Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 16:38, 1 May 2011 [1].

Abraham Lincoln

[edit]

Abraham Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a great president. I have contacted top contributor Carmag4 about this and he has approved of me nominating this. I have put this through a peer review and everything put up has been fixed. The last nomination has no consensus and no opposes. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:FFA, has been on main page

Coemgenus part one

[edit]

Fair enough. Here are some comments:

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review spotchecks not done

Coemgenus part one and a half

[edit]

A few more comments

Resolved comments. I was concerned by the overuse of short quotations throughout the article. I am quite pleased with the solutions that Carmarg and I were able to come implement, and have since moved my resolved concerns to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. Also, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who have so clearly poured their efforts into this most vital of articles. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Brad

[edit]

Comments

Coemgenus part two

[edit]

More comments:

Still more comments:

  • In the last paragraph of "1860 election" the sentence with the phrase "the Confederacy was an established area," is awkward, especially that clause.
  • In "War begins," I'd link David Herbert Donald and mention that he's an historian.
  • In the last paragraph of that section, "angry secessionist mobs" could probably lose the "angry". Mobs are usually not happy.
    • Fixed.
  • Also in that paragraph, Merryman asked Taney for a writ of habeus corpus, but it doesn't say whether he issued it.
  • In "Assuming command...", the first sentence is awkward. I'd suggest "Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented crisis, and he responded using unprecedented powers that no President had previously wielded." Doesn't have to be that exact language, but something on those lines would work better, I think.
  • The clause about mourning Willie seems out of place in the second paragraph.
  • "Lincoln's efforts to rein him in were futile, and he was given another command in November. This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence in the North." I'm not sure what's going on here. Fremont's radicalism kept Kentucky in the Union? I don't have Donald's biography at hand, so I can't check it out for myself (I read it, but years ago) but if that's what he says, I guess it's OK. It's just a bit unclear from the sentences.
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs could be combined -- they're both short and both on foreign policy.
  • In the sixth paragraph, I just hate the word "numerous" where "many" could do the job. If you think that's crazy or out of line, leave it be, but I think simpler words sound better. Again, just a suggestion.
  • In the same paragraph, hyphenate "well defended".
  • In the last sentence of that paragraph, you might mention that the idea of controlling the Mississippi came from Winfield Scott and that Lincoln benefitted from Scott's advice early in the war. Then again, if you want to save space, feel free to leave it out.
  • That's it, more later. Despite these comments, I'm enjoying the article so far. --Coemgenus 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more comments:

A few more:

Anythingyouwant

[edit]

Comment - Thought I'd wander over here from the Frank Buckles FAR. I've been stuck on my iPhone the past few days, and this thing is too small for such a huge subject as Abe Lincoln. So, I'll just make a few tentative comments for now. Possibly the most stirring line ever uttered by any incumbent US President was the one about the "better angels of our nature". You quote it, but why not a blockquote? Incidentally, I think he signed off on Yosemite, the world's first national park? Maybe worth mentioning, maybe not. Same goes for these factoids: patented inventor, born same day as Charles Darwin, had symptoms consistent with Marfan's Syndrome, like Washington has no living descendants, Teddy Roosevelt watched his casket go through NYC. Anyway, please consider doing the angels blockquote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations with respect to blockquote – the use of block quotes has not been urged up to this point; if we do one quote, we'll undoubtedly have to do many others. We are already up there in article size. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patented inventor is included. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can add link to his birthday. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marfan's syndrome - Donald indicates the evidence was not sufficient to conclude AL had it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. See Yosemite_National_Park#Yosemite_Grant and sources cited therein. There is continuing speculation about whether Lincoln suffered from various disorders, and plans are afoot to find out for sure. See Newsweek. Regarding blockquotes, another option might be a quote box. If there is consensus about the one or two greatest sentences he ever uttered, then there would be no obligation to treat other quotes equally, IMO. By the way, here's a reliable source giving Lincoln and Darwin joint credit for ushering in the modern world. No pressure to include any of this, they're just ideas for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemite Park added with cite. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a nice big desktop computer for a little while, so will try to give this article a quick read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Okay, I know you have been waiting in suspense for my comments.  :-) I'll start now with the lead....

  • I would delete "greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisis". This is highly debatable, considering the founding era, and defeating the axis powers (and some might even say that the country is presently in its greatest moral crisis). I suggest below adding some stuff to the lead, but this is definitely something that can be removed without any problem. So: "He successfully led the country through the American Civil War, preserving the Union while ending slavery and promoting economic modernization." Certainly, promoting economic modernization in the 1860s was not some huge crisis that dwarfed the Great Depression.
  • You say "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including Ulysses S. Grant." I'd expand this slightly to say what's so special about Grant: "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including his most successful general, Ulysses S. Grant."
    • We need to be careful here - potential conflicting POV's over who was the "most successful" general. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. And yet something should be said to briefly distinguish Grant from all the others. Following are some quotes from Google Books:
(1) "Grant was Lincoln's military alter ego"
(2) "Grant was Lincoln's favorite general"
(3) "Grant was Lincoln's friend and Lincoln's heir"
(4) "Grant was Lincoln's favourite general"
(5) "US Grant was Lincoln's greatest general"
(6) "Grant was Lincoln's only general who consistently won victories"
Would one of those work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find a descriptive term from AL; that should do it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Used the facts. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can sometimes be useful in a pinch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "He defused a confrontation with Britain in the Trent affair late in 1861." I'd rephrase to give the readers a clue why they should care: "He defused the Trent affair in 1861, which had threatened to bring British recognition of the Confederacy."
  • You say, "Just six days after the decisive surrender of the commanding general of the Confederate army, Lincoln was shot and killed...." I'd explicitly mention Lee (you mention Grant twice in the lead): "Just six days after the decisive surrender of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was shot and killed...."
  • You say, "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents." Please modify to something like this: "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest, if not the single greatest, of U.S. presidents." See Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States.

Cheers, maybe more comments later about the rest of the article, if time allows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, now, that wasn't so painful, was it?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I appreciate the changes to the lead. The Yosemite edit was nice too, but feel free to remove it if you think best. I think it's okay, but there are counterarguments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:I would like to flag something else in the lead. Lincoln's use of "patronage" when he was president is mentioned not once but twice in the lead, which may be excessive, especially because "patronage" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, except in reference to him seeking a position in the 1830s (as head of the General Land Office which later helped establish protection for a certain forested area in California). I decided to be bold, and have edited the article like this to solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*(Undent) I'd like to continue making a few comments now and then as I'm able. Consider this material in the article:

The family belonged to a Separate Baptists church, which had high moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery,[10] though Thomas, as an adult, never joined a church. Thomas "enjoyed considerable status" in Kentucky, where he sat on juries, appraised estates, served on country patrols, and guarded prisoners. By the time his son Abraham was born, Thomas owned two 600-acre (240 ha) farms, several town lots, livestock, and horses. He was among the richest men in the area.

This is confusing, because if Thomas didn't join a church, then you can't say the family belonged to a church; better to say that the churchgoing members of the family belonged to such-and-such church? And why quote "enjoyed considerable status"? That's not quoteworthy, and no source is discussed, so why not rephrase without quotes: Thomas had considerable social status (or something like that)? And at the end it says Thomas was the richest man in the area. What area?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"His family and neighbors considered him to be lazy.[21][22] Lincoln avoided hunting and fishing out of an aversion to killing animals.". His entire family, including his step-mother? Vegetarian?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"house girl" seems like an odd term.

*Tad's cause of death? The causes for two other brothers are given.

*Robert committed his mother to a mental hospital, but she got out, right? Maybe you could briefly indicate that it wasn't for the rest of her life.

*"Lincoln's connections in Lexington could have accelerated his ambitions, but he remained in Illinois.". The word "accelerated" seems amiss here. Maybe "helped satisfy"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1834, he won election to the state legislature after a bipartisan campaign, though he ran as a Whig.". This is very confusing. In what sense was it bipartisan? If he was a Whig, did he reject some Whig positions in favor of the other party's positions?
  • Caption says "filmed Lincoln in 1860". How about "photographed"? No movies back then.
  • "derived no rights from the Declaration of Independence or Constitution." I'd cross out Devlaration of Ibdependence here, because it never was a source of legal rights, and as to natural rights the Declaration simply recognized existing inalienable rights rather than conferring any rights.
  • "though strong in his disagreement with the Court's opinion, was as a lawyer unequivocal in his deference to the Court's authority." This is incorrect. In his first Inaugural Address, for example, Lincoln explained that the "eminent tribunal" could not control an entire political issue. And on June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, overturning Dred Scott. Lincoln signed it. (Please keep in mind Lincoln's reaction to Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.)
  • "(Mark 3:25)". Would a footnote be better here than a parenthetical? Or maybe, "then delivered his famous speech, beginning with a quote from the Book of Mark".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it as is but will change it if you can't live with it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends. The parenthetical is within quote marks. Did he say it parenthetically, or is the parenthetical ours? If he didn't say it, then it may be a problem, but there may be easy solutions, not limited to the ones I suggested. The way it is now makes it seem like he said it parenthetically, which I doubt he did. Maybe brackets instead of parentheses? It's totally up to you whether to leave it as-is. I already stated my support anyway for making this a featured article. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I thought differently after reading your reply. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote includes this: ""Abe Lincoln" redirects here. For the musician, see Abe Lincoln (musician).". I'd delete all of that, so that the hatnote simply refers to the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page. We don't normally use hatnotes to list everything that redirects there, so why do it here? And Abe Lincoln (musician) is listed at the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page anyway. I just think the hatnote is now too big and therefore off-putting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

[edit]

Comment The amount of evaluation of Lincoln, surely something required for a man who is, at worst, our second-most prominent president, is surprisingly small. While there is some mention in the lede of scholars ranking of Lincoln, there really isn't much analysis, and what there is seems a bit hagiographic. Lincoln remains controversial for such matters as the suspension of habeas corpus. I think you've got to have some sort of evaluation of Lincoln, which at least mentions historical controversies regarding Lincoln. I can surely understand this is a path you may be reluctant to go down, but I hesitate to call the article comprehensive at the present time. Also, are you certain on your capitalization of Administration? Those being said, I have not studied the article in depth but it is an excellent effort and a great improvement on what used to be there. I haven't decided whether to formally review the article, but I surely hope such an important article is promoted. You will forgive us all if we cut you no breaks. I surely will not support unless I am convinced of the article's worthiness given the importance of the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These observations are quite valid. I myself have indeed made it a priority to stick with the facts – AL is a powerful draw for POV's and the article does push the limit on size. We certainly are remiss if we don't at least mention a controversy and provide references for further research. That said, for an encyclopedic work, what better compliment than a reader begging for more, assuming you give them a map. I welcome your help to improve the article. Where is the "Administration" you referenced? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Habeas corpus suspension is a very complex, touchy, legal matter and it may be best to merely say here that Lincoln suspended the writ even though Taney told him not to. The clause in the Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It doesn't explicitly say that only Congress can suspend the writ in those circumstances. But, the clause is in Article One, which perhaps suggests that only Congress can suspend the writ, or that preferably Congress rather than the President would do so, or that perhaps there is a higher standard of proof when the president does so. And then there is the issue of whether Congress approved of what Lincoln did, by passive acquiescence, or by affirmatively recognizing existence of rebellion. And you also have to consider whether Congress and the President can ever team up to suspend the writ, if the courts are open for business. These are very thorny issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided a link to the article on habeas corpus in the "War begins" section for readers wanting to delve further. The question is whether we should discuss the issue further in the AL article. I recommend against it – to do so potentially makes the article overwhelming to the average reader. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I lean against further covering it in this article, because it's such a thorny, complex, touchy issue. But, if it is covered further in this article, I would hope that the basic points I mentioned would be included. Many scholars often say that Lincoln had no problem violating or overstretching the Constitution in this case, and they argue that therefore violating or overstretching the Constitution is fine. But there is an equally good argument (alluded to in my previous comment) that what Lincoln did was constitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, were there world enough and time, I would love to help out. But I have enough trouble finding time for my own projects, unless I want a 5 a.m. editing session every night and to surrender the few remaining hours of sleep. This article recounts well the events of Lincoln's life. But is it truly complete without what I have stated above? Don't focus exclusively on the habeas corpus issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some dirt on Lincoln. He had some racist views. Yes, he wanted to end slavery, but he also said a lot of stuff about white superiority, right? Was that for show? I don't know. If so, then maybe he wasn't as honest as everyone says. The other dirt is that he was a rich lawyer for the railroads, not some poor defender of the innocent humble individual, and the latter image was a lie. I don't know how true that is either. But that's the primary dirt, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for dirt, although certainly some of the things he said during the debates with Douglas don't make for swell reading, especially the debates in Southern Illinois. I'm looking for at least some evaluation. I will say that writing such sections is not fun and I personally dislike doing so. Still ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Administration" is third to last paragraph of the General McClellan subsection.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the images and captions, but this shouldn't be much trouble. The image showing Lincoln dead and in the arms of Washington is dated 1860 in the caption and January 1865 on the image page, obvious problem.
The stamps mentioned in the article surprise me, as they are not particularly important, you might do better to look at the four-stamp series of the sesquientennial in 1959, or state that he was depicted on a stamp for the first time in ... (I think it's 1866) and some interesting fact to follow. Also, I surely would think it would be worth mentioning that Lincoln was the first person to be honored with a regular-issue US coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, three stamps is excessive. They have far more to do with postal history than with Lincoln's biography. I'd take out at least two of them, if not all three. --Coemgenus 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to leave one, leave the 1866.

I do not have the time to do a formal review, I'm sorry, you're getting stream of consciousness. I'll try to keep giving you more if you find it helpful, though I may switch to the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll get some input from a philatelist or two on these "sticky" issues. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I think I would not quibble too much about Mystic were it not for the fact that on the source page, there is a clear and obvious error, 13c is stated instead of 15c. That makes me wonder how much editorial review these things get.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Mystic Co., maybe it was a .13c stamp; need I remind you of the Inverted Jenny? Sorry, I been at this FAN too long. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel licked here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the redefining Republicanism section contains an excellent start for discussing Lincoln's legacy (which is nothing to do with statues). Perhaps it could be mentioned that before the ACW, "United States" was a plural noun, afterwards a single noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting the word "final" in "final surrender" in the lede. Lee surrendered only his army. He could not surrender other remaining Confederate forces, and even though his was the main force, bits and pieces of conflict continued I think as late as June.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably redundant, but I won't make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was following your suggestion - that there were later informal surrenders by smaller units. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete "formal". It is a bit redundant anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps are still in the article and the coin is not. On another note, at present, the article seems to end rather weakly.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them now - just the one. They are like flypaper. You have any detail on the first coin so I can find it. For me the article has been a daily. (I will make a note.) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 7 in Lincoln cent should do you. I wrote it, so I stand behind the accuracy and it is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed ending. At least a tad, with very recent sesquicentennial proclamation by Pres.; also the proclamation serves as a good ref. for the change in the country's name. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. I'll keep reading. But you can't leave it uncited like that. You'll get opposes "just because".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the cite needed? I apologize - I have a bad head cold and may not be focusing too well. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, on the comment about the article lacking analysis: I drafted a small piece to add to the article, in an attempt to address this concern. After doing so and sleeping on it, I must say, as I originally did, that I am still most uncomfortable with adding more analytical content to the article. The article does include some analysis - in the Redefining republicanism section and in the Religious and philosophical beliefs section. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic in approach. The better method I believe is to direct the reader to the multitude of analytical sources for further reading, which I think has been done. There is also the concern over the size of the article (we are even now discussing additional factual detail in the nominations/appointments area.) As the reviewer has said, there is an inestimable amount of analysis out there and if we start down that road, many voices will want, and then will have the right, to be represented. The matter will then quickly morph into a POV issue. Perhaps there will be additional comments on this - none at this juncture. I will keep the small attempt at a draft of analysis on my talk page if wanted. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.

Before bringing this back to FAC, please consult all significant contributors and procure a spotcheck for sourcing and paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (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/Abraham_Lincoln/archive3&oldid=1078785479"