Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Garrard/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 GrahamColm 13:59, 17 March 2012 [1].

James Garrard

Featured article candidates/James Garrard/archive1

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently re-written after obtaining a hard-to-find biography of Garrard. (Merry Christmas to me!) Chronicles the life of Kentucky's second governor – from Revolutionary War soldier to excommunicated Baptist minister to shunned abolitionist to the only Kentucky governor to succeed himself in office for a span of 200 years, I hope you'll enjoy the article. Hope to respond to concerns quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page number(s) for the Note?
- Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary bibliography entry should use the title of the article cited, not the work as a whole
- Apparently, the "chapter" parameter doesn't work with {{cite web}}. I've got the article title showing now, but I had to lose "Gale History in Context", which is the name of the electronic database. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether or not locations are included for books
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare editor format for Blanchard and Everman 2004
- It's not an editor format. I used "in" to distinguish between two sources by H.E. Everman. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's in footnotes - I'm looking at Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see what you mean now. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Collins source is self-published, how does it satisfy WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Collins is recognized as a prolific early Kentucky historian. He has his own entry in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and the entry specifically mentions Historical Sketches of Kentucky (the work cited in this article) as his most popular work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Five images in total, all five clearly in the public domain. I'll try to get a prose review done soon as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~:
- ~~I'd include a link for "common schools".~~
  - Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At one point you say his home was in Fayette County, then later in the same paragraph you say that his home was in the new Bourbon County, which was formed out of Kentucky County. It's a bit confusing. Did Bourbon arise from Fayette or Kentucky (or both)?
  - Technically, both. Kentucky County was first, created from Fincastle County, Virginia. Then Kentucky County was split into three counties, including Fayette. Part of Fayette was then carved out to form Bourbon. I've tried to clarify. See if it makes sense now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Political career in Kentucky", I think "before" sounds better than "prior to". It means the same thing. It's a personal preference, though, and I won't withhold support if you stick with your wording -- just my two cents.
  - No, "before" works just fine. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll return with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been told in some of my FA nominations that "re-elected" is the British spelling and "reelected" is American. I don't totally agree, but someone else might bring it up, so it might be best to standardize them in non-hyphenated form.
  - Hmm. Didn't know that. I've changed to the "Americanized" version, although I like the British version better. Still don't get the "u" in "colour", though! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In "First term as governor", I think the last two words of this sentence are unnecessary: "Over the course of his tenure as governor, Garrard approved enabling acts for the creation of twenty-six new Kentucky counties; no other Kentucky governor oversaw the creation of as many new counties."
  - You're right. Deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You use the word "opined" four times. It kind of sticks out.~~
  - Hehe. I like "opine". Changed three of them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In "1799 gubernatorial election", there seems to be a word missing in this sentence: "Garrard Todd to fill the next vacancy on the Kentucky Court of Appeals after the election, which occurred in 1801." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite so. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hope I can address any additional issues and gain your support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved, changed to support. Good luck!

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:MHU. - Dank (push to talk)

"2nd": see WP:ORDINAL. Also, avoid consecutive links when possible; you could just link "second governor of Kentucky" here, which will get your readers quickly to "Governor of Kentucky" if that's where they want to go.
- Changed the ordinal, but the consecutive links follow a convention used in every Kentucky governor article, each of which is at least a good article. I'd like to keep that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"slavery protections": I think "guarantees of the continuance of slavery" would be easier to parse.
- Works for me. I was trying to say something like this without resorting to forms of the term "abolition" because Garrard didn't necessarily advocate immediate abolition, only provisions for the eventual emancipation of the slaves. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Fredericksburg, Virginia": period needed.
- Weird that I missed that. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"twelve children, five sons and seven daughters": five sons and seven daughters
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He later escaped and returned to his military service. ¶ In 1779, while still serving in the militia, Garrard was elected to represent Stafford County the Virginia House of Delegates. He interrupted his military service ...": repetition
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say he was in the service, then you say he was still in the service, then you say he interrupted his service, then at the end of the paragraph he resumes his service again. I've tried to condense this; please make sure I didn't introduce any inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"advocated for" (in three places): Garner's is silent. MWDEU and SOED recommend using "advocated" transitively. You might prefer "lobbied for". - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used a mixture now. Good catch. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he surveyed and entered at the state land office": "... and recorded" might be easier to parse, if that's accurate.
- The jargon used in the source was "entered", but I'm pretty sure "recorded" is accurate, too. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"recently-created": see WP:HYPHEN and other punctuation guides. Search throughout for "ly-".
- Fixed in a few places Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the latter being the location of Garrard's home.": conciseness, appositive. "Garrard's county of residence".
- Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "The latter being" is wordy. I went with: "... and Garrard's county of residence, Bourbon." - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"his friend, Augustine Easton, attended ...": restrictive appositive, so it's a little better without commas.
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"five of these conventions, held in May and August 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792.": Possibly "... in May or August in 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792", but probably better would be to give just the years, or give the month and year for each.
- This one is a little difficult. I don't have the months for all of them, but two were held in 1785, so the month is needed to differentiate between them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah I misunderstood, I thought it was in May or August in each of those years. Then: "... in May and August 1785 and in 1787, 1788, and 1792." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"article 9" (twice): Article 9, or the ninth article.
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"it appeared as though": it appeared that
- Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"who was recently defeated": who had recently been defeated
- Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"chose and elector": chose an elector
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"thus he voted for Brown": comma splice. "so he voted for Brown" - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Among the pro-squatting legislation supported by Garrard were measures the forbade ...": Garrard supported pro-squatting legislation, including measures that forbade
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A Democratic-Republican, Garrard agreed with Thomas Jefferson's dissension toward the Alien and Sedition Acts.": I'm not sure what this sentence is saying.
- See if it is clearer now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In a November 7, 1798, address to the General Assembly": Garner's recommends rephrasing: "In an address to the General Assembly on November 7, 1798"
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"on grounds": on the grounds
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Among the reforms were the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia; the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia; and provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf.": Per WP:MHU#series, it's better to put the element with commas last in the series if that makes the sentence easier to read, and it does, here, allowing you to remove the semicolon (an improvement because readers usually expect an independent clause after a semicolon): "Among the reforms were the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia, provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf, and the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia."
- Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"required that a majority of voters had to approve": repetition (required, had to)
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"5,446 favored the call, 440 opposed it, but 3,928": 5,446 favored the call and 440 opposed it, but 3,928
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This cast doubt upon the true will of the people.": That's an opinion; whose?
- Technically, I guess it is the opinion of the source's author. I have clarified that the doubt was in the minds of some legislators. I think that is supported by the idea that opponents reliably held that abstentions were votes against the convention and the fact that the legislature ultimately decided that there were not enough votes to call a convention in that election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"calling for another vote on the calling": one "calling" too many
- Well, yes, that was a rather atrociously written sentence. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the electorate raised issues of their own.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
- Clarified, I hope. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"in the state's Bluegrass region, Jefferson County, and western Kentucky.": This can be misread that Jefferson County is the Bluegrass region. It's harder to misread this: "in the western counties, Jefferson County, and the state's Bluegrass region"
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Unbeknownst": Many AmEng style guides prefer "Unknown".
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"further strained relations between him and the Senate": further strained his relations with the Senate
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He died January 19, 1822": He died on January 19, 1822
- Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may have a few lingering issues to sort out on a couple of these, but I hope you will be able to support soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No major quibbles with any of your edits. Always good to have a review from you, Dank. Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Structure, prose, referencing, images and level of detail all seem fine; been a long time since I've read over a FAC and couldn't find any wording that I wanted to alter...
Also performed a quick spotcheck of two online sources, the Dictionary of American Biography and Kentucky Encyclopedia entries, and saw no inaccuracies or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and kind comments. Was really afraid this was going to fail with 2 supports and no opposes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, been meaning to review it for ages but other things always seemed to get in the way... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review on 1(a), (b), (c) (source quality only, no comprehensiveness or spot checks), (d), and (e); 2 (a) and (b); and 4: Basically support (to the point that if a delegate needs to either archive or promote before my comments are addressed, I favour promotion). Comments:

Did some copyediting; revert what you don't like (except my correction of "tenants" to "tenets", which is nonnegotiable). I'm going to try to come back within a couple of days to do another sweep through, as I'm a little groggy at the moment and may have missed some stuff.
"Early in life, he associated himself with the Hartwood Baptist Church..." Is there a reason "joined" wouldn't work here? I almost made the change myself, but there is some change in meaning and I don't have access to the source, so I thought I'd better check. The current wording is somewhat awkward.
- This may be me nitpicking as a Baptist personally, but we don't know exactly when Garrard was baptized, which is the method for obtaining membership in a Baptist church. (Thereafter, membership can be transferred to another church of like faith by letter of recommendation; few Baptist congregations that I know of actually re-baptize people coming from another church of like faith.) So, if he was baptized by Hartwood Baptist, he was a member. However, if he was not baptized there but merely attended, he technically was not a member, unless he was previously baptized and joined Hartwood by letter. Confused yet? The source, as best I recall, doesn't explicitly say he was a member. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If all of his surviving sons served in the Assembly, why are they not linked in the Infobox under "relations"?
- None of them have wiki-articles, so I thought they would just be cluttering the inbox. William seems to have been the most politically active, but even then, I doubt he'd ever have more than a stub or start-class article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Delegate David Rice, a Presbyterian minister, was the leading voice against the inclusion of slavery in the new constitution, while George Nicholas argued most strenuously in favor of it." It's not clear here what's meant by the "inclusion" of slavery in the constitution.
- Good point. I've changed "slavery" to "slavery protections", which I guess is technically what they were arguing over. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Five Baptist laymen defied Garrard's instructions and voted to retain Article 9; their votes provided the necessary margin for its inclusion." By my math, if they had switched sides the vote would have been 21-21 - still a defeated motion.
- I'll have to go back and check this. I don't have the source readily at hand. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Both Logan and Garrard were chosen as electors from their respective counties." I gather from this that Todd did not. Do we know if he ran?
- I don't have any more information about that at present. Like you, I assume since the source didn't mention him, he wasn't chosen. This was very early in what would become an outstanding political career for Todd, so he may not have had the necessary support to be chosen an elector yet. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know anything about the dynamics that made Garrand the preferred candidate of most Todd electors?
- I don't remember reading anything about that, but I'll double-check when I have a chance. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Although he did not retain outgoing Attorney General John Breckinridge, who had sided with Logan in the disputed gubernatorial election..." This seems slightly misleading, since when it most counted, he sided with Garrard (by refusing to intervene in the election results).
- Seems strange in today's world of political gamesmanship, but my impression is that at least some elected officials let their understanding of constitutional limits override the personal desires. Breckinridge was clearly and publicly of the opinion that Logan was the winner, but he refused to overstep what he perceived as a constitutional limit on his power to do anything about it. Politically, Garrard and Breckinridge disagreed more than they agreed, but they still respected each other enough to consult each other on difficult political matters. Can you imagine that happening with any kind of regularity today? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"To that end, he signed legislation combining Transylvania Seminary and Kentucky Academy into a single institution." What was this new institution called?
- According to Transylvania: Tutor to the West, it was called Transylvania University. (p. 32) It was later called Kentucky University (following a merger with a college of the same name), but after the creation of the University of Kentucky, it returned to the name Transylvania University to avoid confusion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since all parties apparently agreed that the constitution needed amending, why was there such opposition to a convention?
- There was some language about this in Everman's book – something about the aristocracy fearing its power would be reduced if a new convention was called. Basically, they thought some things needed to change, but they would rather live with those than risk holding a convention that might include more populist notions in a new constitution. I can try to dig up a few specifics. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, another fine piece of work, Mr. Dixon. Steve Smith (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, especially the excellent copyediting. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well written and well sourced article. However in the sentence Most of Todd's electors supported Garrard on the second vote, giving him a majority could you provide the exact number? Ruslik_Zero 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish. I have been looking for this for a while with an eye toward creating an article about the 1796 election, but no source mentions it, and best I can remember, Everman implied that the final vote may not have ever been published. Bummer! Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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