Talk:Jefferson Davis/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, but its likely to be Thursday, at the earliest, before I start reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I'm going to spend an hour or so today looking at the article, but I'll not be doing any work tomorrow and that will take us up to Thursday (as mentioned above).

Just on the basis of a quick "look and see", this article has the look and feel of a GA, but with two "non-listing" results at WP:GAN in July 2013 I'm going to look at this nomination in a bit more depth before coming to any firm decisions.

I'm going to start at the Early life and first military career section, work my way down the article and then look at the Lead. This section is mostly looking for "problems", so any that I don't fix as I go will be listed below. Please feel free to add a comment, if necessary, below mine. I find that works better for me that another section being created. I suspect that this step of the review is going to take the rest of this week. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The most recent closed GA was due to the reviewer being blocked. Omnedon (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I picked this one up as a "new nomination", rather than let it wait for months on end, and I opened a GAR on another former nomination that was reviewed on that user's userpage, after the ban came into force, and was subsequently passed by another editor on the basis of that talkpage "review". Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and first military career -

In the first paragraph its rather vague at the start: its unclear whether Jefferson Davis' paternal grandparents were married in the UK or in the North America, its not clear when they immigrated to the North America, nor is it clear whether Samuel Emory Davis was born in the UK or in the North America. It can be deduced that all of these events happened before American Revolutionary War ended (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 according to wikipedia), but that is all. Can these be addressed from the sources to hand?

This has been clarified. Omnedon (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the rest of this section looks OK.

First marriage and early career -

The first para looks OK.
In the second para the clause "Joseph Davis gave his brother 1,800 acres (730 ha)[19] of land adjoining his property,... " needs a bit more clarification. Who does "his" refer to, for instance I assume "brother" refers to Jefferson Davis, but does "his" refer to Joseph or Jefferson. If the latter, Jefferson already has property (presumably a house) and Joseph gives him land next to it, if the former then Joseph gives Jefferson land next to Joseph's property (presumably a house, but could be a house as well as land). Its not clear when this happened, but it was before 1836. Perhaps it was a marriage present?
The rest of the paragraph is a bit Jumpy in parts on dates: in the 2nd para there is gift of land and ownership of one slave (date not give), also dates of 1836, 1840 and 1845 (but its logically presented). 3rd para is 1835, 4th para is 1835 and the next eight years. 5th para returns to 1840, then 1842, 1843 and 1844. I'm not going to fail the nomination over this, but its a bit messy.

Good points. I've done a rewrite of that section, and may tweak it further, but it should now be in better chronological order, and more clear. Omnedon (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both comments:

Much improved, you could probably leave it as it is now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second marriage and family -

This new section and paragraph starts off: "That same year, Davis met Varina Banks Howell, then 17 years old, ....". I guess we are still in 1844, so why not make it: "In 1844, Davis met Varina Banks Howell, then 17 years old, ....".

Good -- done. Omnedon (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane plantation is mentioned without further explanation (well they met there at Christmas).

Hurricane Plantation is now defined (and linked) in the previous section. Omnedon (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for now. To be continued (Thursday, at the earliest). Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second military career -
This section looks OK.
Return to politics -
- Senator -

I don't know anything about American politics, so I have problems with "Because of his war service, Governor Brown of Mississippi appointed Davis to complete the Senate term of the late Jesse Speight. He took his seat on December 5, 1847, and was elected to serve the remainder of his term in January 1848.[52] He became a regent of the Smithsonian Institution in 1847." I assume that Senator's are elected for a fixed term, such as five years. Speight died part way though office so Davis was appointed to take over in Dec 1847 and this was confirmed by an election the following month (Jan 1848). But how long was the remaining term (I assume, from reading the final paragraph, this was sometime in late 1850 or early 1851)?

Yes, that was not very clear. I have checked the references and clarified all of this. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much clearer now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also in the above extract that He (twice) refers to Davis and his (first time) refers to Davis, possibly the second time refers to Speight, but the third his could apply to either of them (and it probably does not matter which) if I've analysed it correctly, perhaps a minor rewrite is needed.

I believe the edits based on your previous comment have resolved this as well. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agreed with that. Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that in the third paragraph the following sentence is amended (as marked) to improve the clarity: "He Davis had not served a year when he resigned (in September 1851) to run for the governorship of Mississippi on the issue of the Compromise of 1850, which ~~Davis~~ he opposed.".

Good suggestion -- that's done. Omnedon (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

- Secretary of War & Return to Senate -

These two subsections look OK.

President of the Confederate States of America -
- First untitled subsection & Administration and cabinet -

These two subsections look OK.

- Strategic failures & Final days of the Confederacy -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two subsections look OK.

Imprisonment & Later years -

These two sections look OK.

Legacy -

This section looks OK.

WP:Lead -

This is quite readable, but its possibly not fully compliant with the requirements as it currently stands.
It should both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, but should not include material that does not appear in the body of the article, what appears in the lead should also should also "mirror" what is in the body of the article.
Firstly, I merged the first and second paragraphs, since the first paragraph was a single-sentence paragraph and the lead was five paragraphs long - the requirement is three or four.
Secondly, I don't consider the lead to be fully compliant with WP:Lead as it includes material that does not appear to be in the body of the article, such as "At home he paid little attention to the collapsing Confederate economy, and printed more and more paper money to cover the war's expenses, leading to runaway inflation.[2][3]", "His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country." and ""stiff-necked, unbending, doctrinaire, and overbearing"; and, there are significant (in terms of prose) sections in the body of the article that are not covered in the lead.

Looking at the Lead and the article alternatively several times, there is probably not too much "wrong" with the lead, i.e it should be easily fixable. President of the Confederate States of America is virtually covered twice in both the (current) first and second paragraphs. I suspect that they could be merged and summarised more efficiently in the Lead. However, the material in the lead that does not appear in the body of the article either needs to be removed from the lead or added to the body of the article and put back into the lead in summarised form.
The body of of the article covers his two marriages, resigning a commission to get married, ownership of a (slave) plantation, his book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, but these are not mentioned in the lead. Note: in terms of the body of the article the are comparable is size to the President of the Confederate States of America, so that basis I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs in the lead covering President of the Confederate States of America and "reuse" the space to cover these other small topics.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold" for the lead to be fixed. I'm happy to consider any points, questions, etc, about the requirements of a lead; and I'll award the article GA-status once I consider the lead to be compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough review. The article is unquestionably better for having had these issues raised.

Regarding the lede, I am in the process of making some of the modifications you suggest. There are definitely some deficiencies there, now that you have pointed them out. I guess I would question the need to mention, in the lede, his book or the fact that he resigned his commission to get married; we can certainly do that, but I am not sure if they are vital enough. I have mentioned his marriages, his health, and the fact that he was a slaveowner, though; these do seem vital. I've also dealt with the duplication regarding the CSA; I hadn't caught that this was essentially covered twice in two paragraphs. I'll do some more work with this, and will add some text to the body to coordinate with a few items in the lead. Thank you! Omnedon (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not specify what goes in the lede, its not my job as a reviewer to do that. The requirements are given in WP:WIAGA clause 1(b), which includes WP:Lead, and that includes the requirement the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.. It is my job to decided whether it is compliant, so if I see sections / subsections on a particular topic(s) and it/they is/are absent from the lede, likewise material in the lede that does not appear in the body of the article, I'm likely to point it out. I'm also likely to assume the body of article is unlikely to devote sections / subsections to trivia; but I'd rather not make a judgement on what is vital and what is not. The body of the article states "Davis' reputation in the South was restored by the book and by his warm reception on his tour of the region in 1886 and 1887......". I raised the point about the absence of the book from the lede but not the tour(s): but perhaps "After Davis was captured on May 10, 1865, he was accused of treason but was not tried and was released after two years. While not disgraced, Davis had been displaced in Southern affection after the war by his leading general, Robert E. Lee. Nevertheless, many Southerners empathized with his defiance, refusal to accept defeat, and resistance to Reconstruction. Over time, admiration for his pride and ideals made him a Civil War hero to many Southerners, and his legacy became part of the foundation of the postwar New South.[8] By the late 1880s, Davis began to encourage reconciliation, telling Southerners to be loyal to the Union." does adequately summarise the Imprisonment, Later years & Legacy sections. However, that also has to balanced against what else appears in the lede and also in the body of the article (relative emphasis, again). Let me know when you want me to look at the lede again. Pyrotec (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several modifications to the lede, and have also added some material to the body of the article. I will continue to work on improving this, but I believe the lede is now a better and more complete summary of the entire article. Davis' marriages and family are now mentioned in the lede, as is his health and his memoir. In the body, the issues of inflation and diplomacy are now dealt with, in addition to appearing in the lede. Omnedon (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison between Lincoln and Davis mentioned in the lede is now present in the body as well. Omnedon (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better now. You have a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and informative article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status.

I beleive that it has the potential of making WP:FAC, the article history shows that it was unsuccessful back in 2006 but the article is now very different. I would, however, suggest WP:PR as a next step, to gain a wider view than just mine. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your valuable assistance with this. I do plan to take it on to the next stage toward FA at some point. Thanks again! Omnedon (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]