Talk:American Lion (book)

Title?

The subtitle on the cover appears to read "Andrew Jackson in the White House, not "and the". Could someone clarify this? 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct; it was an error which, unfortunately, wasn't caught by me or the DYK process. It's fixed now. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Lion (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Review

• Since this might take me a few trips through to finish, I'll just note that I review the LEAD last.
• Does it make sense to do a main to the Presidency of Jackson or the Jackson bio article at the start of the synopsis?
  • I added a "See also" template instead, linking to both articles. Does that work? — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• A lot of the paragraphs in synopsis start the same way. Could there be a little more variety in word choice and/or structure?
  • I changed them up a bit so each paragraph starts at least somewhat differently. Let me know if you think that's enough. — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• I added WikiLinks for his two previous books even though they are currently redirects back to Meachem. As they are likely to be notable on their own merits they could turn into articles at some point and then the links are there. Feel free to revert if you feel otherwise.
  • Works for me. — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• I don't understand what is meant by by by putting "Mrs. John Lawrence Merritt" in quotes. Guessing this a pseudonym? If so is there some descriptor that could be added (e.g. "a widow Meachem called Mrs. John Lawrence Merritt")?
  • I put it in quotes because Meacham wrote that he got the letters from Mrs. John Lawrence Merritt, and it struck me as odd that he didn't just identify her by her name and I wasn't sure how to describe it in the article. Maybe I overthought it though? lol The book didn't include any other descriptors like widow or anything so I don't think I can add that kind of context. Maybe we should just remove the quotes? — Hunter Kahn 03:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Just removing the quotes seems like it works. Barkeep49 (talk)
      • Done. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Did the sources give any context in what way the new sources were found? Like sometimes a collection knows it has something and just hasn't catalogged it formally which makes it open for scholars. Othertimes they hadn't realized they had something and they find it. There other other permutations too. More curious I suppose that strictly necessary for GA.
  • Nothing beyond the context I included in the article already, unfortunately... — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Who is the us in Jackson was "the most like us"?
  • I think he means the most like the average Americans, or the general public. Part of why I quoted him directly there was so I wouldn't have to infer, but I think it's fair to phrase it that way if you'd rather me remove the direct quote and paraphrase it... — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah I think the paraphrase would work well here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• The themes section seems to have a lot of writing about what Meachem saw as the themes and less about what secondary sources/critics saw as the themes of the book. Are there more secondary sources, including from reviews, available for this section? Or at least those that comment on their own way on what Meachem identified as the themes? The last paragraph feels more of a line with what I'm used to seeing/writing in themes sections. This is especially true as we have three fairly lengthy paragraphs giving pull quotes down in reception.
  • I'm struggling with this one a bit because I don't feel I have anything to add to the Themes section from those sources that I haven't already. Did you have anything particular in mind? — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have not examined the sources in reception in great detail. But for a book like this there should be ample sourcing from well credentialed authors making their own assessments of the theme. For instance, Brinkley writes about the subject of Jackson's intelligence. I'm guessing some others do too. So rather than basing it on Meacham's intent and thinking - which is basically a primary source - instead we can and should use secondary sources. Another example. Clayton, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) Meacham can be used to explore the theme of personal loyalty as an animating feature for Jackson. In many ways Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels#Major_themes which applies for me even though this is a biography suggests only secondary sources should be considered for this section. I'm not quite suggesting that but I am suggesting it should be closer to that than what is presently written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Barkeep49 I've made an attempt to address this by adding some thematic analysis from secondary sources/critics, including Ann Robinson of The Oregonian discussing executive power, Andrew Cayton of The New York Times discussing personal loyalty (per your suggestion), and Janet Maslin and Douglas Brinkley discussing Jackson's intellectual abilities. I also reworded one sentence slightly to show that the "great man" theory was being suggseted more by Steve Weinberg of The Seattle Times rather than Meacham himself. Let me know if you think this works. — Hunter Kahn 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we're at a point where it's probably OK for GA. If you do another non-fiction book like this I'd encourage you to start with the secondary sources and then fill in as needed with thoughts from the author rather than the other way around. But that's not a reason to hold-up this GAN. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the historians listed at the start of Publication and sales differ from others mentioned in Writing and sources.
  • The way I saw it, the historians in the "Writing and sources" were those who Meacham sought direct input from during the course of the research and/or writing, whereas those I list in the "Publication" section are more those that read it after it was written and just before it was published. If I haven't structured this exactly correctly, though, I could make adjustments... — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Nope that makes sense. Barkeep49 (talk)
• This source offers some idea of the number of copies sold.
  • That's excellent, thanks! I've added a reference to this to the Publication section; let me know if you think I've phrased it correctly. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• There are a few places where I really wondered if we need multiple sources. I can pull some more of these but what has tipped me over is that we don't need three sources to say it won the Pulitzer. Especially when multiple sources already used for other pieces of information could also be used for that citation.
  • I see what you mean. I removed some instances I saw of overlinking throughout the article, and can do more if you like. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's useful. Barkeep49 (talk)
• Is there information about Meachem's reaction to winning the Pulitzer?
  • Not that I saw, and I did look. I remember being surprised not finding anything because I figured there'd at least be some sort of quote saying he's honored or something, but I couldn't find it. lol — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Surprising indeed. If you were going to take this to FA I would do some digging because I'm guessing it's out there but not necessary for a GA. Barkeep49 (talk)
• I did some cleanup of the adaptation section.
  • Looks good! — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• There was an audiobook. I generally like to include mention of it, as well as a shorter review section (if there are any and I suspect there would be in this case) in the adaptation section.
  • I'll look for sources for this. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Barkeep49 I've searched and was not able to find any secondary reliable sources that discuss the audiobook, let alone any reviews of it. I agree it should at least be mentioned in the article though. I've added a mention to the Publication section for now citing the Amazon page; let me know if you think this is appropriate or not. — Hunter Kahn 03:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

      Hunter Kahn, I found a couple capsule reviews. I would maybe cite it to this one which includes the correct narrator in the sources I've seen. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

      • Barkeep49 This is perfect; way better than what I had come up with. LOL I've added that as a source for the audiobook and added a sentence to the reviews section. I placed it near the end of the section, where it seemed to fit well because it separated it from the print book reviews, and it was also included in the same paragraph with the more negative-leaning reviews. Let me know if you think this works. — Hunter Kahn 16:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing about books is my content specialty for a reason :). Barkeep49 (talk)

• No issues with COPYVIO or images.
  • Thanks. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I will pick-up this review. It'll likely take me a few days to make my way through this. One quick note: can you do a check of the captions? I noticed a few small grammar issues there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking on the review, Barkeep49! I've made some fixes to the photo captions... — Hunter Kahn 01:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn:In general I find writing articles on non-fiction books to be a challenge since many of our conventions/guidelines/etc were clearly written with fiction in mind. I think you do a good job overall. I've finished my read through of the article and there's nothing too major here to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks much! I've tried to address the comments above, but there may be a few that need a bit more work. Let me know any thoughts! — Hunter Kahn 03:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Barkeep49! — Hunter Kahn 19:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn, congrats on another GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)