Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John W. Johnston

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John W. Johnston[edit]

My first self-nomination. I believe it meets the criteria, and is an interesting biography of a Virginia Senator after Reconstruction. All comments welcome! plange 06:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It has received a GA rating and undergone several peer reviews... --plange 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I'm unsure about the red links, I think the "Marriage and children" section lets the article down a bit. I can see a lot of effort has gone into the article, so I'm supporting it anyway. — Wackymacs 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed the red links and the extra children that were non-notable. --plange 14:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The article is not comprehensive enough. It goes into great detail about the two incidents - the former slave and the Arlington cemetary thing - and thus 2/3 of the article is on the period from 1865-1870. His life before the Senate is especially too brief. It just tells what jobs he held. And the layout is underwhelming - three short sections followed by one big long one. I don't think the list of his children is necessary either. Saying he had twelve children, and commenting on any notableones, should be enough. --DaveOinSF 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I already removed the extra children. On the pre-Senate info, unfortunately there is no published information. I have a manuscript that does, but it's not published and so cannot use. --plange 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, without a more comprehensive discussion of his life and career, I don't think I can support FA status then. Of particular interest would be some more detail about his role in the Confederacy, since the crux of the article is that, despite that history, he was allowed in the Senate anyway. I understand your frustration on the availability of sources. Is the manuscript you have citeable, even though it is not widely available?--DaveOinSF 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understand, I'm not allowed to post it to a website so that I can cite it. I'm trying to see if I can get the Washington County Historical Society to publish it in one of their journals, but that's probably not something that can happen in the near future. If I found a historical website for Virginia and they post it, can that work? --plange 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, can you cite it as a manuscript and say it is available from the Washington County Historical Society? Are you not allowed to comment on it in any way, or is it simply a case that you can't get a copy of it onto the the web? If it's just the latter, don't worry about it. Not all references need to be on the internet.--DaveOinSF 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem posting it to a website, since I'm a web programmer and even have a family history site this can be posted on, but I thought that didn't qualify under the guidelines at WP:V... --plange 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'm a bit confused as to what this manuscript is exactly...can you explain a bit more?--DaveOinSF 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Johnston's memoirs actually, but unlike the one I source in the article which resides at Duke, this one isn't deposited anywhere, so the only way to make it publicly accessible is for me to post it on the web, but was under the impression a family history website would not meet the reliable source clause at WP:V, but I just re-read it and since it's written by the person the article is about, perhaps it is okay. Let me check over at WP:V --plange 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some suggestions there. The immediate suggestion would be: put the data from the MS on the Talk page, and see if there are other sources for the facts. Septentrionalis 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like a wonderful source. I would suggest writing your article using this MS as a source. Of course you should try to find other sources as well, for all aspects of his life. I don't know if you would need to transcribe the one you have onto the web at all. Cannot you just cite it as printed material that you have referenced, and indicate where it is housed?--DaveOinSF 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a great resource, but the problem is it's not housed anywhere except my personal library, so doesn't qualify under WP:V -- I'll need to get it published I guess :-) --plange 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is very good but I agree that the layout is not satisfactory. The last section is biiiiiig. Why don't you divide it and reorganize it according to its topics (for instance, helping the slaves, Texas and Pacific Railway etc.)? In this way, you might be able to look better in your material and add more information. I would also welcome more details and more sources. Almost half inline citations come from "Johnston, Reminiscences of Thirteen Years in the Senate".--Yannismarou 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've broken up the long text into several subheadings... --plange 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very good. Now, the layout is also better. I donot believe that the problem with one source is enough to prevail the article from becoming FA. After a serious thought, I've decided to support the article.--Yannismarou 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the lead is not a good summary of the content of article, see WP:LEAD for pointers.--Peta 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better? I've expanded to 3 paragraphs, hitting the main parts of his senate career, and clarified some things --plange 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, support. --Peta 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not an oppose because I just took a look at the lead, but a "hold-on". There was a fairly obvious typo in the second para (because --> because of) which makes me wonder how full the copy-editing has been. Further, the use of "had been" seems to demand an "until", so it still doesn't read right.
  • In the last paragraph we have: "He was caught in the middle during the debate over the Arlington Memorial. The initial proposal was distasteful to Johnston, yet the ensuing debate caused him to want to defend the memory of Robert E. Lee. The need to stay quiet however, for the sake of the Democratic Party, won out." I read these three sentences and I had no idea what the debate was about. You don't have to have clauses unpacking everything in the lead, but if you start to unpack something you're only going to confuse the reader by not finishing the job. "The initial proposal was distasteful" is a throwaway line if we don't know what the initial proposal was. I would actually suggest cutting the mention to a single sentence noting what the debate was and his ambivalence.
  • I realize I'm arriving at this one late in the game. I'll try and look more closely at the body later. Marskell 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! I added a couple of words to the third paragraph in an attempt to clarify what the proposal was - does that work? --plange 19:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad Marskell finally mentioned that: I've been looking at that missing "of" in the lead for days, thinking it was only me, and there was a problem with my eyesight or my command of grammar :-) I couldn't figure why no one had mentioned it, so thought I was missing something. Please let me know when ce is finished, and I will have a look. Sandy 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm glad he caught that-- it was a copyedit someone did to the lead while it was up here for FAC and I didn't catch it :-P --plange 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul appears to have passed this over without passing or failing, which is for the best. There's still significant prose work needed. There's too much repetition between clauses and phrases. Something I changed today, for instance: "Because Johnston was up for re-election by the legislature, his seat was vulnerable if Scott succeeded in influencing the legislature..." I'm also concerned about non-summary style—the story of the slave, for instance, which was noted by another reviewer. Marskell 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the prose, I noticed you did some changes too. The only thing I'm puzzled on is the non-summary style for the slave story, since I missed where another reviewer said it was non-summary, unless you mean above where it says it goes into too much detail? Since that's how he was able to serve in the Senate, I thought it was important to relate? --plange 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's important to relate, but I'm not sure at this length. Do we need all those details of Peter's life for instance? Marskell 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you trimmed it some, thanks! --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"When Thomas C. McCreery (D) of Kentucky introduced a resolution to investigate the ownership of Arlington and possibly returning it to Mrs. Robert E. Lee, fix up the premises, return any Washington relics discovered, and whether a suitable location nearby existed to remove the dead buried there, the resolution brought down a firestorm of objections". This is a pretty awful run-on sentence, but more alarmingly there is no date mentioned. The entire section fails to date any of the commentary or events! I went to the Arlington Memorial and can't figure it out. Marskell 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the date in the Senate Journal and added it, and re-did sentence. Is it better? --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a support, pending a bit more work from Plange. I made a pretty substantial edit to this tonight, including re-working the TOC; I hope this is more sensible to you. There are three fact requests (including two on Funder v Readjuster). The conclusion had simply been tacked onto the Texas railroad bit, so I broke out some sections. "Later years" is now two sentences and has an expand tag. Can you throw in a bit extra? His wife lived until X, a statue was erected, etc. With this stuff done I think this is within criteria; were it to go to the main page, I'd hope for another copyedit (ideally, by someone new).
Kudos again on your work. Marskell 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think the reorganization makes more sense. I'm working on getting the rest of the cites you requested... Some books are not here at the office. On the last cite, am assuming you want something regarding that being an outspoken Funder cost him his seat, not that he lost his seat? Am in a weird position here, as I just realized in looking through my notes that that's actually citable by something I wrote (see pg 119 here: http://cssvirginia.org/vacsn/base/atrigg.pdf) which references that same document mentioned above that I cannot cite directly since it's not published, but which I could when writing my Master's Thesis. The Master's thesis is published though (copies available at Georgia State Univ. as well as having been placed on the cssvirginia.org site). So am I allowed to use my own thesis as a source? --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I thought there might be confusion above. I didn't go to the actual Arlington Memorial, but rather our page on the topic :). Marskell 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that's what you meant :-) BTW, thanks for all your hard work on this article!! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The 'citations needed' all should be resolved first. Thanks Hmains 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Working on these, Marskell added these today (see above), so will get those rectified post-haste! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should not cite your thesis because a) Master's theses are not up to snuff in terms of WP:V; b) it would constitute debuting original research.
Let's think this through. Can you source:
  • "William Mahone was chosen as head of the Readjusters; his party gained control of the state legislature"; and
  • Johnston "was replaced in 1883 for prominent Readjuster Harrison H. Riddleberger."
Source those and let the facts speak for themselves. "[Johnston was replaced] because Johnston was an outspoken 'Funder,'" is the OR inference and should be dropped (obvious as it seems). Marskell 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, that's definitely do-able-- am rather embarrassed that I had let slip some OR in here --plange 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an "expand this section" notice in the article? Is it going to be expanded before the outcome of this nomination is decided? Tony 05:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also noticed that and I was a bit surprised! Who added this template and when? And something else I want to ask: Are all the references used in "Notes"? If not those which are not used should be either deleted either transferred to a new section, named "Further reading".--Yannismarou 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read above; the template is explained in my "support, pending" comment and plange's subsequent reply. Marskell 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on expanding this per Marskell's request. Also, all references are used in Notes, I didn't add any that weren't in Notes... --plange 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ("pending" is struck above). Concerns have been sufficiently addressed. This is a fine short bio, IMO. I'll look at the wording some more and Plange can add some a few more sources, but I trust his work so far and think this is within criteria. Marskell 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well organized, comprehensive. Tuf-Kat 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_W._Johnston&oldid=82331986"