Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thomas R. Marshall/archive1

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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].

Thomas R. Marshall[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is an article I have spent considerable time working on during the last four months. I have read three books on the subject, and did a significant amount of research on the topic. I started working on the article as part of my personal project on expanding all the articles for the Governors of Indiana. The article is comprehensive, well sourced, and has been through two thorough GA reviews, and a number of copy edits. Marshall was the VP under Woodrow Wilson and has a facinating story, and played an important role (or rather a lack of a role which was in itself a role) in the shaping the direction of the USA foreign policy following World War I. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and is worthy of the star. I will work to quickly resolve any issues that may arise and look forward to any feedback. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per criterion 3:
    • File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG - WP:IUP - Requires a verifiable source. A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not acceptable. How can we verify pre-1.1.1923 publication?
      • I have looked into this image and cannot locate its source with certainty. It is likely from the Indiana Historical Society, and judging by his appearance would probably be from about 1908. He appears much older looking in his vice presidential portraits. I have removed the image for now, until its source can be determined. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Thomas R. Marshall Signature.svg - Requires a verifiable source. "Own work" is not true, as this is the work of Marshall, not the uploader. License is correct, however.
      • Found the signature located in his autobiography. Added to image page. 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • File:Whitley-county-thomas-riley-marshall-plaque.jpg - The United States does not have freedom of panorama. This is a derivative work of the text on the plaque; what is its copyright status?
      • The emblem on the plaque would indicate it was placed by the Daughter's of the American Revolution. I don't believe a copyright would be placed on such a plaque, as there are tens of thousands of such placed all over the place to mark notable sites. I have removed the image for now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Copyright would apply to the text, not the plague as an object. Copyright is generated merely by fixing a creative work (here, prose) into a fixed medium; one does not need to deliberately "place" it. Copyright is not removed solely by virtue of being situated in a public location in jurisdictions without freedom of panorama (the US, as I said, is such a jurisdiction). Эlcobbola talk 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Thomas Marshall delivers speech in Indianapolis.jpg - The source does not say Losey was a government employee. Please correct the license accordingly.
      • Although Losey may not have been a government employee the original work is now owned by, and copied from the Library of Congress. Wouldn't that make it now a US Federal Government work? What copyright would propose using? There is no evidence that is was ever published from what I see on the LOC. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The LoC is merely an archive. It does not necessarily own the copyright to images therein (indeed, it hosts many images that are still under copyright). Further, although the federal government cannot claim copyright on its own works, it can claim copyright on works transferred from others (USC 17 § 105 is very explicit about this). The LoC page states there are no known restrictions, but not the reason therefor. Perhaps it would be best to contact the LoC. Эlcobbola talk 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've fixed the template on that image. The LoC is quite good about saying "No known restrictions on publication" only when the image is PD or PD-equivalent. (I assume the LoC is not perfect in this respect, but it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia.) It should be OK to use this image here. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok thank you. I have tried to get my mind around the licensing on images for ages. There is no clear page that explains things in laymans terms anywhere, and then gives you the approprate tag to place on the page (at least that I have found. and I have looked), and the upload wizards are just short of useless unless you already know what you are doing. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:TRMarshall-wife.jpg - Bain, the author, died in 1944. Why is a license tag claiming 70 years have past since his death being used?
      • This is image is also from the LOC. What template do propse to change it to? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swapped {{PD-old}} with {{PD-Bain}}. NW (Talk) 23:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Truth be told, after all that had to be fixed here, I was rather hoping to use this one to teach to fish, rather than give a fish. Thanks, though. Эlcobbola talk 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Robert Lansing.jpg - Source is a deadlink. Who is the author and how can we verify he/she has been dead 70 years, per the license tag? ("Magnus Manske" is the uploader, not the author.) Эlcobbola talk 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that your concerns have been addressed. Do you still oppose this nomination? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, alt text is now present, but there are some problems:
      • Some images still lack alt text: File:Thomas R. Marshall Signature.svg (just give the text of the signature), File:Thomas Marshall delivers speech in Indianapolis.jpg, File:Thomas R. Marshall in his Senate office.jpg
      • The existing alt text mostly just repeats the caption. Alt text should focus on describing the image itself (the part that visually impaired readers cannot see) and should not repeat the caption (which is for both sighted and visually impaired readers). For example, generally speaking alt text should not contain proper names, since they belong in the caption. However, it's OK for the lead image to describe Marshall's appearance, and then for later images to just say "Marshall" if there's nothing specially different about his appearance there. Please see WP:ALT#Repetition and WP:ALT#Portraits for more.
      • The lead image should say what Marshall looked like; currently the visually impaired reader is given no clue about his appearance.
      Eubulides (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have expanded the descriptions. It kind of hard to describe a photo of a person though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice and examples about alt text for portraits. I'm afraid that considerably more work needs to be done here. The lead image's alt text "A bust of Thomas R. Marshall sitting in his senate office" has several problems: it's not a bust, it's not clear just from the picture that it's Marshall or that he's sitting in his senate office (see WP:ALT#Verifiability), and it says nothing about what he looks like. Please rewrite it to mention that mustache (wow!), the pince-nez, the collar and coat, and (most especially) the determined expression. The background isn't that important. There are similar problems with File:Jacob Piatt Dunn.JPG, File:Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpg, File:Thomas R. Marshall in his Senate office.jpg, File:TRMarshall-wife.jpg, File:MarshallGrave.jpg: all these images have alt text that substantially repeats the caption, and all that repetition should be removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition and then replaced with text that says what the image looks like (as opposed to names of objects or people). Also, the phrase "around the Indiana Democratic headquarters in Indianapolis as Samuel Ralston delivers" needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability, as these details are not immediately verifiable from the image. Eubulides (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I have expanded the alt tags even more. They are pretty wordy I think; whats your opinion? But they are about as descriptive as I can make them. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The alt text is much improved, thanks. The longest is a bit wordy but it's much better than it was when it was too terse. We're almost there. Two things, though. First, please remove the proper names from the alt text, as they duplicate info that's in the caption; as per WP:ALT#Repetition alt text should not repeat what's in the caption. (As an exception, it's OK for later images to say "Marshall" to refer to Marshall, as the lead image establishes his apperance; see WP:ALT#Portraits.) Also, much of the identification can't be verified simply by looking at the image, which is a problem as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Proper names and/or ID that should be removed include "Thomas R. Marshall's", "Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana", "Jacob Piatt Dunn", "Indiana Democratic headquarters in Indianapolis as Samuel Ralston", "President Woodrow Wilson", "United States Capitol building in Washington D.C.", "His wife", "Thomas Marshall's and family sepulcher;". Second, please fix the spelling and punctuation and grammar, as there are currently several errors along those lines, e.g., "head an shoulders", "pin-neck collar" (what's that?), "tie;" (sentences should end in periods), "Indiana; A three", "peice". Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of correcting three small reference errors, the two about newspaper and magazine titles being italicised should be remembered for your next FAC!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- an excellent, well-written article. My only suggestion would be that the lead is a bit lengthy. Coemgenus 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now, Comments, very close to support, 2a. I've only reviewed the lead, and plan on going through the rest as I have time, but the prose gives no evidence of being anywhere near ready. Here's some of what I was talking about:
  • "Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule that allowed filibusters to be ended by a two-thirds majority vote–a variation of this important rule that still remains in effect." The bit after the dash makes no sense. As far as I can tell, the "that" is superfluous, but I stand open to clarification as to what meaning was actually intended.
  • "Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials, including cabinet officials and Congressional leaders; but Marshall refused to forcibly assume the Presidency for fear of setting a precedent." Misused semi-colon.
  • Redundancy: "Marshall successfully had the body adopt its first procedural rule..." (if it wasn't successful, he didn't really have the body adopt it), "...he opened a new Indianapolis law practice..." (what other kind of law practice does one open?)
  • It is worth indicating it was not a continuation of his old law firm with old partner, but instead a new law firm. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bloat: "...helped him later secure the nomination and win the election to serve as Governor of Indiana." (or, in succinct-speak, "helped him later win election as Governor of Indiana"), "To remedy the situation and enable critical wartime legislation to be passed..."
  • Passive voice: "Marshall was urged to become acting president by many officials..."
I'm going to try to copyedit the entire article, though I make no promises, but I think it needs at least one other full copyedit as well. Steve Smith (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any copy copy editting would be greatly appreciated! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

  • "...sat on both of their laps for the course the debate..." What does this mean? He sat on their laps during the debate itself? If so, "both" should still go, as presumably he only sat on one lap at a time.
    • When Lincoln spoke he sat on Douglas lap, when Douglas spoke he sat on Lincolns lap. I have clarified this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He remained an active mason until his death, serving on several different charitable boards." Are these masonic charities? If not, the sentence should probably be reconfigured. Steve Smith (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on my comments, I think I must have been in a bad mood last night. I stand by my statement that the article needs a lot of work (on the prose - the research and organization are top-notch), but I could certainly have communicated that in a pleasanter manner. My apologies, and kudos to you for graciously receiving even ungracious criticism. Anyway, I'm continuing my copyedit.

No need to apoligize! A critical review is by far the most valuable to me, my goal being the improvement of articles. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He successfully advocated the passage of a child labor law and anti-corruption legislation, but was unsuccessful in passing most of his progressive platform through the state legislature or getting the legislature to call a convention to rewrite the state constitution to expand the government’s regulatory powers." This sentence is too long, and I'm not exactly sure what the second part means (is it related to the first part?). Given that the entire next section deals with his constitutional initiative, does it need to be mentioned here?
    • I guess that is a bit confusing since it expects the reader to have a grasp of the progressive platform. The two items he suceeded in passing where part of that platform, but everythign else in the platform he failed to achieve. Most of it he was attempting to achieve through the writing of the new consitution, which he saw as a way to cirumvent the General Assembly and take the issues directly to the voters, who he was convinced to support the measure. I broke it up, and tied the two parts together better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...had it been adopted, large parts would have probably been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts." I'd suggest attributing this; without attribution, it strikes me as POV. If it's the opinion of a consensus of legal experts, and you have the sources to demonstrate that, describe it as such a consensus.
    • Point taken, I attriubted to quotes to their makers directly. Although i have not explicity read it, it does seem to be a consensus though. Had he got the consitution passed, at least two sections would have been unconsitutional and foricibly repealed by the federal court, leaving the state in a bad sitution and handicapping the government in adopting new legislation, since he delegated that to the electorate in his consitution. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a little ahead of myself with this one, but should the boxes detailing the results of the 1912 and 1916 elections include the names of the presidential nominees, maybe in parentheses? It seems a little odd to say that Marshall beat Johnson by two million votes, when it seems like what actually happened was that Wilson beat Taft. I understand the technicalities involved, and I know it's no more technically correct to say that Wilson beat Taft than to say that Marshall beat Johnson, but it seems like context that the reader might find useful. Steve Smith (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished a first run copyedit. I'll try another in a few days once I have some more distance from the article. In the meantime, I'd repeat my urging that you try to find another hitherto uninvolved copyeditor. About 98% of the work required to make this article featured has been done, and it would be a tragedy to see it fail due to insufficient copyediting. One specific issue that you should deal with is the inconsistency in the capitalization of positions like "Vice President". Steve Smith (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will see if I can find a willing copy editor. To be honest though, they are our rarest editors and frequently busy on other things, I find. I have never had much luck in getting assistance in that department. Thanks for efforts to copy edit the article! It is appreciated. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting very close. I've done another copyedit, and I think the prose is close to there, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting if another pair of uninvolved eyes looked it over, as I've become quite close to the article. A few remaining points:
    • The inconsistent capitalization of positions like governor and vice president, as well as presidency, and the inconsistent hyphenation of "vice presidency", need to be fixed.
      • I think I've got this fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've made a couple of other changes. I left "Vice President" capitalized in Marshall's quote in the first paragraph of "Legacy", even though it's inconsistent with the rest of the article, because I presume it's like that to keep the quote transcription faithful. Steve Smith (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...they believed that to go through the procedure while his parents were still living would appear awkward to the public." "Awkward" seems, well, awkward. Is there a better adjective? "Questionable"? "Scandalous"?
      • Ackward is the word used by the source. Embarrassing would probably be the next closest adjective. The source indicates they just wanted to keep the situation private. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead suggests that it was a personal and ideological rift that caused Wilson to move Marshall's office, while the body says it's because Marshall made ill-advised jokes to passers by.
      • The event that was the final trigger was the jokes to passers by, and those on top of many other such incidents. This was coupled with the the idealogical rift. I have changed the wording in the lead to better clarify this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considerably more optimistic now than I was previously that I will be able to support this. Steve Smith (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple requests and Reywas92 has made a generous offer. So hopefully someone will soon oblige. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, one more thing (it never ends...). As I understand it, the advent of infoboxes made succession boxes obsolete, but this article contains both. This obviously isn't something worth holding up an FAC over (at least, I don't think it is), but I'm wondering if there's a reason. This article might already be good enough to earn my support, and I've struck my oppose, but I'm going to way a day or two before looking at the prose again with fresh eyes, to make sure it's as good as I think it is now. Steve Smith (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree they are redundant. They are on almost every US politician article I have ever edited though, so I have always left them. (The succession boxes are about the only part of the article that is still the same as when I started editting). I have hidden the boxes for now while I look for a a guideline for this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)
  • Support. I think we're there, though I'd still welcome another copyeditor's participation. Steve Smith (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, Charles, for another fantastic Indiana-related article!! I'd be happy to do a copyedit, however well I can. One concern is the pictures: The lead image is just a head crop of the image under World War I. What about File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG or File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg? Reywas92Talk 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG, but I have not been able to locate a source for the image. I think it is from the Indiana Historical Society, which is a private organization. And judging by his appearance it is almost certainly pre-1923. I would guess it to be about 1902, but I need to locate something that says that before it can go in the article. File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg looks very good I hadn't seen it before. It is LoC, so we could it instead. You are also more than welcome to try your hand at copy editting! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: "On settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school for the first time." -> "Upon settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school." Use upon, and it isn't notable that it was the first time because he was only six or so anyway, right?
  • For the caption "The Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana", it should be a given that it's in Indianapolis.
  • For what it's worth, I wouldn't have been able to name the capital of Indiana (though I'd probably have guessed Indianapolis), and I think I'm more conversant than your average non-American with American geography. Steve Smith (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I meant to write that it's a given that it's in Indiana, so it could just say "The Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis". Reywas92Talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "senate gallery" be capitalized?
  • For the electoral history, I think the Presidential elction boxes should clarify that the first name listed is for Vice President, and that they should include electoral votes.
  • I couldn't figure out how to add the electorial votes to the infoboxes, so I changed to a more complex one. It doesn't have a parementer for a title though, but I think it is still an improvement. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine, but also big and cluttered. I was actually thinking the original template with the number of electoral votes in parentheses next to the popular, but whatever you think. Reywas92Talk 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this link, although short, be included? And can you use that portrait? I think it's old enough.
  • I thought I already had that link on there, but I didn't! I will add it. I considered the image before, but it is not a really good photograph of the portrait, it looks really dark, and you can only make out about half the detail. I am going to Indy in the winter, I intend to make a photo trip out of it, I will try and get a good picutre of the portrait. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some basic copyedits own my own, and I find it fantastic overall! Reywas92Talk 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Charles' defense, I'm the one who changed "upon" to "on". I have no particular preference for one over the other, besides a general belief that fewer syllables is better, but I've seen Tony1 recommend that change in other FACs, and I figure he's the pro. Steve Smith (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but syllables don't override meaning. See definition 4 [2]. Reywas92Talk 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I wasn't disputing that "upon" is correct, but see definition 3 [3]. Steve Smith (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's different. "It happened on Sunday" would be right, but not "Marshall was enrolled in public school on settling in Indiana." Reywas92Talk 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the difference between its usage in this article and the example given on the linked page, "on arriving home, I found your letter"? Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I don't think that sounds right either. Surely you wouldn't say its converse "I found your letter on arriving home." "I found your letter upon arriving home" makes more sense, as on can also imply about. Reywas92Talk 16:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both sound fine to me. According to dictionaries, both are correct; it comes down to personal preference. My preference, as well as Tony1's, is for "on" (though in cases where "on" would create ambiguity, as in the ones you cite above, I'd go with "upon"; ambiguity's not an issue here, though). Yours is for "upon". It's not worth holding up the FAC either way. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I Support. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 28 October 2009 (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/Thomas_R._Marshall/archive1&oldid=1056572593"