Talk:George W. Johnson (governor)

Confusing wording

Re: "making him the only state governor to fall in battle during the Civil War", I'm not sure it's accurate to call him a "state governor" when the state was still officially administered by a Union governor. We should consider a different way of phrasing this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily inaccurate. While it is true that Beriah Magoffin, James F. Robinson, and Thomas Bramlette were the governors of Union Kentucky and elected in a more orthodox manner, Johnson was the governor of Confederate Kentucky. While that government was not recognized by many in the Commonwealth (which will be apparent to readers of the article), he was the legitimate governor as far as the Confederate states were concerned. I'd remove the sentence rather than see it fail a GA nom, but I don't think it will be confusing to readers of the article. Acdixon 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence to read "making him the only state governor, Union or Confederate, to fall in battle during the Civil War." This should emphasize his status as the Confederate state governor. Acdixon 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. Since the article is about his position as Confederate Governor of Kentucky, I believe that it is more than clear that he was Confederate. Additionally, although he may not have been an "official" Governor, many historical sources refer to him in the gubernatorial light. Additionally, I think it's important to remember that history is always written by the victors. If the Confederacy had won the Civil War and had become an independent nation, it would be hard to contest his governance. Although I see your point, Stevie is the man!, I think that for the purposes of articles referring to the Confederate shadow government of the Commonwealth should allow for this title of governor. From the Confederate prospective, the Commonwealth was officially administered by a Confederate governor. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll sign onto Acdixon's change. Thanks to you both for responding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On Hold

I have placed the article on hold for the following reason: The whole beginning of the article misses references. The article itself does not have enough references. 10 is not enough. Francisco Tevez 17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this review. Ten references is clearly enough for GA. See GAs James F. Robinson, Luke P. Blackburn, and William O'Connell Bradley. Also, everything stated in the lead should be referenced in the body. If there is a specific fact or facts that are not referenced, please so state. Acdixon 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I second this disagreement. 10 references is perfectly fine for an article of this length, and the lead shouldn't really contain citations anyway. CloudNine 13:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-Review On Hold

Let's start over, I suppose, since Tevez was blocked for puppetry. I think the article is pretty good so far, and Johnson himself is a fascinating character. But I'm placing the article on hold for the following reasons:

• While it is not necessary to place references in the lead in most cases, there should be references for any quotations mentioned in the lead, such as the one that appears in the first paragraph.
  • Done. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• There is no need to have references inside the infobox - it's just confusing for the reader. The infobox, like the lead, should not need any references for information that is mentioned in the text of the articles.
  • Done. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I can't find anything in the style guidance that specifically addresses it, but I think that it can be confusing for the reader if there are references mid-sentence. Moving them to the end will still allow the reader to check references without interrupting their reading flow.
  • I had intended to use this method to cite specific facts within compound sentences, but I see your point and have no problem moving them to the end of the sentence. Done. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• You shouldn't have multiple sentences in a row starting with the same word, like the second paragraph of the early life section where the first three sentences start with the word 'he'. Try switching some of the he's in the article to 'Johnson'.
  • Corrected. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think the second paragraph under the Civil War section has POV issues. Specifically, the wording could be construed to be pro-confederate. This is, of course, what Johnson's view would have been, but it's important to make it sound more neutral and encyclopedic. Also, it should be explained exactly how Kentucky's neutrality was violated by the Union.
  • Not sure I agree with this assessment. The paragraph recounts the work of a states rights convention by people who were clearly pro-southern. It was their intent to keep Kentucky from aiding the Union, and that failed. What did need some clarification is the violation of Kentucky's neutrality. Most say it was Leonidas Polk, a Confederate general, who broke the neutrality, but delegates to the state's rights convention cited William "Bull" Nelson's establishment of Camp Dick Robinson as the culprit. I've tried to clarify this a bit in the prose. If you still think it's POV, let me know what else I can do to neutralize it. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• It needs to be explained somewhere how his arm was crippled.
  • I'd also love to know, but none of the sources mention it. They just say it was surprising that he volunteered for military service with a crippled arm. I believe one of the sources may have called it an "injured" arm, so I don't think it was a birth defect, but that's about all the information I can find. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Slight wording issue: it wasn't his desire to hear from his family that weighed heavily on him, it was the lack of hearing from them.
  • Corrected. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Last, and not a failing point, but having another picture in the article would be nice - maybe something showing the Battle of Shiloh.
  • A Battle of Shiloh image might clutter the last section, since there's already a shot of his grave there. I've added a picture of the Clark House in Russellville where the sovereignty convention took place. Acdixon 15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Geraldk 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, and the adjustments made took care of my POV concerns. Promoted. Geraldk 18:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:George W. Johnson (governor)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)