Wikipedia:Peer review/J. C. W. Beckham/archive1

J. C. W. Beckham[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was listed at WP:FAC, where it failed to gain enough support to be promoted. There was one support and several comments, but no explicit opposes. One comment suggested that the article should have an independent copy-edit, which is why I am listing it here. I welcome any comment regarding potential impediments to the article's promotion to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing what's wrong with it, to be frank.
Stylistically, it's a bit heavy on the passive voice for my personal taste, but that's often the case for material in American English and it's certainly nothing to get worked up about. I've moved the "See also" to above the "References" and "Bibliography", which I've renamed.
Content-wise, the only thing I'd say is maybe it would benefit from a "Legacy" section that summarises any ongoing impact he had after his death—but only if there's something useful to say. (I know nothing about the subject, so maybe there's nothing.)
Hopefully someone else will be able to be a bit clearer about whatever the problem is, because I just can't see it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope you will watch for this article to return to WP:FAC (which may be a while, since I need to get Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. there first), and will lend it your support. I don't really think there is enough material to constitute a "Legacy" section, although it's a good suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I made an exceedingly small number of minor changes to the article, and I have a few other comments and suggestions for further improvement.

I added three metric conversions as suggested by MOS:CONVERSIONS.
I added persondata to the article. Please see WP:PERSON for details about how this works. It says in part, "Persondata is a special set of metadata that can and should be added to biographical articles (only)." Please check the persondata to make sure that it is correct. In edit mode, you can see it between "External links" and "DEFAULTSORT".
MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." The image of Beckham's birthplace makes a text sandwich with the infobox. I don't see an ideal fix for this because moving the image down or to the right within the "Early life" section won't solve the problem. Perhaps it could be moved into one of the lower sections that lacks an image? Just a thought.

I didn't know if infoboxes qualified for the "sandwich" rule. I don't really think the Wickland photo would fit anywhere else in the article, unless I added a sentence to the end that said something like "Beckham's birthplace, Wickland, was added to the National Register of Historic Places on <whatever date>". Usually, someone gets a photo of the person's grave for the later life section, but I don't live close enough to Frankfort to get that. Do you think this is a good solution? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, depending on how well the image fits in that space. It would certainly be useful to include the info about the National Register. This tidbit and the tidbit about Beckham County, Oklahoma, might be enough to create a "Legacy" section that would be big enough to accommodate the house photo. The section might need just a bit more, a sentence or two. Were any libraries or university buildings named after Beckham? Did anybody name anything else after him, a Beckham Trust Fund, or a Beckham Park?

Not that I'm aware of. I haven't run across any mention of such a thing in any of my sources. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any great problems with the prose. However, the "Early life" section is choppy because the sentences are short and similar in construction. It would be easy to vary the pattern. You might, for instance, use "and" to combine these two sentences: "In 1881 he served as a page in the Kentucky House of Representatives at the age of 12. Later, he enrolled at Central University (now Eastern Kentucky University) in Richmond, Kentucky." And the next-to-last sentence could be recast thus: "Admitted to the bar, he commenced practice in Bardstown in 1893." Mostly, the prose doesn't strike me as too choppy, but I was a bit bothered by choppiness in the last section. Again, I think this can be easily fixed by tiny tweaks. For example, you might combine these two sentences: "The race was complicated, though, by the entry of John Y. Brown. A Democrat, Brown was a sitting U.S. Representative and former Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives." It might become "The race was complicated, though, by the entry of John Y. Brown, a Democrat who was a U.S. Representative and former Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives."

I've incorporated these suggestions and a couple that hit me after having separated myself from the prose for a bit. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Kentucky

"The only major legislation passed during Beckham's term were a tax increase that added a half million dollars to the state's revenue and a child labor law that forbade children under 14 to work without their parents' consent." - "Legislation is singular" but "were" is plural. Suggestion: "The only pieces of major legislation ... were... ". Or " The only major legislative acts... ".

Good catch. Thanks.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article on a topic of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions. I hope to bring this article back to FAC in the near future. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]