Talk:Abraham Lincoln/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I will be doing the review of this article. My intention is to be more thorough than I would for a normal GAN, given your stated intentions to try for FAC. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Not sure if you knew, but we addressed your comments from the FA (User:Peregrine_Fisher/ALFA2Archive#NikkiMaria.27s_detailed_comments). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done initial review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all editors of this page: You may or may not be aware of the ongoing discussion regarding a recent discovery of plagiarism in a FA on the main page. The effect of that discussion on content review processes leads me to make the following recommendations; these should not be taken as accusations or suggestions that you may be guilty of something, but as points for consideration. The way things are going right now, it's possible that future FACs will be subject to similar considerations.

  • Please ensure that, while the article reflects the essential content of the sources, it does not contain any material that may be considered a copyright violation, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing
  • All wording taken directly from a source should be in quotes and attributed
  • Wherever possible, check that phrasing does not overly imitate sources
  • Consider checking the article for potential problems using an automated tool such as CSBot, Earwig, Plagiarism Checker, any professional academic tools you may have access to, or an "old-fashioned" Google Search. Pay particular attention to material added by people other than yourselves, and phrases that seem out-of-place or otherwise suspicious

Please note that I will not consider these issues reasons to not promote to GA status (unless an obvious problem is found), but that they may be detrimental at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donald cites - I'm concerned here about my own editing, which was done concurrently with my reading of the Donald biography. While I am certain that I have added no material without referencing Donald, having spent so much time with the book, it is quite possible that I came too close to paraphrasing or quoting him without using quotations. I will review this issue and try my best to make sure the Donald material is quoted properly, and to the extent this may be a problem, my sincere apologies. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CSBot found no violation. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this has been open for almost two months, I've elected to list the article as a GA. I will still be watching the review, so if you have any questions about remaining issues feel free to ask. Good luck at FAC! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Spell out numbers and numerals under 10 (ex. "1st" -> "first")
    • Done, I think. I've left dates, heights, and bible verses as numbers. If that's not OK, I can change those too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presidential or presidential election?
  • Why are there two subsections about the 1860 election?
  • Is there a better heading than "Fighting with McClellan"? The tone is off, and it doesn't really adequately describe that section
    • This was my doing; the intent was the double entendre in their relationship - per the narrative. I'll leave this for someone else to give it a go.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-election or re-election or reelection?
  • I'm not convinced that the Second Inaugural Address needs its own level-3 heading
  • Redefining Republicanism - this section is a bit ill-defined. I would advocate merging the final paragraph into the Gettysburg Address section
    • I expressed a similar reaction some time ago and there was strong feeling this concept was quite well defined by historians and essential to the article as is- above my pay grade.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved the para. One of the regular editors is a History professor and he says that sections important, so I believe him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The topic is likely important, but the section does not clearly define the topic. Somewhat better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union, ending slavery, and rededicating the nation to nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy" - arguable. In the long term the Union was preserved, but given the Civil War I wouldn't use that word here. The last part of the sentence is even more contentious. In the interests of balance and accuracy, I would end the sentence after "War"
    • Done. Has more punch this way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done - Another user added it back, and since then I removed the last part per redundancy note later in the review. We'll see what happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reared in a poor family on the western frontier, he was mostly self-educated and became a country lawyer, an Illinois state legislator, and a one-term member of the United States House of Representatives, but failed in two attempts at a seat in the United States Senate" - split into two sentences
  • "Lincoln won the first Republican nomination" - wasn't Fremont the first Republican nominee?
  • "Lincoln, the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican party, came under heavy sustained attack from the Radical Republicans, who wanted harsher treatment of the South, from Democrats who wanted more compromise, and from the secessionists who saw him as their great enemy.[2] Lincoln fought back with patronage, by pairing his opponents against each other and by appealing over their heads to the American people, using his powers of oratory,[3][4] in particular, with the Gettysburg Address of 1863 which, although short, became one of the most quoted speeches in history" - edit for grammar and clarity
    • I edited it. Hopefully it works now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's better, but there are still some grammar issues, and the point about the Gettysburg Address isn't linked in as well as it could be. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy...nationalism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy" - repetitive
  • milk sickness or milk-sickness?
  • "After finishing in New Orleans" - "finishing his trip" or "arriving"
  • "He was not a hard worker during his teens, often called lazy by his family and neighbors" - wording
  • "first hand" -> "firsthand"
  • Don't use contractions except when quoting
  • What is "an amorous understanding"?
    • I changed it to "relationship". Hopefully that's OK. I don't think anyone really knows if they had sex or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ann wanted to advise a former love before "consummating the engagement to Mr. L. with marriage."" - unclear
    • Care needed - Ann's quote.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I changed "advise" to "inform". Not sure if that really fixes it. My google book privileges for the Donald book have run out for the day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary Todd Lincoln or Mary Lincoln?
  • "She also struggled to make the most of the austere finances of a prairie lawyer quite obsessed with his work" - tone
  • Technically, at 18 Tad was an adult
  • "where the servants were black slaves" - this seems unnecessary given the context
    • Not done - That whole para needs adjustment. I'll get to it, so I'm leaving this note to remind myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he and his family visited the Todd estate in Lexington" - I assume they visited more than once?
  • What do you mean by "raconteur" in this context?
  • "by reading Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England and other masters" - "other masterworks", or reword
  • If you're going to link England, you should also link Liberia
  • "he voted to continue the restriction on suffrage to white males only, but removed the condition of land ownership" - did he himself remove that condition, or did he vote to remove it?
  • "no one was more enthusiastic than Lincoln" - not one single person? You'd have a hard time verifying that if you state it as a fact

Section I - break for ease of editing[edit]

  • "but showed his party loyalty, showing up" - repetitive
  • "the embittered Whig declined" - tone
  • "a "device to buoy vessels over shoals", or ballast tanks" - grammar
  • "an accent native to his home Kentucky" - awkward wording
  • "pro Kansas-Nebraska candidate" - grammar
  • "derived no rights under" - grammar
  • "the seven Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, generally considered the most famous political debate" - grammar
  • Still need to be more consistent on when south(ern) and north(ern) are capitalized. For example: "won only two of 996 counties in all the Southern states...with Lincoln winning the free northern states" - why the difference?
    • I think I got them all. In that example, "northern" is now cap'ed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Lincoln's election became more evident" - wording
  • "free slavery Missouri line" - grammar
    • Removed free slavery. There's a link to learn more. Hopefully that's enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secession winter section could be re-organized to improve flow
  • Fremont or Frémont?
  • "a proclamation of martial law in the entire state" - which state?
  • "American public opinion cheered" - wording
  • Trent or Trent affair?
  • "phases of the military effort and making a special effort" - repetitive
  • "was proven incapable of taking the offensive in the conduct of the war as Lincoln desired" - grammar
    • I went with "didn't conduct the war effort as aggressively as Lincoln wanted." Hopefully OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What position did McClellan hold immediately after Halleck was appointed general-in-chief?
  • "interrogated naval officers concerning the naval engagements" - repetitive
  • "Not only had Burnside been defeated on the battlefield, discontent and bad discipline was prominent among his soldiers" - wording
  • What is "the draft law"?
  • "gained votes in Yankee areas of New England and the upper Midwest, but it lost votes in the ethnic cities and the lower Midwest" - the Yankee/ethnic division should be explained a bit more clearly
  • "Using black troops and former slaves was official government policy" - if they are not troops, what are the former slaves used for ? The paragraph does not explain this

Section II - another break for ease in editing[edit]

  • "The New York Draft Riots of July 1863 showed discontent among Irish Americans but the defeat of the Copperheads in the Ohio election showed Lincoln's strong base of party support" - repetitive and awkwardly phrased
  • "the deaths of so many brave soldiers had deep meaning in as a new birth of liberty, with the promise of slavery's end, and because of these sacrifices the future of democracy in the world was assured" - grammar
  • "had deep meaning...had a deep meaning" - repetitive
  • Second paragraph of Gettysburg Address needs general prose work
  • "the rarely used full rank of Lt. General" - spell out abbreviation
  • "began a series of menacing assaults in the North which raised fears for the Capital" - tone
  • Where is Hampton Roads? Link or give state name?
  • Should give Lee's full name at some point
  • "Of special importance were Tennessee and Arkansas, where Lincoln appointed General Andrew Johnson and General Frederick Steele as military governors" - isn't Andrew Johnson of Tennessee the VP?
    • Not until 1865.Carmarg4 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Chronology should be clarified in regards to Johnson, and be consistent in using or not using "General" to refer to him. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lincoln provided Grant with new replacements and mobilized his party to support Grant and win local support for the war effort" - wording
  • "state GOP parties" - you haven't used this abbreviation elsewhere in the article, so don't assume readers know what it means
  • "Freedmen greeted his arrival at the city as a conquering hero" - grammar
  • "shifted emphasis...shifted the debate" - repetitive
  • Republicanism or republicanism? The two terms have different meanings - which is relevant here?
  • "state agricultural colleges in each state" - is there a less repetitive way to word this?
  • federal or Federal government?
  • "Lincoln signed the second and third Morrill Tariff" - "Tariffs", and the linked article is about the first; is there one about these?
    • Linked article appears top cover these as well. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assigning his co-conspirators to assassinate" - grammar
  • Use a consistent formatting for times
  • Ford's Theatre or Ford's theater?
  • Washington, D.C. or Washington DC?

Section break III - for easier editing[edit]

  • "He held the strong belief in a Providence" - grammar
  • "He felt that all men would go to heaven" - does he specify "men"?
  • "Lincoln would credit in later years" - can this be rephrased to avoid the conditional construction?
  • "Lacking a formal education, Lincoln's personal philosophy" - Lincoln's philosophy wasn't a student? Grammar
  • "the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies" - so it was a philosophical expression of a philosophy?
  • "opposition to territorial expansion and the nativist platform" - territorial expansion of the state or, as stated later, of slavery?
  • "it was, foremost, a moral document that had forever determined valuable principles for the future shaping of the nation" - wording is a bit vague
  • "Old School Calvinism" - is this the academic term? What does it mean?
    • Fixed. I don't see an "Old School" but as with most religious history, there are "traditional" and "neo" variants - Link to Calvinism added. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lincoln, Illinois, is the only city to be named for Abraham Lincoln before he became President" - verb tense
  • "and well as the remains of his wife" - grammar
  • "There are 220 statues displayed outdoors of Lincoln" -> "There are 220 statues of Lincoln displayed outdoors"?
  • "To commemorate his 200th birthday in February 2009, Congress established the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission (ALBC) in 2000 to honor Lincoln" - unclear phrasing. Was it established in 2000 or 2009?
  • Some general points regarding wikilinks: terms should be linked no more than once or twice, and should generally be linked on first appearance. More general terms should not be linked - for example, no need to link slavery when you've got slavery in the United States linked in the same section. However, terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to non-US readers should be linked.
    • We need to revisit. I recall we spent significant time on this issue in the FAC Carmarg4 (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue for removing some of the less relevant navboxes and categories (referring to him as an "American wrestler" is pushing it, in my opinion). Also, when did he have smallpox? How can he be in both a category for assassinated presidents and one for presidents who survived assassination attempts?
  • Don't include both categories and their subcategories
    • I made some slight adjustments. Do you know of a good way to tell what cats are redundant? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • Address citation-needed tags
  • "Lincoln went to the vanquished Confederate capital to publicly seal the Union victory, personally taking his seat at Jefferson Davis' own desk, in order to show reunion of the country under one president" - source?
    • I reworded to match the book at the end of that section, and adjusted the page numbers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Freedmen greeted his arrival at the city as a conquering hero" - source?
  • "The other rebels soon surrendered and there was no subsequent guerrilla warfare or insurgency of substance" - source?
  • Ref 12, 76, 211: formatting
  • Be consistent in including or not including a period and/or a space between p(p) and the page number(s)
  • Formatting for Lincoln bibliographic entries is off - those books may have been published in the 1900s, but Lincoln certainly didn't write anything then. Format those entries to reflect the fact that he's being quoted from or his writings republished
    • Not sure what to do here Could you tell me how to do one, and I can use that example to the three Lincoln books. Or I can just say the editors are the authors, or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you give me a bit more information about the sources? Here's a generic example, but I don't have all the information needed for the Lincoln books. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether short-form refs use author or editor's name, particularly when the author is Lincoln. If using the editor's name, be consistent in including or not including (ed.) as part of the short form
    • I'll wait for answer to previous comment before I decide how to do this. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in including or not including parentheses for dated short-form refs. For example, compare "Boritt 1997, p. 10." with "Nevins (1950), pp. 261–272."
  • Ref 96: you're going to need to give a bit more sourcing information than that
  • For refs where full bibliographic information is included only in footnotes, use the same formatting and include the same information as for bibliographic entries. Ref 56, for example, is incomplete
  • For refs where full bibliographic information is included in Bibliography, avoid repeating this information in footnotes
  • Why do some short-form refs use dates when disambiguation is not needed?
    • Does this mean don't include publ. date in ref if only that publication by the author is in bibliography, e.g ref.#22 ? Carmarg4 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means decide whether you're going to do so or not, and then apply your decision consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am unsure of the meaning of "when disambiguation is not needed". Carmarg4 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Disambiguation is needed when you have more than one source by a single author. If, for example, you cite one book John Smith wrote in 2001 and another her wrote in 2004, a short-form reference to the first would need to include "2001". However, if you only cite the 2001 book and no other by Smith, then disambiguation (and thus the date) is not needed). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic information for Sherman 1990, McPherson 2009, Bose, Sweetman, Carroll, Dennis, Schauffler
  • Burkhimer, Emerson 2007, Fehrenbacher, Guelzo 2001, Holzer 2006, "Abraham Lincol", McPherson 1992 and 2007 and 2008, Mitchell 2007, Swanson 2006, Wilentz 2009, Zarefsky 1993 are in Bibliography but not in footnotes - perhaps split into a Further reading section?
    • I used these books in making my edits: Burkhimer, Fehrenbacher, Guelzo, Holzer, McPherson (several books), Swanson, Wilentz, Zarefsky. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You used them how? There's no citations to these books. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I read them. When editing AL, I would always look at several books and sometimes some scholarly articles covering the same topic, but only the most one gets a reference--it had to represent the consensus of scholars and also be reasonably available in libraries. In this article the Donald bio is widely accessible, while some advanced monographs are hard for readers to get (since smaller libraries do not have them). Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sources of the type you describe are generally more appropriate for a Further reading or other generalized section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I follow the specific Wikipedia rule: "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section." WP:cite The "Further reading" has a different function (telling readers where to go next for in-depth treatment of a large topic.) Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then I suggest you create a subsection titled "General references". The current configuration mixes those with references to which citations exist, which is not a good format. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess we leave this as is ? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. The section needs to be split one way or the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Added Primary Refs sub section for cited sources and General References sub-section for uncited sources; this is similar to Peterson's bibliography for Jefferson. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2, 56, 171: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether short-form refs end in a period or not
  • Consistently use dashes for page ranges, not hyphens
  • American Heritage refs need to be more consistently formatted
  • Be consistent in using author surname or first name first in full footnotes
  • For consistency, refs 51 and 52 should not include weblinks
    • Problem seems to have been solved, unless it moved. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in using URL or website/company name as publisher for web sources
  • All references to web sources need retrieval date, and the date should be formatted consistently
  • In general, format refs more consistently - there are many inconsistencies here
  • Ref 218: what makes this a reliable source?
  • Refs 258 and 265 - need more information

Bibliography[edit]

  • Remove "number of pages" from all entries
  • Add ISBNs for all recently-published works
  • Remove descriptions of the source (ex: "historiography") unless you intend to use them in a Further reading section
  • Burkhimer: check publication date, and move it to after author name
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are wikilinked always, on first appearance only, or never
  • Spell out publisher names - avoid abbreviations unless they are part of the publisher's official name
  • Somebody has left a hidden comment in this section that may need to be addressed
  • Oxford University Press US or U.S.? If the later, make sure to avoid doubling the period. Also, is "Oxford University Press" without the US part the same publisher?
  • Be consistent in how you format "ed"
  • Foner 2010: publisher?
  • Check formatting for Guelzo 2009
  • Heidler 2000, Schwartz 2009, Taranto: what are the page numbers for?
  • Use a consistent formatting for entries with multiple authors/editors
  • "Abraham Lincol" - check spelling and formatting
  • Check order for multiple entries by a single author
  • Check formatting for Randall and for Sandburg
  • Taranto: date?
  • Thomas: publisher?
  • Check formatting for Wilentz
  • I'm not in a position to check this, but before considering FAC you should make sure that your sources reflect the available body of literature and that they are all considered scholarly by experts in the field
let's keep number of pages; tells what readers want to know. There is only one Oxford University Press (it has multiple offices). Foner 2010 = W. W. Norton . "Spell out publisher names" is not a Wiki rule. All the books in the notes are top-of-line scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency in referencing is a Wiki rule, and why do readers care about number of pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I was teaching undergraduates I would assign book reports--they could choose a title from the list to read and write a 3 page report. They strongly preferred the shorter books. :) Rjensen (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. I have made changes per requests above (did not see this note); and, I believe the vast majority of the sources relied upon in the article are highly reputed. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emancipation Proclamation[edit]

Lincoln rejected emancipation two times from Union Maj. Gen. John C. Frémont and Maj. Gen. David Hunter. This should briefly be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)  Fixed[reply]

Suffered depression[edit]

The lede should mention that Lincoln suffered from depression. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and memorials section[edit]

This section should be separated into two segments. There is not much on the legacy and alot on the memorials. How about discussing the Emancipation Proclamation as Lincoln's legacy and starting the constitutional amendment process to abolish slavery. His willingness to go to war to preserve the Union and his ability as commander in chief in terms of handling the Radicals. Also, his rise from relative obscurity to be President of the United States. Another take would be on how southerners view Lincoln today. These issues and possibly others should be mentioned; something to wrap up the article and tie things together. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broad[edit]

  • Why such heavy emphasis on the religion and philosophy section? It seems disproportionate
    • Lots of people are deeply interested in his beliefs and values, as are the historians. (Rjensen) Carmarg4 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The high level of interest here I think stems from his background, the country's circumstances during his service, and the notoriety of his speeches. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Lincoln do anything of importance between the end of the war and his death?
  • Need a bit more information about the draft
  • Perhaps add a sentence or two about his funeral and lying in state (and possibly his exhumation), and about Johnson being sworn in
  • If length is a concern, some of the more tangential details of the Civil War trimmed
  • Make sure that all level-2 section headings are represented somewhat proportionally in the lead - lead should be a succinct summary of the article. It could do with some reorganization, but it's fairly well written - just needs to be a touch broader
  • Did his presidency see any foreign-policy issues other than the Trent?
    • His foreign policy (besides Trent) was mostly handled by the State Dept. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

  • "Very tall and strong, young Lincoln was handy with an axe and became a talented local wrestler, which imbued him with self-confidence" - tone
  • Generally speaking, maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times. Avoid the temptation to mimic the tone of the sources - it's quite easy to adopt tones unconsciously when you're spending a lot of time reading history books
  • WP:W2W - use as precise language as possible, and avoid wording that implies a bias
that is neutral, accurate encyclopedic language, attested by all the RS. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "that"? And how can "encyclopedic language" be attested to by the RS, unless you're including a direct quote from an encyclopedia? Could you explain your statement firther? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the language used by RS. Proof: "tall and strong" (used by Ida Tarbell 1900 vol 1 p 50); "handy with an axe" (Carl Sandburg, vol 1 p 7); talented local wrestler (Guelzo 2009; Sandburg vol 1). "self-confidence" (David Donald). Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you seem to be suggesting, those are direct quotes in the article, then add quote marks. If not, rephrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
those are not direct quotes. You asked for evidence that the RS use this sort of language and I demonstrated that they do so. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be misunderstanding my point. I'm sure that the RS use that sort of language. The point is, that doesn't mean we can - we are an encyclopedia project, and are bound by rules of tone and WP:NPOV that don't affect RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wandered over to this page and have two comments. Technically you should reword those phrases into your own words more or use quotes to avoid accusations of plagiarism. Its a very close call, but if the sources say "tall and strong" and you say "tall and strong" or "handy with an axe" and you say "handy with an axe" you could be accused of just copying things from the books. I mistakenly did something similar in the past when I was coming off a several year break, and its terrifying when its pointed out to you. In my case I was rusty concerning the rules; I said to myself when it was first pointed out "Well are we are doing is re-iterating what a source says so naturally its going to be similar", and I was also sloppily adding in the material in a mad rush—When I re-checked and re-wrote everything against the sources I noticed no less than 8–10 times I got the page numbers I referenced wrong as well.
Also, re-enforcing what Nikki said, reliable sources that are frequently valuable in terms of info, aren't always written in an encyclopedic tone. I'm working on a bunch of film articles now and the book sources have a ton of superlatives in them. That doesn't mean they aren't reliable sources. Quadzilla99 (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the words used were not quoted or copied from anyone--it's the vocabulary used for scholarly biography. The tone is encyclopedic as it stands. (The citations were added to the talk page per request to demonstrate that historians actually use such words--for example the TARBELL book was not used in the writing of this article) All the RS used in this article are from top scholars, not Hollywood PR people. Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood thing was an example (the writers I was referring to were film historians in one case, a professor who teaches at Brandeis), but also biographers can use flowery language. An article I wrote on a particular writer, was the same way, even though the main source was a University publication. Reading other biographies they're often the same, plus even books I've read on ancient Greece can be that way. In the case cited above I would change it to something like "Lincoln was very tall for his age, and could handle an axe. He used his natural strength to become a local wrestler, and his success in wrestling is credited with increasing his confidence." Tbh that could be written a lot better but I think you get the idea. Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be: ""Lincoln was tall for his age, and could handle an axe. He used his natural strength to become a local wrestler, and his success in the sport is credited with increasing his confidence." Quadzilla99 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't work. he was an extreme case in height and strength and wrestling. He was nationally famous for his axe-work (the "rail splitter" was a nickname). "is credited with" is poor term. The challenge here is that AL has been written about by many great writers, and to be faithful to the RS we need very bold, clear, accurate language. We can be wishy-washy (or "encyclopedic") on Millard Fillmore but not Abe Lincoln. As for superlatives, he was one of the most famous and important men in history, and that has to be conveyed to the readers. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were writing elsewhere I would agree. I thought the exact same way as you (like literally 100% the same) when I brought Michael Jordan up for FAC. Although the article passed it only did so after a very, very long back and forth over what we could say in summary about him. Even though he is overwhelmingly recognized as the greatest basketball player ever, everything had to termed carefully or quoted to avoid lot of potential POV. A lot of statements were removed and the language made much drier, plus we just used other people's quotes to express his greatness, his tremendous leaping ability, his athleticism, his physical strength, showed examples of him making clutch plays instead of just saying he was a clutch player etc.
Tbh if what you're saying about Lincoln is true that makes your sentence look worse imho. If he was known nationally as the "rail splitter" then it would be a lot easier just to mention that. Also "very tall and strong" doesn't establish that he was an extreme case. Even if he was an extreme case like you say, you should probably directly cite a source that says that or give a specific example. I'm 6'4 and lift weights, that makes me very tall and strong, doesn't make me an extreme case (anyone 6'4 who lifts weights could be classified as very tall and strong). Lastly, unless you have a source where Lincoln himself directly says it increased his confidence, then someone else is reaching that conclusion and you're summarizing their thoughts. So it would be best to either use quotes, quote the biographer by name, or give multiple sources that are independent of each other.
You don't have to use my example, as I said the writing in that example is not great. But I agree with Nikki in that it needs to be re-worded. Now that I've said my peace, I'll get out of the way and let her finish her review. Quadzilla99 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no, we have to stick with the chronology, and this section is before he became famous. The facts (tall, strong, axe, wrestler, self confidence) are covered in all the major biographies (Herndon, Tarbell, Beveridge, Sandburg, Thomas, Randall, Oates, Guelzo, Donald, White, etc. etc) and there is no controversy at all about them. They each take several pages to make the points where we have a couple sentences. I really don't see what the fuss is about. HOWEVER to say that "according to xxx" with a footnote is a misleading flag that suggests it's a controversial statement and needs proof, or that there is a historiographical controversy where non exists. Excess footnotes weaken an article and turn off readers (so much so that publishers seeking a large market avoid them). Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, we are doing some rail splitting here for sure, aren't we (meaning hard work) ? I'm reading the comments on this particular item and in terms of the substance, recalling the multiple occasions on which Donald referenced Lincoln's ungainliness, to the point of being downright unattractive. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed (?). I replaced the sentence and added a cite - doubtful that I addressed all the concerns expressed - but no plagiarism. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

Close enough

Images[edit]

  • Something strange going on with the image formatting under Assassination - I seem to be seeing two captions. Was that intentional?
  • "US Postage, 1958 issue, commemorating the Lincoln and Douglas debates" - should be consistent with article text
  • Captions are subject to essentially the same standards of prose quality, neutrality, and sourcing as the article text (although incomplete sentences are allowed)
  • Only include images when and where they are relevant
  • Avoid stacking images and sandwiching text between images
    •  Done. Layout looks good to me. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abe-Lincoln-Birthplace-2.jpg - all source links are dead, making verification of the licensing impossible
    • With verification lacking, should this picture be removed? If so, I will raise the issue on the AL talk page and delete if no verification is provided after a suitable time period. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary_Todd_Lincoln_1846-1847.jpg - source link says "creation/publication" date is 1846-47, but you need to show that that was the publication date (I think...images aren't my area of expertise). This also applies to several other images tagged PD-US
    • I don't see the word "creation" in the links, just "publication" in 1846-1847. Am I not looking in the right spot or has the linked file been changed? Carmarg4 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abelincoln1846.jpeg - why was this flipped from the original source?
    • Please clarify this "flipped" and "PD-US" and Mary L. problem - I'm weak in the image area as well. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you compare Abelincoln1846.jpg to the source image linked from the image description page, you will that the two are mirror images of each other - this is generally discouraged, so I'm wondering if there is a particular reason why it was done. PD-US refers to the licensing tag on the description page of the Mary L image and several others, producing this text: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923". You will notice that it specifies publication prior to 1923, not creation. Thus, as the source link provided says "creation/publication" instead of just "publication", it's unclear whether PD-US can be used. If you can prove that publication occurred pre-1923, then that tag can be used; if it was created pre-1923 but not published then, you may need to choose a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. Image is in correct orientation. The description page of the later image states that the earlier image was the one that was in fact flipped - noting that in the earlier image L's hair is parted on the wrong side and the jacket opens on the wrong side. I have reviewed L's various photos in Donald, which confirms this. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Young_Lincoln_By_Charles_Keck.JPG - based on my reading of Freedom of panorama rules on Commons, the sculpture is not PD
  • Lincoln_Douglas_Debates_1958_issue-4c.jpg - per this, image is PD-USGov
    •  Done. Licensing tag changed on image description page. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ElectoralCollege1860.svg, ElectoralCollege1864.svg - source for data and for blank map?
  • Abraham_lincoln_inauguration_1861.jpg - need to include creator's date of death. Also, it would help to link directly to the LoC description page instead of the third-party source provided
  • Lincoln_second.jpg - need a more specific source than "Library of Congress"
  • Lincoln-Warren-1865-03-06.jpeg - include date of death for creator
  • The_Assassination_of_President_Lincoln_-_Currier_and_Ives_2.png - Currier and Ives is the publisher, not the author. For the current licensing tag to be valid, you need to include the author and his/her date of death
  • TheApotheosisLincolnAndWashington1860s.jpg - source link is dead, making verification of licensing impossible
US federal law says all images pre 1923 are public domain. Most are also anonymous as to artist. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually yes, but Wikipedia practice requires that we demonstrate that an image was published prior to 1923 and/or (depending on circumstances) who the author was or why the author cannot be determined. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currier and Ives closed in 1907 and so everything they published was well before 1923. they did not attribute their anonymous artists of specific works, and scholars assign authorship to "Currier and Ives". Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. However, per WP and FAC image conventions, you need to say so on the relevant image description pages, and preferably provide proof. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on the AL talk page the names of the images in non-compliance with licensing guidelines in hopes that someone with expertise in the image arena can help. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/GA2&oldid=1088271899"