as can be seen from a famous quote: ‘In the pure mathematics. . ." [my emphasis]
I think this is a bit overstated. Perhaps the quote is a WOW! in the hallways of MIT, but I don't think it's generally "famous". I suggest something less strident, like: ". . .had a love for mathematics as can be seen from his quote: ‘In the pure mathematics. . ." OR "The quote, "In the pure mathematics. . .", demonstrates his love of mathematics." Something like that. Thanks for your consideration, Wordreader (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If the photo caption is correct and Everett was born in Dorchester, then he was not born in Boston. Dorchester wasn't annexed to Boston until after the Civil War. If so, the sentence should read "born in Dorchester MA, (now part of Boston)." MarkinBoston (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Election result irregularities
- If his opponent had gotten one less vote, the election would have been decided in the legislature (which would have elected him, given its party distribution). This is the "single vote". (Yes, I found this confusing too when I first started poking at this issue.) Magic♪piano 00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Everett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
On first pass, this looks terrific as usual. It's fascinating to read about these lower-tier historical figures; I've seen Everett's name show up in various contexts before without ever connecting it into a single individual. I have one question that isn't really necessary for GA passage, below. I also made some tweaks as I went for various grammatical or stylistic reasons, and tried to add slightly more context about some of the figures and events mentioned here. If you object to any of it, feel free to revert and we can discuss further.
- "which he believed to be the first such degree awarded to an American" -- this is a fascinating detail, but the phrasing invites the question of whether he was correct or incorrect about this. Does the source take a position on that? Or is there just no way to be sure? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Congress.gov bio of his life thinks that his turning down a mission to China is worth a bullet point; I assume that's one of the offers he turned down from Webster. It's not main aspect enough to need inclusion for GA, but probably worth mentioning if you expand further.
- I'm on the road, I'll get to these in a day or two. Magic♪piano 11:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.||Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues; prose is excellent.|
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.|
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.|
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.|
|2c. it contains no original research.|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).|
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.|
|7. Overall assessment.||Pass|
Re his legacy... looking at Edward Everett (disambiguation), it's quite obvious that people were naming their children after Everett in large numbers around and during the Civil War. Since for every person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article you can assume very many similarly-named who aren't, this is a useful demonstration of how truly famous and admired he was in his time. I guess this is one of those things that, while almost certainly true, would be nearly impossible to prove though. Herostratus (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)