Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ruby Laffoon/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 Ucucha 15:58, 23 November 2011 [1].

---

Ruby Laffoon

Ruby Laffoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ruby Laffoon/archive1

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Governor of Kentucky whose administration was hampered by the Great Depression. Instituted the state's first sales tax. His claim to fame, though, is that he commissioned Harland Sanders as a Kentucky colonel, giving him the Colonel Sanders identity that he later used to market his famous fried chicken. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• One link is tagged as being dead, but doesn't appear to be. The tag should be removed
  • Done.
• Why "Harrison in A New History"? It appears he's the author
  • It was to distinguish between two sources in the Bibliography written by Harrison, but one of them was co-authored by James Klotter, so I'll use that to distinguish now.
• See here for potentially problematic links
  • Should be changed now. NGA changed all their links earlier this year.
• FN 8: formatting
  • Fixed.
• Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
  • Should be addressed above.
• FN 26: italicization
  • Fixed.
• Use the same format for dates in footnotes and bibliography
  • Fixed. Another editor snuck that reference in on me.
• Publisher for Gipson?
  • Not sure. WorldCat only lists "Earlington, Kentucky". That's just down the road from me, and believe me, there isn't much in Earlington, so the publisher couldn't be a very big operation. I don't think it was listed in the book either, but I'll get it from the library and look again. I do know that the source is heavily footnoted with references from local newspapers, etc. so I think it is reliable.
  • Just talked to our librarian, and best he can tell, the work was self-published.
• Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
  • Done.
• Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations
  • Done.
• University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
  • Done.
• Convenience links like Google Books don't need retrieval dates
  • Fixed.
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 15:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jenks24

This FAC seems to be struggling for reviews, so hopefully you don't mind someone who has absolutely no knowledge of Kentucky politics taking a shot.

I'll take reviews where I can get them. Actually, your lack of knowledge in the field seems to have produced some helpful comments.

Lead

• Be consistent with either "US" or "U.S."
  • Done.
• I actually had to look up what "gubernatorial" meant – it may be worth a link to wikt:gubernatorial
  • Hmm. I consider this a pretty common term. I've nominated several Kentucky governor articles for FA, and this is the first time the comment has come up.
    • On further research (i.e. google), I must agree that this is a very common term in the US – but rarely used in Australia. As most of your readers will be American, no need to link.
• If "the terrible Turk from Madisonville" is an actual quote, it needs to be footnoted
  • It is cited in the body, but you're probably right that it should be cited here as well, since it is a direct quote. Done.
• "Laffoon supported political boss Tom Rhea to succeed him as governor" – I know it's the lead, but this kind of comes out of nowhere; is there a reason Laffoon did not want to run (or was not allowed to run) for re-election?
  • I always forget this. For most of the history of the office, Kentucky governors could not serve consecutive terms. Clarified.

Early life

• "Martha Henrietta (Earle) Laffoon" – does this mean she was commonly called Earle or that her maiden name was Earle? If the latter I would suggest using "née"
  • I don't get this comment often, but I have no problem adding "née". Done.
• "could not make his living farming" – not sure why, but the two "ing"s sit oddly with me; I'd suggest "could not make his living as a farmer"
  • Good suggestion. Done.

Legal and early political career

• "moved to Washington, D.C. with his uncle, U.S. Representative Polk Laffoon" – this implies that they moved together; is this the case or did Polk already live in DC?
  • Clarified.
• Does the literature say whether his law degree was a LL.B. or J.D.?
  • I don't think so. Typically, I would specify and link it if it did. Given the norm for the politicians I've studied in this time period, I'd guess it was an LL.B., but that's just a guess.
    • Fair enough.
• "entire Democratic slate" – sorry to be dense, but what does slate mean in this context? Is there another word that could be used instead?
  • How about "ticket"? I can wikilink that if need be.
    • Ticket looks good and I don't think a wikilink would be necessary.
• "citrus fruit operation" – sounds a bit odd to my ears, why not use "business"?
  • Works for me.

Fight for a sales tax

• Be consistent in the use of "percent" or "%"
  • Done.

Ancestors

• Is this really needed? It doesn't appear that any of his ancestors were notable?
  • This is something User:Spacini is working on for the Kentucky Historical Society. You can see his comments about it here.
    • Fair enough. My reaction was pretty similar to Robofish's, I'd only ever seen ancestors tables in royalty/nobility articles. I don't really see this section as necessary to the article, but on the other hand, I don't think it's necessary to remove it. Certainly nothing to oppose over.
      • Thank you for being open-minded about the ancestry charts (ahentafels) being added to the Kentucky governor articles. Without re-hashing everything that I wrote for the question on Governor Fletcher's talk page, I think the most important aspect is that many of Kentucky's governors were related or part of large, influential families. I am a semi-professional genealogist with over 30 years' experience and thoroughly research individuals' ancestry before adding them to the articles. Anything questionable or unverifiable is omitted. The ancestry of U.S. Presidents is also becoming a common sight in their articles. Everyone's family has a story and royalty/nobility (in my opinion) are not above the rest of us. So says this direct descendant of William the Conqueror. ;) Again, I'm just glad to see that my work is getting noticed. --Spacini (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• You use Gipson as your main source, but it appears that his book is self published. Is Gipson an expert in the field, as is required by WP:SPS?
  • I was concerned about this issue being raised. I don't honestly know what Gipson's credentials are. Laffoon is a very minor politician in the grand scheme of things, and Gipson's is likely to remain the most complete account of his life for a good while (maybe ever). Gipson is from Hopkins County, the same county as Laffoon, hence the interest. According to this, he was the first acting chairman of the Hopkins County Historical Society in 1974. His book is listed as "Suggested reading" in Kentucky's Governors, which was edited by eminent Kentucky historian Lowell H. Harrison, and The Kentucky Encyclopedia, edited by current Kentucky state historian John E. Kleber. For what it's worth, the book is heavily footnoted with references to the local newspapers of Laffoon's time, although I have no way of checking those references since the papers have long since gone out of business. All that is a very indirect case, I know, but it's the best I can do right now. If this is insufficient, I might be able to contact the current president of the Hopkins County Historical Society (who is one of my former colleagues) to see if he can tell me more about Gipson. Seems he was just at a class reunion last month.
    • Thanks for the detailed response. To be honest, this does not look like a black-and-white issue to me and determining the reliability of SPS's is definitely not my area of expertise. As such, I have started at a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WP:SPS at Ruby Laffoon), where we can hopefully get some expert input.
      • This is a good idea. I'll watch the discussion over there and see what else I can turn up.

Overall, the article is very good. As long as the SPS problem is resolved, I'll be happy to support. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Not sure why it's so difficult to get reviewers for these governor articles. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs · count)} 14:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

All my comments have been resolved, bar the SPS. I just had a another look over the article and couldn't find anything else. Assuming the RSN discussion comes back positive, I will be happy to support. Jenks24 (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. My reading of the RSN discussion (permalink) is that the Gipson book is reliable, so that's good enough for me. One final thing is that Laffoon being term-limited is mentioned in the lead, but not in anywhere in the body. Other than that very small issue, everything looks great. Jenks24 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I've added the term-limited piece to the body. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs · count)} 13:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• Need a copyright tag for the lead image, per WP:FUR. Also, FUR should include copyright holder and artist (if known)
  • Done.
• I don't think it's a requirement, but it's generally good practice for the FUR to mention this image appears in the main infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.

Let me know if either of these are insufficient. Fair use is not my strong suit. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs · count)} 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot checks to Klotter show accuracy in sourcing. Hope to submit a full review soon. --Laser brain (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Really nice work. I scarcely found any fault in it—I fixed a few minor things. My only real beef is the phrase "died in Senate committee". This is almost certainly American political jargon and should be rewritten for clarity to international readers. --Laser brain (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite so; fixed. Thanks for your support. 13:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Comments - In looking back through the article history, I apparently reviewed this for GA a little over two years ago - it looks like not much has changed content wise, although quite a bit of copyediting and linking work has been done. Some comments:

• I am unsure of the need for the "Ancestors" section (which was not in the article until just a couple of weeks ago). First, none of the ancestors are particularly notable, and none have articles, as far as I can tell. Basically, I'm not sure what information the reader gains from having this tiered list of names. Second, the sourcing is a bit dodgy: "Table from Ahnentafel of Ruby Laffoon. This is a project I am working on for the Kentucky Historical Society and Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives. Information is pulled primarily from public records (U.S. Census data, Kentucky Vital Statistics, and published genealogies." (This was not added by Acdixon, but instead by Spacini (talk · contribs).) While I am not arguing that this is contentious material, this is a very vague source statement, and combined with the (IMO) lack of useful information contained in the table, I think it makes this section a bit un-necessary. I will also note that I don't think I have ever seen an ancestry table in any biographical FA (or GA) other than those of persons of royalty/nobility.
• After reading the SPS discussion on the Gipson book, I am suitably convinced of its reliability and the author's expertise on this subject.

After reading through the remainder of the article, I find nothing else to comment on. Once the issue of the Ancestors section is addressed (I am open to arguments in favor of keeping the section, I just find the lack of discussion surrounding it and the lack of referencing to be concerning) I think I will be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll contact Spacini and ask him to comment here. I really don't see any harm in the section being present, especially as it is collapsed by default. Regardless of the notability of the ancestors, there is a large community of folks interested in genealogy on the Internet, and those folks might be interested in this. I know I was motivated to work on Archibald Dixon in part to see if I might be related to him. So far, I haven't established a relationship, but I did get the article to GA! Thanks for your comments, Dana. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs · count)} 13:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Spacini's comments above regarding ancestry. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs · count)} 14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any need for a listing of non-notable people with zero context (other than that they're related to the article subject), but I guess from the fact that the above reviewers don't have a problem with it, I've been outvoted. Changed to a support. Dana boomer (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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