Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simon Bolivar Buckner/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simon Bolivar Buckner./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 Karanacs 18:24, 30 September 2009 [1].

Simon Bolivar Buckner

edit
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I have recently expanded this article and believe it now meet the definition of an FA. I have asked that its WP:MILHIST peer review be closed so I can get at least some FA comments before I have to return Borderland Knight to the library. It's on interlibrary loan without any possible renewals. ‎Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With such a noticeable name, shouldn't the reader be told why he was named after Simon Bolivar? I looked for it and didn't see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know, even after reading Borderland Knight, I still don't know why he was named that. I haven't found a single reference to it. Odd. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you scour the sources one more time? If there's no reference, there's no reference, but it's surprising that it's not mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was split from page 5 onto page 6 in Stickles. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Buster. Not sure how I missed that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Went through this at its MilHist peer review and my few suggestions were quickly actioned, so happy to support here - this is detailed, balanced, and well-referenced. My only further suggestion is that it would be good to break up the text around the middle with another image; if there are no portraits available featuring the man then even something of an action he was involved in might be worthwhile - just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I just have one additional comment re-reading this. The section heading "Post-war career" following the Mexican War section seems a little misplaced to me. Obviously it describes his life after a significant war, but coming before a section on the Civil War it reads oddly to me, particularly since there's a "Post-war life" after the CW section. Wouldn't "Interbellum" or some such be more appropriate for the section between the Mexican War and the Civil War? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I hadn't noticed this before. Plus, "interbellum" is a cool word, so I've taken your suggestion. :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do that, I'd suggest Postbellum instead of Post-War in a later heading. Postbellum is a word that has specific relevance for the ACW. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPRT A wonderfully done article. Very thorough examination of Bucker's interesting career. I enjoyed reading it. As far as content and focus go, this is in excellent shape, and I can support it for that element. In terms of the prose, I have a few minor quibbles that I will list below; if you could deal with some/all of them, I'd be happy to support this for FA. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment relating to support. I've reread the article and support it. All my concerns were addressed. I've made a couple of minor tweaks, relating mostly to passive voice or some redundancy — VERY MINOR — which I hope the primary editor does not mind. This is a very interesting, well done article. My reservations about the sources are addressed. I appreciate reading an article about a Confederate general that does not dwell on the war, but rather on his political career. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*he famously accepted Ulysses S. Grant's demand for an "unconditional surrender" at the Battle of Fort Donelson. ... the use of the word famously here stopped me short in reading this. Perhaps, he just accepted it?

  • third child and second son born to of ...
  • Just before leaving the army, Buckner helped an old friend from West Point a...
  • Fort Donelson section.....planned a breakout attempt, don't need the word attempt.
  • At this time, however, Floyd and Pillow combined to undo the day's work by ordering the troops back to their trench positions
  • was it defeatism, or was it pragmatism?
  • I'm not sure actually. I didn't author that line, nor do I have access to the source it is cited to. I left it because it was properly cited. User:Hlj would be the authority here.
  • At this time, however, Floyd and Pillow ...
  • was Bragg just incompetent? or was there a reason he divided his troops in all directions?
  • If there was a reason, I haven't found it. The sources I've seen on the subject seem to agree it was a bad decision, but hindsight is 20/20. For whatever reason, Jefferson Davis seems to have had supreme confidence in Bragg, so surely he wasn't totally incompetent.
  • At Fort Donelson, Buckner had become the first Confederate general of the war to surrender an army; at New Orleans, he became the last... At FD, Buckner had been the first...at New Orleans, he was the last.... Simplified?
  • I used the more complicated wording in an attempt to distinguish context. Buckner wasn't the last Confederate general to to surrender at New Orleans, he was the last Confederate general to surrender in the war. Not sure my version or yours makes that distinction sufficiently. What do you think?
  • After his army surrendered, Buckner was paroled in Shreveport, Louisiana, on June 9, 1865. The terms of his parole prevented his return to Kentucky for three years, so he lived in New Orleans and worked on the staff of the Daily Crescent newspaper.[8] Further, he engaged in business with a merchant firm and served on the board of directors of a fire insurance company...The terms of Buckner's parole in Shreveport LA, on June 9, 1865, prevented his return to Kentucky for three years. He remained in New Orleans, worked on the staff of the DC, engage din a business venture, and served of the board of directors of a fire insurance company, of which he became president in 1867.
  • restoration of his civil rights as was provided for under the terms of the 14th Amendment....restoration of his civil rights as stipulated by....

* On January 5, 1874, fter five years of suffering with tuberculosis, Buckner's wife died ... sentence variety.

  • widowed Buckner....is this the right word? How about Now a widower, Buckner...mention his daughter's name in here again to distinguish her from his sister. I thought, initially, it was his sister who married, not the daughter.
  • When he was inaugurated, a bloody feud known as the Rowan County War was ongoing. Residents of Rowan County formed a posse and on June 22, 1888, killed several of the leaders of the feud... Shortly after his inauguration, the Rowan County War escalated to vigilantism, when residents of the county organized a posse and killed ....
  • A major financial scandal erupted in 1888
  • During the 1888 session of the General Assembly, 1,571 bills were passed, During the 1888 session, the General Assembly passed....
  • Five (?) years later, he was one of four candidates nominated for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1895—the others bein...
  • Both Palmer and Buckner had ... developed (or acquired, or earned, or...)
  • newspapers, including
  • after a being ill for a week with uremic poisoni,,,after a week-long bout with uremic poisoning.

You've used a lot of passive voice in this. He became famous for, ya da ya da. Lots of becames, was active in, has been, etc. I'm not suggesting you fix these in this article, but it's something to watch out for in the future, because it weakens your text, and make it more cumbersome to read.Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of these except where I have made comments above. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources are fine. They are all encyclopedic quality, or academic presses, and some well done military history. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should consider expanding your number of sources. I think more than 75% of your citations are from a single book written in 1940. There are literally dozens of good candidates for modern secondary sources about the major Civil War battles and campaigns that Buckner participated in. Using a source other than Stickles for the Battle of Chickamauga, for instance, would've allowed you to notice that the Confederates were not "attacked but emerged victorious" (since corrected). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC) ::HJ, that is a good catch. I don't know where my head was at last night when I looked at the sources. Acdixon, the amount of research done on these various battles and campaigns since 1940 is monstrous, and this comment should be dealt with before you go much further. Even if many of your more recent sources can confirm what Stickles wrote, certain his assessment is not the so-called current state of knowledge about Buckner. If your sources disagree, this is an important element to introduce. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that editor's defense, the Stickles work is as close to authoritative on the subject of Buckner, Sr. as anyone, author having direct access to Buckner, Jr. for commentary and assistance. I must agree with Hal and Auntieruth55 that more recent sources should be found in place many of these Stickles citations. BusterD (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I largely concur with this reviewer's opinion that: "This sound work will stand as a legitimate source until a more analytical book is published." Here we are seventy years later, and Stickles, while imperfect, is the best single source about the subject. The article is well-supplied with other worthy sources, but it shouldn't surprise anyone Stickles gets the lion's share of the cites on such pagespace. BusterD (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the kind of comment I feared. My primary interest in Buckner is for his political career, and most of the sources I have used deal with that aspect of his life. I'm not a Civil War expert, and I don't play one on Wikipedia. I don't know enough about these battles, etc. to determine what constitutes "comprehensive" coverage of this aspect of Buckner's life, nor do I know enough to know what differences I should be looking for between a source written in the 1940s and a source written in the 2000s. I'd really appreciate some help here. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide more CW details and cites for you, although it will add a number of Refs to the article and I would be reluctant to do that without asking; since you probably don't have them, it would be difficult for you to verify my work. Also, I use a different formatting style for Refs and you'd need to edit them to whatever style you prefer instead. Let me know if you want me to proceed under those conditions and I'll get to it in a day or so. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you were apparently the one that did the majority of the work on this article prior to my expansion, I trust you to make whatever changes you feel appropriate. I'm not worried about number of sources or anything like that; I'm only interested in producing an FA, as determined by the Wikipedia community. I don't mind to go back and put the refs in {{cite}} format. Please proceed at your convenience and let everyone know here when you are finished. Thanks so much for your help; this is one area I don't feel qualified to address. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, friend, for getting to this so quickly. I have put the references in a consistent format using the {{cite book}} template. I hope that the article can now be promoted to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Since you are in a cooperative mood, I have one final suggestion. Although Bolivar is technically "Senior" because of the presence of another article about his son Junior, his name is not known to history in that format and I would recommend renaming the article without Senior. (I think at one time it was named that and someone renamed it out of a sense of balance, I guess. However, using that as a standard we would have to rename Ulysses S. Grant to be Ulysses S. Grant I because of articles about his Roman-numeraled descendants.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried this, and it requires an admin to do the move because the dab page already exists. I'm not one, but I know one I can ask. Please let me know if you have other suggestions before you can support the article's promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Willking1979 has taken care of this. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: concerns resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Decline due to: [reply]
Reliant (to the point of making me feel single sourced) on a 1940s source. This isn't a problem, but I suspect it should be addressed in the article if you're planning on relying on the work. If you're that reliant, then the source is notable in itself, "Stickles 1940 biography is still the only biography...". Can I ask if there are any unlocated biographies? Can you explain this so I can strike my decline reason?
Prior to BusterD's locating Beyond the Southern Storm, I was unaware of any other biographical sources. FWIW, Google Books lists it as "Fiction" but I'm betting that's a mis-categorization. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues,
"^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner"" is not an adequate citation for verification purposes. Use corporate author as author. A self-published website by a suitably authorative organisation takes the corporate authorship of the organisation in the About section. Also, in the bibliography the web citation is inadequate. Need database & retrieval method (separate to web page, as its a web interface database). ie: National Governors Association "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" In [database of past governors] Online: National Governors Association, retrieved [date].
Not sure I follow what you want here. The NGA publishes biographies of every state governor; I've cited their bio on every governor article I've done, which includes every Kentucky governor from 1792 to 1939. Most of those are GAs or FAs, and I've never had this source's reliability questioned. There is no specific author's name listed, or I'd be happy to give it. The inline citation needs only to help the reader locate the source in the bibliography, so I contend that what is extant is sufficient. As far as what is given in the bibliography, I've given every piece of data I've been able to find about the source. The source supports only two facts, that of Buckner's charge to revise the state militia laws and that of his burial location. I would think NGA would be sufficiently reliable to back these claims. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try replacing the footnote " ^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" " with " ^ a b "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Buckner" National Governors Association." to cue the reader to which item in the Bibliography is being cited. Its unclear without an author, or publisher, or page citation, that its anything other than a stubby note. As far as the bibliographic entry, given that National Governor's Association is the corporate author, and publisher, you can avoid giving both simultaneously, but you need to give the retrieval method as well as the direct link. "Kentucky Governor Simon Bolivar Bucker" in Governors> Past Governors [database]. National Governors Association. Retrieval date:. " The issue isn't just locating the source, but displaying if the source is authoritative. If the National Governors Association just had Bucker up as a blog page, that would be far less persuasive than Bucker being part of their comprehensive Governor's database. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified the inline citation and the bibliographic one. Not sure the NGA's database has an official name, but I've provided one that should get close. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"^ a b c d e f g h i Kleber, p. 136" // Kleber, John E., ed (1992). The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Associate editors: Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James C. Klotter. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813117720. is not an adequate encyclopedic citation. Tertiary sources in history are esteemed if they are signed articles. You don't indicate the article title or the signing authority on the article.
The articles in this publication are signed. Beyond this, the editorial staff is a veritable "who's who" of Kentucky historians, including Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James Klotter. The lead editor, John Kleber, is presently the state historian. I've had to use two different articles by two different authors, so I've used the lead editor's name in the inline cites to avoid confusion, and per the WP:MILHIST peer review of this article. The bulk of the cites are to the article on Buckner, Sr., which is authored by Lowell H. Harrison, but one cite is to the article on Buckner, Jr., which is authored by Nicky Hughes. You can verify this by viewing the Google Books preview of the encyclopedia (I think these pages are available) or the online version of the encyclopedia, made available by Morehead State University. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is signed, then you need to cite the author. Author, "Title" Eds, Publication information. Make the claim in the Bibliography. its fine to have two references to the containing work. Lowell H. Harrison, "Buckner, Sr." and Nicky Hughes, "Buckner, Jr." in Eds...
Done, although I think this is a little bit of overkill. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you indicate the place of publication, sometimes you don't. Make consistent (I prefer places of publication to be listed, very strongly).
Hadn't noticed this detail. I probably won't be able to add a location for the Beito source, since it's a journal, not a book. For the others, I can probably locate the information, but I wasn't the one who added all of them. I'll try to find it via Google Books or WorldCat, but I can't make any promises. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Journals tend not to need the place of publication, unless they're a periodical with a commonly shared name.
Locations added. Thanks, WorldCat! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Broken link: Morris B. Belknap?
This is included per WP:REDLINK. Besides being Buckner's son-in-law, Belknap was a prominent businessman in Louisville, an early leader of the Kentucky Republican Party, and a gubernatorial candidate in 1903. I opine that an article about him could/should exist, but I haven't done the research to create it yet. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this: Simon Bolivar Buckner: Beyond the Southern Storm (2005) by Stephen Russell. I was unaware of this work, and have ordered the paperback. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have suggested the work. As you can see, my concerns are not extensive. Please prod my talk page after you've had a chance to assess the impact of Russell's Beyond the Southern Storm on the article, so I can modify the Decline to Support. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any way this FAC will remain open that long. It's been open over a month already, and is near the bottom of the list of open nominations. I predict an admin will want to close it in the next few days, hardly enough time to obtain the book and review its 450+ pages. I think you will have to support or oppose based on the sources currently used. I hope you can choose the former, with the promise that BusterD will make any appropriate corrections once he's had time to peruse Beyond the Southern Storm. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with this kind of improvement drive continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(The editor below beat me to the punch of changing my position in relation to the responses I received, damn you edit conflicts, I do feel quite rightly the article should be featured, but I see Humanities and Social Sciences FACs falling into two categories: those that are receiving a pre-publication polish, and those that are returned to the editors with serious extensive issues. You can see from the fine detail of my concern, and how few concerns I had, which group this article fell into.)
Thanks for agreeing to support. I have full faith that BusterD will enlighten us if anything further emerges from reading Beyond the Southern Storm. Thanks also to BusterD. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating support I've read the comments above, and hope to offer some sense of perspective on this. I still think the article should be passed. Additional material can be added later, and I see no reason to hold up this article's status pending review of a book that may or may not be fiction, just so it can be included in the article. Although I had some reservations about relying so heavily upon Stickles, it has been for 50 years or more the authoritative work on Buckner and it is reasonable for the editors to rely upon it. I see no reason why, in encyclopedia article, we have to refer to every single source out there. The editor(s) of this article can add material later if they feel its inclusion is warranted. The electronic age has made scholarship easier and harder, and if any of my university students had handed me this article for grading, I would have been overjoyed. Enough already. SUPPORT. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this. This is one of the more challenging articles I've done, probably since William Goebel. I also plan to tackle John J. Crittenden over Christmas break. Another 400+ page biography! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Stephen Russell, although I tried to google him, all I found a were links to Madonna's doctor and a few other people who obviously weren't the right man. Chicago Spectrum press is part of a house specializing in subsidized publishing—self-publishing, you might call it. They list the book as the South's Benedict Arnold, on one site (Evanston), and as historical Memoir on another. Just FYI/FWIW. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 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/Simon_Bolivar_Buckner/archive1&oldid=1078806642"