Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [1].

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Abraham Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a great president. I have contacted top contributor Carmag4 about this and he has approved of me nominating this. I have put this through a peer review and everything put up has been fixed. The last nomination has no consensus and no opposes. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:FFA, has been on main page
  • Discussion on nomination etc moved to talk. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part one[edit]

Fair enough. Here are some comments:

  • In the first sentence of "Early life" I don't think you need to say "(no middle name)".
    • Fixed, with specification re given name. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "Abraham Lincoln was born..." is the standard formulation, and would work here. You said there had been some trouble over it in the past, but I don't think simply stating his name would be controversial (although I've seen far more innocuous things spin into edit wars here). Coemgenus 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When writing of his engagement to Mary Todd, you write that they met in December 1839 and were engaged sometime in late December. Does that mean the same month, or a year later?
  • In the early career section, the sentence "In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln bought a small general store in New Salem, Illinois; he purchased it on credit along with a partner " might read better as "In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. "
  • In the next sentence, the last three words ("of the business") are superfluous.
  • At the end of that paragraph, "eighth out of 13" should have both numbers spelled out, or else neither spelled out, but I think both is better.
  • In the next paragraph, "self-study" sounds like introspection. I think "self-education", or "independent study" would better get the point across.
  • In the final paragraph of that section, "suffrage, or voting rights" might be better as just "suffrage" with a wikilink to explain it.
  • That's all for now, I'll check in later with more. --Coemgenus 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review spotchecks not done

  • See here for problematic links
  • "The stage was then set for the campaign for statewide election of the Illinois legislature which would, in turn, select Lincoln or Douglas as its U.S. Senator." - source?
  • "a denigrating editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which urged emancipation as a prerequisite to military success" - source?
  • "Some time after Lincoln's presidency, the date was changed to the fourth Thursday in November." - very vague statement
  • "the second most visited public park in the United States" - source?
  • "The Lincoln Shrine in Redlands, California is the only Lincoln museum facility west of the Mississippi River." - source?
    • Fixed. Statement moved to talk page until sourced. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
  • Page ranges should use "pp." and endashes
  • Missing bibliographic info for Stauffer
  • Footnote 50: formatting
  • FN 74: formatting, pages missing
    • Done. FN removed (duplicate cite) to talk page w/ request for p. #. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 77: formatting
  • In general, footnote and reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency
  • What makes this a reliable source?
    • Done. Moved to talk p. for RS establishment; new cite added. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 136: pages?
    • Done. Moved to talk p. for fix; and also query re pertinence to article. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include full bibliographic info in Footnotes for sources included in References
    • Done. A couple items moved to talk p. to complete bibliog. info needed. Sourcing remains.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 204: formatting, publisher
  • FN 257, 259: publisher?
    • Fixed. Duplicate cite - moved to talk p. for complete biblio. info. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 265: spell out publisher name
  • FN 275: more information needed
    • Done. Entry and its cite moved to talk p. for establishment of RS. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out publisher names
  • All sources cited in Primary References should either be footnotes or moved to General References
  • "Nevins, Allan (1960). The War for the Union: War becomes revolution, 1862–1863" - according to GBooks, this is volume 2 of the series listed here as being published in 2000. Is 1960 the original publication date? If so, should be notated as such, and the later volumes should have edition numbers. Also, this book should be notated as a volume in the series
    • Fixed. Volume number noted. Publ. date verified. Edition Nos. referred to talk p. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting used for General References should match that used for Primary References
  • External links could stand to be culled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. A number selected and moved to talk p. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part one and a half[edit]

A few more comments

  • I made a few tweaks to the "Early national politics section". Revert if you find them inappropriate.
  • That section doesn't explain why Lincoln didn't return to Congress. I seem to recall that he ran again and lost, but I'm not certain. Either way, it bears explanation.
    • Fixed. (Lost commissioner job and return to law practice.) Carmarg4 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that he didn't get the commissioner job, but did he run for reelection in 1848 or just decide not to run again?
        • Fixed again. Per Donald, AL pledged to serve only one term. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Prairie lawyer," I would spell out "10" and "16"
  • Also in that section, the sentence that starts "As a riverboat man..." needs a citation.
  • The last sentence of that section, about the client being a distant relation, seems trivial. I'd delete it.
  • The first paragraph of "Republican politics is kind of rambling. I would start out with "Lincoln returned to politics to oppose the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854." Then, spend two or three sentences explaining the Act and Douglas's role in it.
  • In the third paragraph, maybe change "decided to run" to "ran".
  • In the next sentence, take out "in Illinois". Senators were elected by state legislatures in all states back then, weren't they?
  • At the end of that paragraph, I don't think anyone hyphenates "Vice-President" any more. Also, check WP:JOBTITLES to see if it should be lower-case. I think that guideline is wrong, but it is the rule here.
    • Fixed. (vice president without a name). Carmarg4 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next paragraph, instead of calling Dred Scott "pro-slavery," why not just let the ruling, which you've aptly summarized, speak for itself? I'd actually call it anti-black rather than pro-slavery, since it restricted the rights of that entire race, not just those who were enslaved.
  • In the sentence about his 1858 nomination, I would take out both parentheticals. The first one is just confusing.
  • That's all for now. More later. --Coemgenus 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments. I was concerned by the overuse of short quotations throughout the article. I am quite pleased with the solutions that Carmarg and I were able to come implement, and have since moved my resolved concerns to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. Also, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who have so clearly poured their efforts into this most vital of articles. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions should follow same standards for prose and MoS issues as article text
    • Fixed. An editor on the AL talk page preferred the former captions. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the images in the "Assassination" section have multi-level captions?
  • File:Abe-Lincoln-Birthplace-2.jpg - direct source link appears to be broken
    • I have updated the links on the image page. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Young_Lincoln_By_Charles_Keck.JPG - need more info on sculptor, particularly date of death
    • Keck died in 1951 (this is readily ascertainable via a variety of searches); I have updated the image page. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg and File:ElectoralCollege1864.svg - what base map was used to create these works? What data source?
    • The user who created these images appears to be inactive. One of this article's subject experts may be able to locate a data source whose numbers match those in the images. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Abraham_Lincoln_by_George_Peter_Alexander_Healy.jpg - is the White House Historical Association a branch of the federal government, or is it an independent group? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image appears to be incorrectly licensed. The photographer/scanner isn't relevant, since the image appears to satisfy {{PD-Art}} requirements for 2d images. I've corrected the license and provided a link to the association's page on the image. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad[edit]

Comments

  • Please see WP:LINK in regards to the wikilinking in the article. It's not in horrible condition but is a bit heavy on geographical linking. The less linking the better, especially for common terms. Brad (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Took out over 20, mostly geographic and duplicates. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CSS Virginia and USS Monitor clash was during the Battle of Hampton Roads. Suggest clarifying that in the General McClellan section. Brad (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm catching some redundancy in a few areas. You cover the Emancipation Proclamation in its own section but later on in the Reconstruction section you're covering it again. Also, in the General Grant section you mention Lee's surrender but cover it again in the Reconstruction section.Brad (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed EP redundancy - edits clarify the proclamation exempted some states, then Lincoln sought to broaden abolition as part of Reconstruction – advise if further adjustment is needed.
    • Fixed surrender. Looks much better I think. Please advise if further adjustment needed. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have methodically gone through the references and brought standardization to them. They were good but the layout was a bit chaotic. Also cleaned more overlinking.
  • I have left some maintenance tags with hidden notes in the assassination section and the Religious and philosophical beliefs section.
  • The Religious and philosophical beliefs section is quite large compared to other sections in the article. Is too much weight being given to the subject here when there is a separate article? Brad (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Reviewed and edited modestly to make it more succinct. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been expanded since I last worked on it. I recall this to be, quite expectedly, a very sensitive area to edit. I agree; it's longer than needed. I suggest some consensus from reviewers on abridging this and then post a notice on the talk page before abridging it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four photos missing alt text, four references that are dead links and two links that need disambiguation. Brad (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed four dead links. (ref. #41 isn't dead; two others removed and one replaced. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part two[edit]

More comments:

  • Under "Lincoln-Douglas debates" the sentence starting "Lincoln had found clarity..." seems out of place and superfluous.
  • In the 1860 section, "Tapping on..." sounds odd. Maybe "Drawing on..."?
    • Fixed. Used "exploiting" - legend was overdone. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph there's a squinting modifier. I'd suggest "Most Republicans agreed with Lincoln that the North was the aggrieved party, as the Slave Power tightened its grasp on the national government with the Dred Scott decision and the presidency of James Buchanan."
  • That's all for now, got to go to work. More later. --Coemgenus 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments:

  • In the last paragraph of "1860 election" the sentence with the phrase "the Confederacy was an established area," is awkward, especially that clause.
    • Fixed, and other adjustments to improve chronology. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "War begins," I'd link David Herbert Donald and mention that he's an historian.
  • In the last paragraph of that section, "angry secessionist mobs" could probably lose the "angry". Mobs are usually not happy.
    • Fixed.
  • Also in that paragraph, Merryman asked Taney for a writ of habeus corpus, but it doesn't say whether he issued it.
  • In "Assuming command...", the first sentence is awkward. I'd suggest "Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented crisis, and he responded using unprecedented powers that no President had previously wielded." Doesn't have to be that exact language, but something on those lines would work better, I think.
  • The clause about mourning Willie seems out of place in the second paragraph.
    • Fixed. Deleted - mentioned earlier. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lincoln's efforts to rein him in were futile, and he was given another command in November. This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence in the North." I'm not sure what's going on here. Fremont's radicalism kept Kentucky in the Union? I don't have Donald's biography at hand, so I can't check it out for myself (I read it, but years ago) but if that's what he says, I guess it's OK. It's just a bit unclear from the sentences.
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs could be combined -- they're both short and both on foreign policy.
  • In the sixth paragraph, I just hate the word "numerous" where "many" could do the job. If you think that's crazy or out of line, leave it be, but I think simpler words sound better. Again, just a suggestion.
  • In the same paragraph, hyphenate "well defended".
  • In the last sentence of that paragraph, you might mention that the idea of controlling the Mississippi came from Winfield Scott and that Lincoln benefitted from Scott's advice early in the war. Then again, if you want to save space, feel free to leave it out.
  • That's it, more later. Despite these comments, I'm enjoying the article so far. --Coemgenus 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more comments:

  • The first paragraph under McClellan kind of runs all over the place. I came up with a new one, here. Do you think it works better? If so, tweak it to your liking and add it.
    • Done. Looks more like what I recall writing, before it got "transformed". Carmarg4 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth paragraph of that section, the desertion rate needs a citation.
  • The last two paragraphs in that section could probably be combined.
    • Done. Sentence also edited to reduce wordiness. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Gettysburg address", you need a cite for the fact that the speech is "one of the most quoted speeches in history".
  • In the General Grant section, I think Holmes's rank should be capitalized. On the other hand, I don't think "Whites" should be capitalized in the last paragraph, but that may be a matter of taste rather than grammar.
  • More later. --Coemgenus 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • Under 1864 re-election, there should be a cite for his defeating efforts to deny his renomination.
  • In the third paragraph, maybe "new replacements" should be "more soldiers" or "more troops" or something.
  • Same paragraph: has Farragut been linked before?
  • The first sentence of "Reconstruction" is odd. Maybe "Reconstruction of the conquered South began during the war, as Lincoln and his associates anticipated questions of how to reintegrate the seceeded states and how to determine the fates of Confederate leaders and the freed slaves."?
  • In the second paragraph of that section, I think "reforming from" should be "re-forming after". Then again, the whole sentence could stand to be rewritten.
  • In the last paragraph, first sentence, I think "had quickly initiated a lobbying effort" can be changed to "encouraged Congress". --Coemgenus 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other FA presidential articles, the "Supreme Court appointments" and "States admitted" sections are prose, not just lists. --Coemgenus 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have prepared a prose draft of the SC appointments on my talk page; but I am not skilled to make the design changes required to replace the list now in the AL article. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have a look at it when I get to my home computer (I'm writing this on a phone, which isn't good for large-scale editing). --Coemgenus 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have also drafted a short paragraph on the state admissions, and also a piece of analysis, which a reviewer felt was lacking in the article. (NOT my area of expertise.) I would appreciate your reaction to all of these. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed Supreme Court appointments conversion to prose. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed states admitted to the union - conversion to prose. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant[edit]

Comment - Thought I'd wander over here from the Frank Buckles FAR. I've been stuck on my iPhone the past few days, and this thing is too small for such a huge subject as Abe Lincoln. So, I'll just make a few tentative comments for now. Possibly the most stirring line ever uttered by any incumbent US President was the one about the "better angels of our nature". You quote it, but why not a blockquote? Incidentally, I think he signed off on Yosemite, the world's first national park? Maybe worth mentioning, maybe not. Same goes for these factoids: patented inventor, born same day as Charles Darwin, had symptoms consistent with Marfan's Syndrome, like Washington has no living descendants, Teddy Roosevelt watched his casket go through NYC. Anyway, please consider doing the angels blockquote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations with respect to blockquote – the use of block quotes has not been urged up to this point; if we do one quote, we'll undoubtedly have to do many others. We are already up there in article size. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patented inventor is included. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can add link to his birthday. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marfan's syndrome - Donald indicates the evidence was not sufficient to conclude AL had it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. See Yosemite_National_Park#Yosemite_Grant and sources cited therein. There is continuing speculation about whether Lincoln suffered from various disorders, and plans are afoot to find out for sure. See Newsweek. Regarding blockquotes, another option might be a quote box. If there is consensus about the one or two greatest sentences he ever uttered, then there would be no obligation to treat other quotes equally, IMO. By the way, here's a reliable source giving Lincoln and Darwin joint credit for ushering in the modern world. No pressure to include any of this, they're just ideas for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemite Park added with cite. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a nice big desktop computer for a little while, so will try to give this article a quick read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Okay, I know you have been waiting in suspense for my comments.  :-) I'll start now with the lead....

  • I would delete "greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisis". This is highly debatable, considering the founding era, and defeating the axis powers (and some might even say that the country is presently in its greatest moral crisis). I suggest below adding some stuff to the lead, but this is definitely something that can be removed without any problem. So: "He successfully led the country through the American Civil War, preserving the Union while ending slavery and promoting economic modernization." Certainly, promoting economic modernization in the 1860s was not some huge crisis that dwarfed the Great Depression.
  • You say "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including Ulysses S. Grant." I'd expand this slightly to say what's so special about Grant: "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including his most successful general, Ulysses S. Grant."
    • We need to be careful here - potential conflicting POV's over who was the "most successful" general. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. And yet something should be said to briefly distinguish Grant from all the others. Following are some quotes from Google Books:
(1) "Grant was Lincoln's military alter ego"
(2) "Grant was Lincoln's favorite general"
(3) "Grant was Lincoln's friend and Lincoln's heir"
(4) "Grant was Lincoln's favourite general"
(5) "US Grant was Lincoln's greatest general"
(6) "Grant was Lincoln's only general who consistently won victories"
Would one of those work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find a descriptive term from AL; that should do it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Used the facts. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can sometimes be useful in a pinch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "He defused a confrontation with Britain in the Trent affair late in 1861." I'd rephrase to give the readers a clue why they should care: "He defused the Trent affair in 1861, which had threatened to bring British recognition of the Confederacy."
  • You say, "Just six days after the decisive surrender of the commanding general of the Confederate army, Lincoln was shot and killed...." I'd explicitly mention Lee (you mention Grant twice in the lead): "Just six days after the decisive surrender of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was shot and killed...."
  • You say, "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents." Please modify to something like this: "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest, if not the single greatest, of U.S. presidents." See Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States.

Cheers, maybe more comments later about the rest of the article, if time allows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, now, that wasn't so painful, was it?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I appreciate the changes to the lead. The Yosemite edit was nice too, but feel free to remove it if you think best. I think it's okay, but there are counterarguments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:I would like to flag something else in the lead. Lincoln's use of "patronage" when he was president is mentioned not once but twice in the lead, which may be excessive, especially because "patronage" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, except in reference to him seeking a position in the 1830s (as head of the General Land Office which later helped establish protection for a certain forested area in California). I decided to be bold, and have edited the article like this to solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*(Undent) I'd like to continue making a few comments now and then as I'm able. Consider this material in the article:

The family belonged to a Separate Baptists church, which had high moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery,[10] though Thomas, as an adult, never joined a church. Thomas "enjoyed considerable status" in Kentucky, where he sat on juries, appraised estates, served on country patrols, and guarded prisoners. By the time his son Abraham was born, Thomas owned two 600-acre (240 ha) farms, several town lots, livestock, and horses. He was among the richest men in the area.

This is confusing, because if Thomas didn't join a church, then you can't say the family belonged to a church; better to say that the churchgoing members of the family belonged to such-and-such church? And why quote "enjoyed considerable status"? That's not quoteworthy, and no source is discussed, so why not rephrase without quotes: Thomas had considerable social status (or something like that)? And at the end it says Thomas was the richest man in the area. What area?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"His family and neighbors considered him to be lazy.[21][22] Lincoln avoided hunting and fishing out of an aversion to killing animals.". His entire family, including his step-mother? Vegetarian?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"house girl" seems like an odd term.

*Tad's cause of death? The causes for two other brothers are given.

*Robert committed his mother to a mental hospital, but she got out, right? Maybe you could briefly indicate that it wasn't for the rest of her life.

    • I think she had to go back in. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • She was in from 1875-1876, and then she got out, and was free until 1882.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did she go back in then? (Donald doesn't cover this.) Carmarg4 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • She was only in for four months, then she was out for her remaing six years.[2]

*"Lincoln's connections in Lexington could have accelerated his ambitions, but he remained in Illinois.". The word "accelerated" seems amiss here. Maybe "helped satisfy"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1834, he won election to the state legislature after a bipartisan campaign, though he ran as a Whig.". This is very confusing. In what sense was it bipartisan? If he was a Whig, did he reject some Whig positions in favor of the other party's positions?
  • Caption says "filmed Lincoln in 1860". How about "photographed"? No movies back then.
  • "derived no rights from the Declaration of Independence or Constitution." I'd cross out Devlaration of Ibdependence here, because it never was a source of legal rights, and as to natural rights the Declaration simply recognized existing inalienable rights rather than conferring any rights.
  • "though strong in his disagreement with the Court's opinion, was as a lawyer unequivocal in his deference to the Court's authority." This is incorrect. In his first Inaugural Address, for example, Lincoln explained that the "eminent tribunal" could not control an entire political issue. And on June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, overturning Dred Scott. Lincoln signed it. (Please keep in mind Lincoln's reaction to Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.)
    • Fixed. I had misread a statement AL made just prior in 1856. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Mark 3:25)". Would a footnote be better here than a parenthetical? Or maybe, "then delivered his famous speech, beginning with a quote from the Book of Mark".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it as is but will change it if you can't live with it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends. The parenthetical is within quote marks. Did he say it parenthetically, or is the parenthetical ours? If he didn't say it, then it may be a problem, but there may be easy solutions, not limited to the ones I suggested. The way it is now makes it seem like he said it parenthetically, which I doubt he did. Maybe brackets instead of parentheses? It's totally up to you whether to leave it as-is. I already stated my support anyway for making this a featured article. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I thought differently after reading your reply. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote includes this: ""Abe Lincoln" redirects here. For the musician, see Abe Lincoln (musician).". I'd delete all of that, so that the hatnote simply refers to the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page. We don't normally use hatnotes to list everything that redirects there, so why do it here? And Abe Lincoln (musician) is listed at the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page anyway. I just think the hatnote is now too big and therefore off-putting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and changed this. Feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Coemgenus' last comment above re using prose instead of a list for S.Ct. appts. & states. Can you help with changing the layout? It's above my skill level.
        • Can't right now, but will add it to my list. Aren't you drafting something at your talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I have, and I would very much appreciate your comment on that and an analysis piece which was requested by a reviewer. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Revealing. Can we move this down under Wehwalt's suggestion ? We'll need to fix this it appears. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt[edit]

Comment The amount of evaluation of Lincoln, surely something required for a man who is, at worst, our second-most prominent president, is surprisingly small. While there is some mention in the lede of scholars ranking of Lincoln, there really isn't much analysis, and what there is seems a bit hagiographic. Lincoln remains controversial for such matters as the suspension of habeas corpus. I think you've got to have some sort of evaluation of Lincoln, which at least mentions historical controversies regarding Lincoln. I can surely understand this is a path you may be reluctant to go down, but I hesitate to call the article comprehensive at the present time. Also, are you certain on your capitalization of Administration? Those being said, I have not studied the article in depth but it is an excellent effort and a great improvement on what used to be there. I haven't decided whether to formally review the article, but I surely hope such an important article is promoted. You will forgive us all if we cut you no breaks. I surely will not support unless I am convinced of the article's worthiness given the importance of the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These observations are quite valid. I myself have indeed made it a priority to stick with the facts – AL is a powerful draw for POV's and the article does push the limit on size. We certainly are remiss if we don't at least mention a controversy and provide references for further research. That said, for an encyclopedic work, what better compliment than a reader begging for more, assuming you give them a map. I welcome your help to improve the article. Where is the "Administration" you referenced? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Habeas corpus suspension is a very complex, touchy, legal matter and it may be best to merely say here that Lincoln suspended the writ even though Taney told him not to. The clause in the Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It doesn't explicitly say that only Congress can suspend the writ in those circumstances. But, the clause is in Article One, which perhaps suggests that only Congress can suspend the writ, or that preferably Congress rather than the President would do so, or that perhaps there is a higher standard of proof when the president does so. And then there is the issue of whether Congress approved of what Lincoln did, by passive acquiescence, or by affirmatively recognizing existence of rebellion. And you also have to consider whether Congress and the President can ever team up to suspend the writ, if the courts are open for business. These are very thorny issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided a link to the article on habeas corpus in the "War begins" section for readers wanting to delve further. The question is whether we should discuss the issue further in the AL article. I recommend against it – to do so potentially makes the article overwhelming to the average reader. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I lean against further covering it in this article, because it's such a thorny, complex, touchy issue. But, if it is covered further in this article, I would hope that the basic points I mentioned would be included. Many scholars often say that Lincoln had no problem violating or overstretching the Constitution in this case, and they argue that therefore violating or overstretching the Constitution is fine. But there is an equally good argument (alluded to in my previous comment) that what Lincoln did was constitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, were there world enough and time, I would love to help out. But I have enough trouble finding time for my own projects, unless I want a 5 a.m. editing session every night and to surrender the few remaining hours of sleep. This article recounts well the events of Lincoln's life. But is it truly complete without what I have stated above? Don't focus exclusively on the habeas corpus issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some dirt on Lincoln. He had some racist views. Yes, he wanted to end slavery, but he also said a lot of stuff about white superiority, right? Was that for show? I don't know. If so, then maybe he wasn't as honest as everyone says. The other dirt is that he was a rich lawyer for the railroads, not some poor defender of the innocent humble individual, and the latter image was a lie. I don't know how true that is either. But that's the primary dirt, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for dirt, although certainly some of the things he said during the debates with Douglas don't make for swell reading, especially the debates in Southern Illinois. I'm looking for at least some evaluation. I will say that writing such sections is not fun and I personally dislike doing so. Still ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Administration" is third to last paragraph of the General McClellan subsection.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the images and captions, but this shouldn't be much trouble. The image showing Lincoln dead and in the arms of Washington is dated 1860 in the caption and January 1865 on the image page, obvious problem.
  • Why is "Airmail Postage" capitalized and what does it mean? (I don't need an actual answer, I am drawing your attention to a problem hint hint).
The stamps mentioned in the article surprise me, as they are not particularly important, you might do better to look at the four-stamp series of the sesquientennial in 1959, or state that he was depicted on a stamp for the first time in ... (I think it's 1866) and some interesting fact to follow. Also, I surely would think it would be worth mentioning that Lincoln was the first person to be honored with a regular-issue US coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, three stamps is excessive. They have far more to do with postal history than with Lincoln's biography. I'd take out at least two of them, if not all three. --Coemgenus 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to leave one, leave the 1866.

I do not have the time to do a formal review, I'm sorry, you're getting stream of consciousness. I'll try to keep giving you more if you find it helpful, though I may switch to the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll get some input from a philatelist or two on these "sticky" issues. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I think I would not quibble too much about Mystic were it not for the fact that on the source page, there is a clear and obvious error, 13c is stated instead of 15c. That makes me wonder how much editorial review these things get.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Mystic Co., maybe it was a .13c stamp; need I remind you of the Inverted Jenny? Sorry, I been at this FAN too long. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel licked here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to mention the fact that Booth is in the second inaugural picture.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the redefining Republicanism section contains an excellent start for discussing Lincoln's legacy (which is nothing to do with statues). Perhaps it could be mentioned that before the ACW, "United States" was a plural noun, afterwards a single noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had intended to mention this and the beliefs sections as analytical in nature. I'm like you - not at home editing in that arena. Please explain the single/plural noun reference; and do we need a source? Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this is a RS, but it is certainly interesting!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Added change of United States from plural to singular plus cites to RS. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting the word "final" in "final surrender" in the lede. Lee surrendered only his army. He could not surrender other remaining Confederate forces, and even though his was the main force, bits and pieces of conflict continued I think as late as June.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably redundant, but I won't make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was following your suggestion - that there were later informal surrenders by smaller units. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete "formal". It is a bit redundant anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps are still in the article and the coin is not. On another note, at present, the article seems to end rather weakly.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them now - just the one. They are like flypaper. You have any detail on the first coin so I can find it. For me the article has been a daily. (I will make a note.) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 7 in Lincoln cent should do you. I wrote it, so I stand behind the accuracy and it is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed ending. At least a tad, with very recent sesquicentennial proclamation by Pres.; also the proclamation serves as a good ref. for the change in the country's name. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coinage added. Your two cents (minus one) have been added, in hopes of your stamp of approval! Carmarg4 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. I'll keep reading. But you can't leave it uncited like that. You'll get opposes "just because".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the cite needed? I apologize - I have a bad head cold and may not be focusing too well. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. (Lincoln mentioned by title in Obama's proclamation) Carmarg4 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, on the comment about the article lacking analysis: I drafted a small piece to add to the article, in an attempt to address this concern. After doing so and sleeping on it, I must say, as I originally did, that I am still most uncomfortable with adding more analytical content to the article. The article does include some analysis - in the Redefining republicanism section and in the Religious and philosophical beliefs section. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic in approach. The better method I believe is to direct the reader to the multitude of analytical sources for further reading, which I think has been done. There is also the concern over the size of the article (we are even now discussing additional factual detail in the nominations/appointments area.) As the reviewer has said, there is an inestimable amount of analysis out there and if we start down that road, many voices will want, and then will have the right, to be represented. The matter will then quickly morph into a POV issue. Perhaps there will be additional comments on this - none at this juncture. I will keep the small attempt at a draft of analysis on my talk page if wanted. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.

  • I got the WP:LQ problems down to Abraham Lincoln#Early national politics. Review WP:LQ, please, and fix the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of them. These are easy to find; just search for a period or comma before quote marks, for instance, "Mother." - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all done ("The Rail Candidate.") For very short phrases, even if there does happen to be a period or comma at the end of the quoted phrase, it doesn't have any real meaning there, so we move it outside; WP:LQ mentions moving the final punctuation outside when it has no real importance. And of course, it's likely the period wasn't in the original, or certainly not consistently. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Guy546, "..." needs a space on either side, with just a few exceptions; see WP:ELLIPSES. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are for Guy546, since he's the nom and hasn't done much yet, before or after nomming: "Harrison's Landing Letter": I can't think of a reason for italics for this.
    • Fixed. Think this was supposed to have quotes around it. Guy546(Talk) 14:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranks, including "commander in chief", are lowercased unless they're directly in front of a name.
  • "September 22, 1862": needs a comma following. See WP:Checklist#second commas and WT:Checklist. I got the second commas up to this point; I haven't checked from this point on yet.
  • "this, despite the New York City draft riots": sentence fragment following a semicolon. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more examples that need either no commas or two: "Washington, D.C.", "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.". Another two that need a second comma: "June 15, 1864", "January 13, 1865". These are just examples. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is needed in hyphenation of "cooperate" and "reelect...". Webster's New World says both "co-operate" and "cooperate" are okay. It lists only "reelection", but it's generally "re-election" outside the US, and I'm happy either way, as long as you're consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only see "re-elect" and "co-operate" in the article. If there is an inconsistency with it I would be glad you pointed that out to me. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 14:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Search for "coop" and "reelect"; two instances are in the lead. Generally, we want to be consistent on all forms of the words. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "congress": Uppercase, and "the Congress" isn't wrong, but "Congress" is more common.
  • There's an {{inflation}} figure with no citation showing where the figure came from; see the note at the top of Template:inflation. I link to a couple of relevant discussions at User:Dank/MIL#inflation, but I don't understand those arguments myself. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garrett's farm": Who?
    • Removed and made less specific. Guy546(Talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initially assessed Lincoln's wound as mortal": "initially" usually implies that something different happened later; did he change his assessment?
  • "escorted in the rain to the White House by bare headed Union officers": I doubt they were naked. "bareheaded".
  • "President Lincoln, singled out by title in Obama's statement, should figure prominently in nationwide observances called for by the current president.": see WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  • Meh. These are my edits. I'll leave the MOS review there. IMO, the article needs a prose review, but I don't have time to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: looking over Rjensen's and JimWae's edits to the article (around 400 each) and their user pages and user talk pages, I'm wondering why they weren't contacted to see if the current version of the article meets their approval. They may want to participate in the review, and they may want to co-nom; they obviously care about the article, and they're active Wikipedians and historians. (Peregrine Fisher was contacted some time ago about this article and wasn't interested in working on it at that time.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. I noted what's left to be done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before bringing this back to FAC, please consult all significant contributors and procure a spotcheck for sourcing and paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Abraham_Lincoln/archive3&oldid=1078785479"