Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Jackson/archive1

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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 [1].

---

Andrew Jackson

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was one of the most prominent Americans in the early 19th century. As a young lawyer from Tennessee, he helped the territory gain statehood and served briefly in both houses of Congress. He later became a Federal judge and commander of the state militia. During the War of 1812, Jackson led an army that defeated first the Red Stick Indians and later the British at New Orleans, securing the American frontier and granting the country one of its greatest military victories at the time. His controversial invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 was done without explicit orders, but the end result was the acquisition of that territory by the United States. From 1829 until 1837, Jackson served as president. He led a popular movement consisting largely of poor workers and farmers against what he saw as undemocratic control of government by the elites. Jackson replaced officeholders, preserved the union during the Nullification Crisis, waged a successful war against the Second Bank of the United States, secured favorable agreements with foreign countries, instigated the forced removal of thousands of American Indians, supported slavery, and recognized the Republic of Texas. Amongst historians and the general public, Jackson is extremely divisive. His reputation has fluctuated considerably, and scholarly assessments of his life and presidency in particular are remarkably varied. Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest scaling up the Indian Removal Act map, Democratic cartoon, and Panic of 1837 images

I scaled up the Indian Removal Act and Panic of 1837 images, but decided against doing the same for the Democratic cartoon. That's mainly because it aligns so well with the 1832 election map. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Tennessee.svg could do with half as many copyright tags

I got rid of two of them. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_bust.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson_Tomb.jpg

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there are some template issues - the former is now showing a USGov tag for the photo, which doesn't seem to mesh with the original information? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Must have put that in there by accident. It's out now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson,_by_Ralph_Eleaser_Whiteside_Earl,_c._1788_-_1838.png, File:WilliamCRives.png, File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:Isaac_Brock_portrait_1,_from_The_Story_of_Isaac_Brock_(1908)-2.png

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, is there an earlier publication to support the new tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The photographer is unknown. The source cited is a book from 2000. I have no publication date earlier than that. But everything's cited, so I don't think there should be a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the life+70 tag currently in place, we do need an additional tag indicating the work's status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:JacksonAssassinationAttempt.jpg: source links are dead, tagged as lacking author info

Added new link. Regrettably could not find author info. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:USS_Porpoise_(1836).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

Added new link and tag. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and can you confirm it meets point 1 of the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find a URL that shows a bill with the same serial number. The "author" is obviously just the US Treasury Department. Not sure what else can be done here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The immediate source is a user-generated scan, and the original source is a design from the Treasury - we just need to write that out, with details (eg. which design version) to make things explicit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have responded to all of your above points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Initial comment: There's an awful lot to trawl through here, which will take some time. Meanwhile, a couple of general points could be dealt with:

• Format: Five columns for the citations is too many – it squashes the information unnecessarily. I'd recommend reduce to three, or four at most.
• Many (if not all) of your page ranges show hyphens. These should be converted to ndashes.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back with a more detailed report when I've gone through the list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nit: It's just setting the width of the columns (I have 9 columns across), it'll be as many columns as your resolution can support. That said, 15em is a little tight, so I just amped it up a tad to 22em. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I'm a college freshman and finals are starting to hit this week. So please give me some time with coming up with responses and implementing recommended changes. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Your comments have been addressed. Do you think you can get to the rest of the review anytime soon? Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. Expect comments in a day or so Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Detailed sources comments

Here are my comments from my first pass of the source section:

• Although you say you've replaced the hyphens in page ranges with ndashes, you've not done this thoroughly – there are many hyphens still present.

Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Try 143, 148, 236 Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. These weren't there at the time, and I have to remember to put dashes in the correct format when adding new sources. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17: how is this a high quality, reliable source?

The biographical info on Remini I have reviewed indicates he is a widely published, award winning academic on Jackson and other presidents. Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoppyh, he was referring to something else. The citation numbers got changed up a bit after he did his initial review. What was previously citation 17 came from an online source that I ended up removing. But thanks for your help on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Hoppyh (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 20: appears identical to the source in ref 3

Looks ok. Hoppyh (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced one of these sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 25: These genealogy websites are not generally considered as reliable. Try to find anopther source.

I think this is now #24 and I believe we can remove the sentence which utilizes this ref. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided to keep the sentence-it's important contextually. But I did get a new source. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 36: page range requires pp. not p. (There may be others similiar, take a careful look)

Done. All look good. Hoppyh (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 39: This looks on the face of it to be a university source, but on examination it seems to be a student project. Read this. I thus have doubts about its quality and reliability

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43: I don't see any reference to "The Andrew Jackson Foundation" which you name as publisher

Changed to "The Hermitage." Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 91: appears identical to 31

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 117: The publisher appears to be "ThoughtCo". I don't know where "About Education" comes from

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 139 and 140: Titles not represented in the source

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 147: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 149: Link not working

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 153: needs subscription template added

Added journal template. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 160: A page number is required - the book has 1,928 pages

Removed. Unable to find relevant information in source. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 162: Needs publisher. Not "Books.google" which is merely the online facilitator. Who published the book?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 164: Not working. I get "The Andrew Jackson site has been retired from pbs.org."

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 177: Syrett needs a "p." A publisher is required for "President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832"

Syrett removed. Not needed. Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 180: p. range format inconsistency

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 181: Website blocked - "potentially dangerous content"

Not sure what to say here. I tried it and did just fine. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's 174 now. I'm still getting the "website blocked" message, but the archive link now takes me to the source, so perhaps it's some local temporary hitch. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 203: Publisher details missing

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 213: Not working: "404 File not found"

Click on where it says "Archived." Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 206: that's not good enough, you should use the working url as your main link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 218: Not working – repeated timeouts

It works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Now 211: I'm still getting timeouts on the main link, although the archive link works. See my comment re 206. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 219: Who publishes this?

A website is given. That should be enough. They don't all have clear publishers. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know the publisher you shouldn't use the site, as you can't confirm its reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 214. At the bottom of the site, the name "Robert S. Summers" appears. Summers is a respected law professor. Also, the only thing that this source is used to cite is cabinet information-names, years, positions, etc. All that information is verified in a host of other sources. But none of them that I've seen sum it all up in one place like this one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 224: "James" Catron?

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 243: Page reference missing

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 250: Page reference missing

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 253: Why is "Masonic Research identified as publisher? I can't see nay reference to it.

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 254: The format seems wrong in terms of title and publisher

Can you explain a bit more? Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 247: someone has dealt with this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 255: Publisher details missing

Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 263: Publisher details missing

Removed per terrible formatting and the fact that another source seemed to take care of the information. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 264: provides insufficient detail

Removed along with text in question. Unable to verify. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 265 and 267: Similar format issues to 254

I can't say I see the problem here either. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What was 265 seems to have been removed or replaced. What was 267 is now 257. Author's name is in the wrong format (should be surname first); the title should be "2-cent Green Andrew Jackson", and the publisher should be "National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution". "Arago" is the database name, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 268: publisher details should not be abbreviated.

This source has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• More generally: there are issues relating to italicization. Some of these appear to arise from the frequent confusion of website name ("work") with the publisher, i.e. the owner of the website. However, before tackling this, I advise you to tackle the lengthy list of specific queries, above. Give me a ping when you think you're through.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I have responded to all of the points you have made. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've indicated inline the few points where there are still issues outstanding. On the italicization issue there still seems to be work required. In general, a publisher should be italicized if the item arises from a print sourse , e.g. the title of a newspaper or journal, but not otherwise. Thus "Northern Ireland Tourist Board", "State Library of North Carolina", "Yale Law School" etc should not be italicized. There are other similar cases that need adjusting. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I've removed italics from those sources as well as some others. Let me know how it looks. If there's still work that needs to be done in this regard, please either let me know or fix it yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given a great deal of time to this review, and "fix it yourself" strikes me as a little brusque, even rude. It's your responsibility to get your sources right, not mine, and this needs to be done with appropriate care. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well wow; that was uncalled for. You seem to have taken the position that I was somehow ordering you to make certain edits to the article. Obviously not the case. If you feel like cleaning up pieces of it here and there, you're welcome to. Otherwise, please tell me where improvement is needed so that I can do the work of fixing it and getting this article to FA quality. That's all that I said. By the way, simply saying "Not good enough" in your response above might also be interpreted as brusque or rude. Now, Brianboulton, do the italics look fine, or is more work needed? Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Having spent eight hours – yes, I mean eight hours – on this review, checking every reference at least once, not to mention having to manoeuvre around various ref number changes, etc, I feel somewhat inclined to take umbrage at comments such as "fix it yourself". OK, I accept you didn't mean it to sound ungracious. I'm finished here – as things stand, I'm happy to sign the sources off, and any final tinkering can be done by you after the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Good to see all the hard work that has gone on here.

Lede:

• I really think that mention of Jackson's leadership of the Democratic Party needs to be mentioned in that very first paragraph. It is of great importance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that. There are a lot of crucial things that Jackson did which aren't mentioned in the first paragraph or even today. Besides, the Democratic Party of today looks almost nothing like the Democratic Party of the 1820s or 1830s. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Probably a tad too long. It currently stands at 25 lines long (at least in my browser), which is one line longer than FA-rated political biographies of equal (if not greater) importance like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. To that end I would recommend trying to get that second paragraph trimmed back a little bit. For instance, we could get rid of material like "(now part of Tennessee)". Other areas of prose could be condensed: "he was appointed a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving from 1798 until 1804" could easily become "he served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 to 1804". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I cut down on it using a couple of the suggestions you mentioned along with some others. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Born in the Waxhaws, Jackson" - perhaps a tad more on his ethnic background here; "Born in the Waxhaws to Scots-Irish migrants, Jackson"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "slaveowning" - "slave-owning"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to determine if one is more proper than the other. Therefore, I left it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "winning a major victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" could easily become "winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• De-link Spain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Country names are usually left un-linked in articles. It's a sort of convention (although when it was decided I really do not know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In reaction to the alleged "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams" feels a bit clunky. How about "Reacting against Adams' alleged "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay,". Shorter and more succinct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's shorter because it removes the part about Adams's agenda. If you can find a way to increase brevity without changing content or meaning, that would be excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But is there much point mentioning Adams' agenda if no further explanation is given at this juncture anyway? We could just refer to Jackson's opposition to Adams without going into any further detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The end of the lead is to do no more than summarize and at times simply allude to things that are discussed below in greater detail. Details aren't always necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• " thoroughly dismantled the Bank" - perhaps scrap "thoroughly"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it works well. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "dispossessed the Indians" - probably best to avoid the use of "Indians" in the lede (unless referring to something like the Indian Removal Act) given the disputed nature of the term. "Natives" would do just as well and lacks many of the problems of "Indians". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think they're both fine. I know a guy who met a "Native American." The "Native American" allegedly that people like him should be referred to as "American Indians" because, in his view, anybody born in the U.S. is a "Native American." I don't think it matters. You can't please everybody. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's true that it is impossible to please anybody, but it is a huge issue of debate and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "as an advocate for the causes of democracy and the common man" works just as well as "as an advocate for democracy and the common man". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for taking the time to do this review. I have responded to your comments above. I have not chosen to implement all of the reforms that you have suggested. However, I did manage to cut the lead down in size by a little bit. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, do you think you could please continue with the review? Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Apologies for the delay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education:

• "from present day Northern Ireland two years earlier" - I'm wondering if it's better to just say "from northern Ireland" or something like that. Perhaps "British-controlled Ireland"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Just personal taste. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Waxhaws is linked twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• That third paragraph could really do with further, more specialist citations, ideally from biographical studies of Jackson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I added one from Remini. I don't want to expand it too much with citations from other sources. That's mainly because it's an obscure question to which we will never surely know the answer that in the grand scheme of things is not all that important. I think we have enough there now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think that we will need more specific citation than simply The Washington Post, to be honest. That is an RS, but when sources produced by academic historians are available, we really should be using them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a biographical source to cover part of the information backed in the Post article. But the citation was for Remini 1977, so I'm not sure whether in your opinion that constitutes an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, checking once more to remind you of this review. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Display name. I don't intend to oppose this article, and admire the considerable amount of good work that has gone into getting it to the stage that it is presently at, although I still have misgivings, particularly with regard to sourcing. Andrew Jackson is a major figure in American political history and large numbers of scholars have written about him, and yet at various points this article relies solely on Remini 1977, or cites press sources rather than academic works. I would really like to see a much denser use of academic sourcing, as for instance can be seen at the Nelson Mandela article. Despite these concerns, I certainly wish you well with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubtful this will change your mind, but I will leave a few comments here anyway, more for the FA coordinators and future reviewers than anyone else. Press sources are used mainly in the Legacy section, which is customary, especially regarding monuments and such. Some articles are used elsewhere, and these typically come from well-established scholars. There is an article from H.W. Brands, a Jackson biographer, that's cited twice, and another from Mark Cheatham, a professional historian, that's also used.

Regarding the perceived partiality towards Remini that exists in the early part of the article, I do not believe it is quite as extreme as the editor indicated. For instance, the entire Dickinson affair is cited to the Brands biography. Remini isn't even included until the 11th citation. Nevertheless, there were some spots in which I realized that I could diversify the citations by including references to other works. Therefore, I did add in some citations to other books about Jackson, namely the ones written by Snelling, Parton (Volume 1), Brands, and Meacham. It is important to remember that Remini's work, being three volumes, is more detailed than the single-volume 21st century biographies written by Brands, Wilentz, and Meacham, and thus can easily be cited more. That's basically all I have to say. This article passed a detailed source review, so hopefully this won't emerge again as a major problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'll be doing a full review, but a couple of initial comments from near the end.

• I'd question the description of Richard Mentor Johnson as unpopular. Possibly among some. "Controversial" might be a better term. "Rumpsey Dumpsey" always had considerable support, especially in the West, and with the Whig candidates in 1840 masquerading as "regular guys", Johnson did fill a need there. Yes he had the biracial mistresses and daughters, but most people didn't know that. They liked him as an Indian fighter and "Colonel Johnson shot Tecumsey".

OK. I changed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• More could be said about Jackson's role in getting Polk the nomination. It was Jackson who told Polk, after Van Buren's letter opposing the annexation of Texas, that he could be elected president.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I expanded this article's discussion of the 1844 election, including the incident which you just mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you capitalize the "The" in "The Hermitage".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried not to capitalize it except at the start of sentences and in citations. I found one instance where I had deviated from this and fixed it. If you see any other cases of the "The" being capitalized aside from the exceptions which I just mentioned, please feel free to fix them. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Andrew and Robert were eventually captured by the British in 1781" I might cut "eventually"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After a time," I would substitute "Later that year,"

Done.

• "After nursing Andrew back to health, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in the Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. I might toss an "American" in front of "prisoners" (assuming) and similarly "British" before ships.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "n 1781 he worked for a time in a saddle-maker's shop.[19] ... He taught school and worked for a time as a saddle-maker." Is this a duplicate?

Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might use pipes to read law and admission to the bar

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "before the petition for divorce was ever made." "even" for "ever"?

I think "ever" works fine. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

""In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[26] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west." I might rephrase as"In 1794, Jackson formed a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton (you haven't mentioned Jackson being a planter yet), dealing in claims for reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes. Like many of their contemporaries, they dealt in such claims although the land was in Indian country. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened Indian lands west of the Appalachians within North Carolina to claim by that state's residents."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suspect the one-paragraph subsection could be combined with the one following. Possibly "Tennessee politician and land speculator"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and one of the most powerful men in the state. Jackson became attorney general in 1791," Some clarity is needed. Tennessee wasn't a state yet.

Correct. Changed to "territory." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "At that time, most men were members of the militia." "white men", surely.

Added "free" in front of "men." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson had also presented Roane with evidence against Sevier of land fraud. : Possibly end "with evidence of land fraud against Sevier."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "making him among the planter elite." possibly "placing him among the planter elite".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Wilkinson ordered Jackson to halt in Natchez, now part of the Mississippi Territory," possibly "then" for "now"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "February 6 ordering him dismiss his forces" likely a missing word

I did not omit anything. Take away "dated February 6" and you get "sent him a letter ordering." I think it works. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Probably you need a "to" before "dismiss", is what I meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "However, he also promised to, instead of dismissing the troops without provisions in Natchez, march them back to Nashville.[6" I would move the "to" next to "march"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in a street brawl with Jesse and his brother, Thomas." I'd advise changing "Jesse" to Benton. I'd make a bigger deal out of who his brother was, given THB's prominence later on.

I didn't say anything about this there, but I did add a mention THB when discussing Jackson's return to the Senate. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I see Thomas was his aide-de-camp. I might mention that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, can you provide a source for this? I just looked in Remini and couldn't find anything about this. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's in the Benton article, sourced to Meacham's bio of Jackson.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. For some reason, I thought you were saying that JB was the aide-to-camp. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• " perpetrated the Fort Mims massacre" I might say what it happened at this point in the paragraph, not several sentences later.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After arriving in New Orleans on December 1,[80] " been a while since you mentioned the year.

Added year. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• " Their deaths were not revealed until the Coffin Handbills were circulated during his 1828 presidential campaign" I might say "publicized" or "well-known" since obviously the New Orleans authorities knew.

DOne. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Finishing the pre-presidency:

• "who happened to be Speaker of the House," You mention this earlier in the section. I would either cut or tie it up better, for example, "who as Speaker presided over the election"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Some mention of how Jackson conducted the 1824 campaign, even if to say he pretended he wasn't running, would be good.

I expanded significantly on Jackson's 1824 campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Adams's presidency floundered, as his ambitious agenda faced defeat in a new era of mass politics. Critics led by Jackson attacked Adams's policies as a dangerous expansion of Federal power." I think this ignores the fact that many embittered Jackson supporters were basically against anything Adams proposed.

I added an opening sentence to the section on the 1828 election about the general opposition to Adams and how early it began. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills were published to attack Jackson. One revealed that he had ordered the execution of six soldiers at New Orleans." You do mention this above, and this reads like you hadn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• In your preliminary paragraph on the presidency, it might be worth mentioning that the franchise was considerably expanded among white males in the 1830s.

Most white men could vote by the 1820s. That was what helped Jackson get elected. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Salacious rumors held that Peggy, as a barmaid in her father's tavern," As I understand it, the tavern was more a hotel/boardinghouse, where Sec. Eaton resided at some point, as was usual due to high Washington real estate prices. I might also refer to her here as "Peggy Eaton".

Taverns were boarding houses, but many of them served alcohol. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "it was alleged that she and her husband and engaged in an adulterous affair" I think there's a grammatical error, "and" (second usage) should be "had"

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Same paragraph, some inconsistency in capitalizing "cabinet". It might help the reader if you mentioned that the Eaton affair prevented Jackson calling Cabinet meetings for, as I recall, months.

I have removed instances where I found it capitalized. Do you have a source for the statement about the meetings? Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "be Minister to England" probably better, "Minister to Britain". It might be useful, in mentioning Van Buren's "recovery", to mention his nomination and election as Vice President.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might be worth a mention that the Cherokees took the position that they were a nation, not part of the US or Georgia.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "very hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence." I would not use "very" in two different senses in the same sentence. Also, the dashes late in the paragraph don't seem to be the right ones.

I rephrased this and replace the dash, hopefully with the proper one. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's Postmaster Barry" He was the Postmaster General.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Postal Service" since you are capitalizing, it was at the time the Post Office Department. You use this phrase multiple times.

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's tenure in office saw a variety of other reforms as well." This implies that the reform mentioned in the previous paragraph, that is, abolition of the Electoral College, took place.

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Southern planters, who sold their cotton on the world market, strongly opposed this tariff, which they saw as favoring northern interests." The selling of cotton doesn't help explain why they opposed the tariff. There was, after all, no tax on exports.

Added clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Washington Globe I don't believe the "The" is italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in February 1836, American reparations were paid." This sounds like the Americans were paying. Incidentally, I'm a bit dubious at the idea of "the French people" demanding things of Jackson. Is their government meant or did people get up petitions?

Removed the word "American." The French people were outraged by Jackson's remarks and basically refused to allow their government to pay until Jackson had apologized. Clarified in the text. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson was unsuccessful in opening trade with China and Japan. He was unsuccessful at thwarting Great Britain's presence and power in South America." I don't like the repeat of "was unsuccessful".

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might expand a bit in explaining the anti-Masonic movement.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would split the paragraph in which you introduce the Second Bank.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson himself made numerous popular public appearances on his return trip from Tennessee to Washington D.C. Jackson won the election decisively by a landslide" I would cut "popular" and "decisively" and add a comma after "Washington".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Anti-Masonic Party folded" well, as a presidential player, yes, but it did persist in Pennsylvania for years after that and likely neighboring states as well.

Good point. Replaced with "eventually declined." Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the description of Jackson removing the deposits from the Second Bank, likely the term pet bank should be used and linked at some relevant point.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The result was high demand for specie, which many banks could not meet in exchange for their notes, causing the Panic of 1837" I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that this was the only cause of the Panic, though undoubtedly it contributed.

Replaced with "contributed to." Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The incident became a part of Jacksonian mythos." I would say for the last two words, "Jackson's legend".

I don't see any improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Legend is a term more commonly used in this connection, so the reader will understand it more quickly, imho.

I understand your argument, but "mythology" and other similar-sounding words are used regularly, and therefore I doubt the reader will have any ambiguity about what this means. Furthermore, simply saying that we use a word more does not indicate that it is always better. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "U.S. Postal system" I would lower case the Postal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "he pocketed Adams' expedition plans. " I'm not sure pocketed, in that sense, is really common in American English.

I don't know if its American or British, but it makes sense. I haven't heard English spoken anywhere outside the U.S. and a couple brief trips to Canada, and I'm still familiar with the phrase. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "One brig ship, USS Porpoise, later used in the expedition; having been laid down, built, and commissioned by Secretary Dickerson in May 1836, circumnavigated the world, explored and mapped the Southern Ocean, confirming the existence of the Antarctica continent.[232]" the semicolon should not be there, as what goes before cannot stand as a sentence. Also, it sounds like Dickerson laid it down, built it, and commissioned it. There should also be an "and" before "explored" in my view.

I have rephrased both parts. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "by money backed by gold and silver" I would simply say "with gold and silver" because that is the only money that would have been accepted.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• You italicize Specie Circular at least once.

I found one instance and removed the italics. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "His next two appointees-Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne-disagreed with Jackson on some points but were viewed poorly even by Jackson's enemies." I don't think those are the proper dashes, and "viewed poorly" is not a phrase I'm familiar with in AmEng.

My response is the same as with the pocketing issue. I've hopefully managed to fix the dashes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Taney served as Chief Justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court." Um, maybe so, but I think what should be mentioned here is the Dred Scott decision. It overshadows Taney's Chief Justiceship.

Added a sentence mentioning the decision. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "When a letter from Calhoun to British Ambassador Richard Pakenham linking annexation to slavery was made public, anti-annexation sentiment exploded in the North and the bill failed to be ratified." I think all you need for the purposes of Jackson's article is that the treaty failed to be ratified.

The Calhoun thing is crucial. The Pakenham letter increased anti-annexation sentiment in the north by seeming to make the issue of Texas annexation all about slavery. As a result, Van Buren, a northerner, felt pressured into opposing annexation. Therefore, Jackson could not support him. Some historians actually think the whole thing was a ploy by Calhoun to deny his enemy Van Buren the nomination. If so, it worked. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "moved into" not sure what this is saying.

Changed to "decided to write." Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A bill of annexation was finally signed by Tyler on March 1, 1845, and then ratified.[263]" ratified?

I got the timeline messed up. It was passed in February and signed on March 1. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• You link Andrew Jackson Donelson in consecutive paragraphs*.

I can't find where. I link to him in the second-to-last paragraph of "Later life and death," but can't find where in either of the two adjacent paragraphs I link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's some question as to whether Jackson ever made the Clay/Calhoun comment, see here.

I'm not sure the source you cited is reliable. I did expand on this subject by including what Parton (and others) quote Jackson as saying on his deathbed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not certain where the Sellars quote ends. There's no cite after the quotation mark, and the next two sentences sound something like a quote.

I put a cite after the quotation mark. The rest is essentially a summary of Sellars' overall argument. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the money, I would cut the "Series" and the years. The design has appeared on more recent series of currency, I see it on a Series 2013 $20.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "criticise" Criticize.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the legacy section is fairly thin. The de Tocqueville quote is very long and I'm not sure what it says about Jackson's legacy. Beyond that, there's just a handful of quotes. Usually, president articles talk about, among other things, how they are ranked by historians.

Added a summary of what various 20th century writers say about him, and summarized more content from a Brands article already cited. Also, I moved a one-paragraph historiography of Jackson's Indian policies into this section from elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1838, Jackson became a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[274]" Given that the source I referred you to on Clay/Calhoun says Jackson was converted Presbyterianism by a clergyman, I wonder what was he for the first seventy years of his life?

I added a clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm hoping to have all of this responded to by the end of the weekend. In the meantime, here's what I've got. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Should only be a few things left. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your thorough review. I've responded to everything. If there are any potential areas of improvement remaining, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Appears to meet the criteria. Nicely done on an important figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I have been a significant contributor here and with other POTUS FA’s and promotion is appropriate. Well done. Hoppyh (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Emir of Wikipedia

https://mcheathem.files. wordpress.com/2013/04/cheathem-aj-slavery-and-historians.pdf (no space) is now on the global blacklist. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, thank you for pointing that out. It looks like somebody just took care of it. Please feel free to share any other comments you may have. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have skimmed through it and it looks great. Thorough comments have been provided above so I am not going to look for anything else, but I wish you good luck with the article and hope it gets promoted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hello. I'm just wondering about approximately where we stand for getting this article promoted. This article has been under review for over a month and a half, and it's been 12 days since anyone has come here to comment on it. Of those who have posted, I believe I have addressed their concerns fairly. The article passed both image and source reviews, while 3 editors-albeit one a significant contributor-have expressed their support for the article. As far as the one editor who has not, I have addressed in part their concerns regarding the lack of diversity in citations by adding sources to scholarly biographies aside from one in particular, and have also implemented other recommended changes. The rest, I believe, results in honest difference of opinion. That same editor also notably declined to oppose the nomination. Basically, I just want to know where things stand. Thanks for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two supports for this article, so we would need at least one more support before we begin to think about promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I interpreted Emir of Wikipedia's response as being in support, even though that wasn't explicitly stated. I'm guessing you didn't. Anyway, I'll wait to see if anybody else comes along to do another review. Display name 99 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support I've followed this article for the last year or so and have read a couple books on Jackson. I made suggestions for improvement prior to the FA nomination and those suggestions have been responded to. This article meets all of the Featured Article criteria and I believe it deserves to be promoted. Nice job Display name 99. Orser67 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

G'day i hope this page will get its promotion however i found some issues.

• How much is 23 million acres in hectares like 1,050 acres (425 ha), 640-acre (259 ha) and 360 acres (146 ha).

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I would remove the blank "In March 1815, after U. S" in the Enforced martial law in New Orleans section.

Done. Typo. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please change "British soldiers into the Floridas" to "British soldiers into the Florida's" and "the Floridas would be desirable" to "the Florida's would be desirable".

There used to be both an East and West Florida, which is why it is plural, not possessive. I added a clarifying remark elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can you put how much 40 miles is in km's.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• see a British Vice-President not an American Vice President. "I have heretofore recommended amendments of the Federal Constitution giving the election of President and Vice-President to the people and limiting the service of the former to a single term."

That's the why it's given in the speech, so I see no reason to change it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Remove Japan out this line 'cause Japan was isolated until the year 1853 so after his dead. "Jackson failed in his efforts to open trade with China and Japan."

The fact that it remained isolated shows that Jackson failed. Various western nations had tried to open trade with China, but nobody succeeded until the United States in 1853. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That was everything what i could found CPA-5 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

CPA-5, your comments have been addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Thanks, all my concerns have been addressed. I think the page finally meets the FA criteria, good job. CPA-5 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Wilentz 2005, pp. 49. P/PP error? pp. 49.;

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Inconsistent use of Location (56 with; 9 without);

I think I've dealt with most of these. There are still about 2 or 3 remaining. I'll deal with those shortly. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is finished. Display name 99 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Lewis, J. D. NC Patriots 1775–1783: Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• 15 sources Missing OCLC or similar, including
  • Adams, Henry (1879). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

The version used was the original. Therefore, I got rid of the ISBN. What does the term "OCLC" mean and how do I add it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Bogart, Ernest Ludlow (1907). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

Same as above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Remini, Robert (1969). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing OCLC;

Same as above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• See Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown for the following 3:
  • Prucha, Francis Paul (1969). CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

I clicked on the URL. It worked fine. Not sure what the problem is. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "USS Porpoise (1836-1854)". CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown

It would have been helpful had you included ref numbers. Like I said, I clicked on the hyperlink and did just fine. What's the problem? Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• • "Historical Debt Outstanding – CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Same here. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've been looking at this for just over an hour now and I am feeling a little uneasy. I still see many issues in the references, eg, Latner.. you said 7th ed. but as far as I can see there were only 3. And how is Latner a specialized study instead of a bio? What were your criteria for putting books in either section? You list several sources that are very old. I didn't always click the links: did you find full text for all of them online? Your further reading section is somewhat large. What were your criteria for inclusion? Why are several missing isbn's, did you look closely at the sources? I'll copy/paste a list of issues tomorrow, but I'm getting sleepy now... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Biographies" section includes works that are actual biographies of Jackson. "Specialized studies" includes texts which aren't meant to be biographies of him but are nonetheless sourced. These books are available in part online. Click on the blue links and you'll find them. As for the "Further Reading" section, all those things were already listed by the time I started editing the article. The purpose seems to have been to list every major biography of Jackson, as well as every other major book or journal article that was relevant to him but not cited in the article. That's generally what a "Further Reading" section is for. Jackson is an important figure. So yes, his section is large. I think the standard for the Further Reading section is less than the official Bibliography. However, I'll go through and see what information can be added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, you promised to post a detailed list of remaining problems a few days ago. I understand this may have changed due to the clearing of the Further reading section, but do you have any more comments? Display name 99 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Kendall, Amos (1843). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Latner, Richard B. (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Parton, James (1860a). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Parton, James (1860b). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Snelling, William Joseph (1831). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Adams, Henry (1879). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Byrne, James Patrick; Coleman, Philip; King, Jason Francis (2008). Missing ISBN;
• Gannett, Henry (1905). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Howe, Daniel Walker (2007). Missing ISBN;
• Jackson, Elmer Martin (1985). Missing ISBN;
• Martin, François-Xavier (1829). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC or LCCN;
• Nevins, Allan; Commanger, Henry Steele; Morris, Jeffrey (1992) [1941]. Missing ISBN;
• Ogg, Frederic Austin (1919). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Zinn, Howard (1980). Missing ISBN;
• Curtis, James C. (1976). Missing ISBN;
• Jackson, Andrew (1926). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, I have added ISBNs to all of the remaining sources. Jackson (1985) didn't seem to have one, so I added an ISBN. I already mentioned that I don't know what an OCLC is or how I can find it. That's still true. What is an OCLC or an LCCN? Where can I find them? Why are they important? Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We have this new thing called "Wikipedia" which can be used to answer questions like "What is an OCLC number?" [Let me help you get started: look at OCLC#Identifiers and linked data]... To find an OCLC, go to [2] and use the "Find items in libraries near you" search. From the results, click the link for the item you're interested in. The output of that search also includes OCLC Number, a little bit down the page.

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi, we also have this thing called reading. It's been around a lot longer than Wikipedia. Basically, when I post something, as I did, saying that I don't know what something is OR how I can locate it, you can look at it and respond in writing instead of simply moving on to the next thing and pretending like I didn't say it.

Anyway, using Word Cat, I was able to add OCLCs to all the sources that needed them. I already have a software system installed on my account that allows me to check for Harvard errors. I'm not sure how different it is from any of the stuff that you've suggested. If a citation doesn't link to anything, the error comes up in bright red. If in the Bibliograhy there is a Harvard ref with no citation, a message appears in sort of a dirty orange or brown color. Considering the fact that I already have these, I'm not sure what else I would need or why. That being said, are there any other problems with the article that would cause you not to support its promotion? Thank you for your review and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(←) Yes, I have been skipping around too much. I apologize. It's not just on your article; I've been doing that to all of them. And thank you for getting some OCLC's etc. As for Opposing or Supporting, I'm trying to avoid doing either one these days, except in exceptional cases (which is why they are exceptions). As for why you would want the other script(s), well, my script is the one that has pointed out all of the issues I've been listing, such as (still extant ones):

• Latner, Richard B. (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
• Gannett, Henry (1905). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Martin, François-Xavier (1829). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;

...and speaking of Martin (above), I found more than one instance of its full text on the internet. You could link to this in the reference, possibly even linking to the specific page in question. I also found OCLC nums but there's more than one (e.g., 844795136 or 1007640291 or ...?) and I don't wanna expend any of my precious few remaining brain cells figuring out which is correct. That's for you to do. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• OH PS It seems you have 4 references without html anchors ("ref=")...let's see, maybe Eaton, Clement (1942); The Correspondence of Andrew Jackson. 5; The Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (right below the other one); Richardson, James D., ed. (1897).

Lingzhi, I'm sorry for missing a couple OCLCs. I took care of the ones you mentioned. I add page numbers for Latner and added an anchor for Eaton. A couple of the books to have multiple OCLCs. It seems that the different editions of the book have different numbers. I worked on trying to find the OCLC for the same publication year as that used in the article.

The sources under "Primary sources" do not have an anchor because there are no Harvard citations to link to them. These Primary sources are important, forming much of the basis for the major secondary sources upon which this article most heavily relies. Therefore, I think it's important to list them not just in the separate Bibliography article but here as well. I am content to leave them as they are. Display name 99 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• You don't need to apologize. There's a lotta information in there... I'll look again tomorrow, if I can. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Alanscottwalker

• Very fine article and great work, but . . .
• I left a comment on the talk page awhile ago, but it has not been addressed. The lead sentence "He vehemently opposed the rising trend of abolitionism." Is problematic in a number of ways: 1) It is out of place or out of context -- it's in a section discussing foreign policy. 2) It has no context as to what this suddenly important "abolitionism" issue is, so important it is "vehemently opposed". 3) It goes rather far afield introducing a political science type of asserted "trend", which is not discussed in the article. 4) As above, it just hangs there like some afterthought in the lead (oh, we have to get something in about this but we are unable to contextualize it for the reader.) Suggest moving it up, introducing something like, "Himself a slave holder, . . ." drop trend, which is unneeded, consider dropping "vehement". Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been checking that talk page lately. The paragraph discusses a number of things about Jackson's presidency; foreign policy is only one of them. An editor also just added a sentence afterward about Jackson surviving the first assassination attempt on a U.S. president, which helps even more. I changed the sentence to this: "He opposed the abolitionist movement, which grew stronger in his second term." It only adds a little more context, but I'm also trying to keep the lead from getting too long. Slavery was not so vital an issue in Jackson's presidency as spoils, nullification, the Bank War, or Indian Removal, and so there's no need to get into specifics in the lead. However, I do think that we should at least mention it. The statement also gets rid of two words that you had problems with: "vehemently" and "trend." Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but actually, it seems worse now. Now, it reads as if abolitionism is cause for the assassination attempt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed the order of the two sentences. Does that fix it? Display name 99 (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To me, no: "In January 1835, he survived the first assassination attempt on a president. Jackson opposed the abolitionist movement, which grew stronger in his second term." still seems to link the two. I won't belabor it more, but for reasons previously stated: 1) move the abolition sentence after the Indian removal discussion and briefly work in link Slavery in the United States | "slave-holder" or "slavery" or "slave" or . . .]] something like that for context. 3) Think about adding something like 'disappointed office seeker' to the assassination sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved the sentence to after the discussion of Indian affairs, as you suggested. I didn't add what you mentioned to describe the assassination because 1) the man was not a disappointed office seeker and 2) We don't need any more detail in the lead. The second reason is also why I'm not going to discuss slavery anymore. Display name 99 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was not suggesting you use just disappointed office seeker, I suggested you actually and briefly give the reader the information the sentence naturally raises, something like, 'lunatic', etc, etc. (As a side note, at some point you may wish to rearrange/rework just a bit the info in the assassination section because it begins with a job-firing for corruption, but is it the case that that firing actually has nothing to do with the assassination, you should look into making that a bit clearer). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• As for Bibliography, suggest creation Bibliography of Andrew Jackson (see Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant) and move/copy everything to the the biblio article. Only retain on the biography article page the things cited, with a further reading link to the biblio article. Change section header to "Works cited". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bibliography" is an appropriate and widely used section header, so I don't plan on changing that. As for the rest, I think it may be a good idea, but I prefer a second opinion. Lingzhi, since you had voiced some concern over what was in the "Further reading" section, what are your thoughts on this suggestion? Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment of the article and your comments. Please see my work above. Display name 99 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Very good idea, and even changing the name away from Bibliography makes sense, but only because you are creating a link to a separate Bibliography on a separate page. Having two such words on the same page does seem a bit confusing, even tho one is only a link. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have created the separate article. I still need to do some work in organizing it (hopefully sooner rather than later), but the Jackson article looks much better now. I'm still not convinced by the Bibliography/Works cited argument. I use the word Bibliography as a section title in every article that I edit, so maybe it's just me being rigid. Hopefully we can let that go. Alanscottwalker, I think that's everything. Display name 99 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Support - Meets criteria (future improvements always possible) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator

comments: Sorry to prolong this a little longer. We're just about ready to go, but I notice that we are not consistent on alt text; there are a couple of images that don't have it, the others do. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Some could be justified in an article of this length, but perhaps not all. Finally, there are currently 27 instances of "however"; (See WP:HOWEVER) while they are not expressly forbidden, they are often best avoided and I think 27 is perhaps overkill. After this, I think we are ready to go. Sarastro (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, thank you for calling my attention to these things. I added alt text to the remaining images. I couldn't figure out how to use that tool to find duplinks, but I removed a few of them. I got rid of about 10 instances of "however," which in my opinion should be enough. Display name 99 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced by the duplinks, as we seem to have a lot. And we still have 17 instances of however. I consider that to be overkill, and I'm not particularly hard line on the use of the word. I'd really like this clearing up a little before we promote; FAs aren't supposed to be perfect, by any means, but these are things that will get picked up when it goes on the main page. Sarastro (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, I removed 5 duplicate links and 6 instances of however. Display name 99 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I got it down to 4 "however"s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I shall be promoting this shortly. It is a very long article, and on quite a high profile figure. There are probably still little issues that might be worked on, but I think this has had a long and thorough review. There is no need to hold it up any longer. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.