Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Franklin Pierce/archive1

Add links
Source: 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 Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2014 (diff).

Franklin Pierce

Nominator(s): Designate (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Franklin Pierce, a president almost always denigrated. Yet in his time, he was one of the bright young stars of the Democratic Party. His efforts to deal with the slavery issue won him lasting, and possibly deserved, condemnation, yet as one of Andrew Johnson's biographers once said, the issues the presidents of their times faced were so overwhelming it would have taken a succession of Lincolns to deal with them properly. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and such not very important quibbles as I had were dealt with then. I found this jointly-written article outstandingly pleasing to read: I ended up feeling quite indignant at the engaging Pierce's low ranking in the hierarchy of US presidents. Well balanced, comprehensive, neutral, nicely illustrated, widely and judiciously referenced, and a really good read: FA quality without doubt. Loud applause to the co-noms! Tim riley talk 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your patient peer review and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Support – I caught a few minor formatting issues with the refs but can find nothing else. A fantastic piece of work! Cassiantotalk 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that and for your catches!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

  • File:First_ladies-pierce.jpg: given the typical long estimates it is possible that the unknown author died less than 100 years ago
It's a very long shot indeed that he did. I've done a bit of internet searching on this, and the photo dates from 1850. He would have had to have been a very young man at the time and lived to be a very old one. Given that he is unknown (and other sources say "unknown" as well), I'm inclined to maintain the tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Southern_Chivalry.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:President_Franklin_Pierce_grave_concord_NH.jpg should identify copyright status of the memorial itself.
I've deleted that. It was built in 1946 and without a physical inspection I could not say there was no copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Brianboulton

  • refs 15, 16 require "p." rather than "page"
  • ref 18 requires pp. not p.
  • ref 19 requires pp. not p.
  • ref 51 check page range format (compare, e.g., ref 48)
  • refs 55 and 56 ditto
  • ref 67, "Gara", 38" needs a p.
  • ref 74, p needs full stop
  • ref 115 check page range format
  • ref 122 ditto
  • ref 138 ditto
The Crockett article? That's OK, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographies: some have publisher locations, others not. Likewise "other works"
  • The Pierce Manse is a cited source, and should not be listed among ext links

All external links checked and working. Sources appear of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted above, I've gotten those. Thank you for your source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose not a bad article, but I'm sorry to say this was nominated prematurely for FA.

Lead
  • "All of their children died young"..... specify that they had three sons
That either leaves "All of their three sons" which is sloppy, or "Their three sons died young" which leaves room for any number of daughters. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gruesomely killed" is borderline POV, just say "killed"
I appreciate your point, but when a child is decapitated, or nearly, in the parents' presence, I think the term is fine. I do not think the use of adjectives is POV. POV means you are taking sides on a subject which can be disputed. What is the opposing point of view? Where is it advocated in reliable sources? Every book on Pierce I've consulted dwells to some extent on how horrible that railway disaster was for the Pierces, as it would be for any parent who loses a child, especially in a disaster that they survived but the child did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pierce's credibility was further damaged"..... reputation or image would be better
"Administration" subbed--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and family
Childhood and education
  • Include the names of Pierce's siblings here
  • I think that this is unnecessary detail. Why is this relevant to the reader? They are not his children, and played no part in his political career. They would just be names to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two of his older brothers fought in the War of 1812"..... specify which ones
  • Add a comma after "year" in "Later that year he transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy"
  • "By this time he had built a reputation as a charming student, sometimes prone to misbehavior"..... I'm not sure this sentence is even needed
  • It presages his mixed career at Bowdoin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his memory for names and faces served him well, as did his personal charm and deep voice"..... "charm" is somewhat POV
Personalities are well within scope for a biography, especially when there's a strong consensus about how a person was perceived in their lifetime. "Charm" isn't really POV, since every source represents him as particularly likable and personable even by a politician's standards. Compare to (FA) Ronald Reagan: "His age and soft-spoken speech gave him a warm grandfatherly image." —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State politics
  • I'm not convinced "hotbed" is the best word choice
  • Add a comma after "1831" in "By 1831 the Democrats"
Is this really a rule? It seems like personal preference. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "27" in "At the age of 27"
  • Given how the "tantamount to election" page is currently proposed to be merged into Safe seat, it's probably best to unlink this and use some other phrasing to describe the election
  • "He had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough"..... here you should introduce his wife Jane by name
If the sections were farther apart I would support this, but given the proximity, think it's cleaner to finish off the political section without blurring it too much with the marriage section. —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage and children
  • "She was slight and constantly ill"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what "slight" means in this instance
  • I've changed to "somewhat gaunt".
  • Remove the "see below" from the bit on Benjamin dying in a train incident
I've redone it as a link to the section. I don't see that the reader should have to wade through sections of prose to find it.
Congressional career
U.S. House of Representatives
  • "shot down challenges" → "declined challenges"
Rephrased somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be an annoyance"..... keep it simple and just say annoying
I was trying to avoid the phrase "abolitionists' agitation annoying", or worse, "abolitionists' agitation an annoyance". Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Senate
  • I'd remove "vigorous" from "vigorous debate"
  • "his father, sister, and brother"..... specify which sister and brother
  • "who was often in financial difficulties" → "who often struggled financially"
  • "He was an able senator, but not an eminent one"..... doesn't read very well or seem encyclopedic
  • "Pierce campaigned vigorously throughout his home state"..... "vigorously" doesn't seem like the right word
  • Add a comma after "1841" in "In December 1841 Pierce decided to resign from Congress"
Party leader
Lawyer and politician
  • Place a comma after "1842" in "In June 1842 Pierce was named chairman"
  • Calling James K. Polk a "dark horse" is unneeded
Until we come to the section on 1852, where Pierce's dark horse candidacy is widely compared to Polk's. It's foreshadowing and it's in there for a reason. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an issue which caused a dramatic split between Pierce and his former ally Hale" → "an issue that ended Pierce's alliance with Hale"
  • I think that understates the case. If you look at the following paragraphs, the phrasing is justified. This, and similar stands made Hale an abolitionist leader while Pierce basically wanted to sweep the issue of slavery under the carpet and hope it would go away. And worse than that Hale was doing it in the New Hampshire Democratic Party, which Pierce felt should remain united.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican–American War
  • "even though by the time Grant wrote Pierce had been dead for several years"..... reads awkwardly
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grant described him this way"..... not very encyclopedic
This way stricken.
Return to New Hampshire
  • Remove "notable" from "in one notable case", and add a comma after "case"
It tips the reader that it's an exceptional matter, not a typical one. In the case of the comma, I think that if we are to be spare of commas, we should be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "36°30′ N" → "36°30' N" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
In this case it's not a quotation mark but a prime mark which is governed by different rules. {{coord}} uses prime marks, for example. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "fiasco" the best word choice?
I think it goes beyond "controversy". They ditched their candidate for governor because of his views. I'm minded of when McGovern ditched Shriver because he had been treated for depression. That was certainly a fiasco.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem... McGovern ditched Eagleton, and chose Shriver in his place (how do I know this stuff? Must get out more) Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fingers sometimes get ahead of my mind, alas. Thank you for the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Election of 1852
  • "Their son Benjamin wrote to his mother, hoping that Franklin would not be elected, as neither mother nor son would like to live in Washington"..... any particular reason they didn't?
Jane's hatred of politics has been made known to the reader. Benjamin's motives can only be guessed at, but I'd imagine he was sympathetic to his mother and aware enough of her views not to want her to be First Lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency
Tragedy and transition
  • "Gruesome" in "Pierce was not able to hide the gruesome sight from Jane" is borderline POV (as noted in lead)
See my comments to the lede. An 11 year old torn nearly in half is self-evidently gruesome, especially when it's your 11 year old and the last surviving child.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which likely affected Pierce's performance as president"..... I'd either find a more definitive answer than "likely", or remove this altogether
  • "Great sympathy" in "making her public debut in that role to great sympathy" doesn't seem very neutral
  • "Avoiding the word 'slavery', he emphasized his desire to put the 'important subject' to rest and maintain a peaceful union"..... If including the bit on not saying "slavery", readers will probably ask why he avoided the term
I think the sentence is self-explanatory. He wanted peace and he wanted Congress to stop talking about slavery altogether. Avoiding the term goes along with that goal (as Wallner picked up on) but it would be OR to dwell on it. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administration and political strife
  • "It quickly became clear that having a Democratic-controlled House and Senate would not ensure a successful presidency"..... something about this just doesn't read well
I think it can be safely deleted.
  • "Pierce and King never communicated once they had been selected as candidates in June 1852"..... why not?
Foreign and military affairs
  • "The Pierce administration fell in line with the expansionist Young America movement"..... took place during would read better
"Fell in line with" means "went along with", not "coincided with". I don't think it's useful to say it took place during a movement when the parties were so splintered. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unique" in "a uniquely American, republican image" is borderline POV
  • Don't need "unpopular" in "the unpopular Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850"
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bleeding Kansas
  • See above note on "36°30′ N"
Per above response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1856 election
  • "In reality his chances of winning"..... needs comma after "reality"
See comment on commas. We don't all write the same. Some people are sparer with commas than others. What is important is consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none of the three main candidates could clinch two-thirds of the vote"...... none received two-thirds of the vote sounds more professional
  • "received assurances from Buchanan's managers that this would be the case".... Buchanan's managers assured him
  • It would have been less direct than that. Douglas wasn't there. Buchanan's managers would have reached out to Douglas's political friends, all very indirect. Thus the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To soften the blow" doesn't sound very encyclopedic
  • Is "vigorously" in "he vigorously attacked Republicans and abolitionists" really needed?
Well, he was criticizing abolitionists his entire career, so this sentence is worthless without the extra punch. The sources portray this speech as unexpectedly aggressive for a lame duck and for Pierce in particular, and it's fair to reflect that here without being too specific about it.
  • "and the author found the retired president as buoyant as ever"..... not convinced this is necessary
  • I think it's a look at a president from some one close to him that we don't always get for an early president. It's helpful to remind the reader now and then that these are more than figures in a faded picture or idealized painting. They walked, talked, had emotions, just like we do, and were as vibrant and alive as we are. They did not live in a black and white photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later life
Post-presidency
  • "President Buchanan broke hard from the Pierce administration"..... "broke hard" doesn't read well
  • Make note of what Jane Pierce died from
I will look to see what can be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added TB.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Civil War
  • "Pierce paid a visit to Michigan, visiting his former Interior Secretary, McClelland, former senator Cass, and others"..... visited..... in Michigan
Final years and death
  • "took a growing toll on his health"..... something about "taking a toll on" doesn't seem very professional. Try something like Pierce's drinking worsened his health, perhaps.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had a brief relationship with an unknown woman in mid-1865"..... I question including something like this when a partner's name is not even known. Also doesn't seem worthy of inclusion if the relationship was only brief.
I don't want to bowlderize him, either.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A caretaker was hired for him; none of his family members were present in his final days"..... any particular reason known?
He had no one close and his nieces and nephews had their own lives--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henry's son Frank Pierce received the largest share"..... if known, I would include how much estate Pierce left him
  • I am not sure that dollar figures are relevant over 145 years, when the economy has changed so and the dollar is paper, not gold. In Pierce's day, middle class families could have hot and cold running servants at a trivial expense. Today, not so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • The entire first paragraph doesn't belong here- it focuses on Pierce's negative reception, legacy sections are for positive reception, influence, and such.
I don't agree with that. Stalin and Hitler didn't have legacies? If legacy sections can't be negative then we'd have to avoid them on Wikipedia entirely. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Designate, and negative legacy paragraphs are accepted in FAs (see Richard Nixon as an example)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it would've been better to first go for GAN, better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate your view. I am traveling at present but will be replying to these within the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and I commend your efforts so far. However, I do think the best place do to all the needed work would be outside of FAC. After lots of copyediting (GOCE could really help), I suggest GAN, and then maybe another peer review before later renominating for FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Fair points although I had a few comments above. I can't imagine the use of two PRs and a GOCE on such a straightforward article. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also. I've made changes where they seemed appropriate and responded where I did not agree. We will await additional reviewers. I should note, as someone who has been reviewing FAs for six or seven years, that there is no "right" way to write an article. People's prose styles differ. A certain amount of conformity is dictated by the MOS, but we have no editor in chief to dictate beyond that. Personally, I will accept a fairly broad range of prose styles. I often would write something differently, in an article that I review, but I don't see it as a reason to ask that it be changed, if it is to its own self true. With respect to POV, adjectives are not POV. POV is taking sides. If something is generally accepted, and thus there are not two sides, it is not POV.
I see no point in a GAN (which is very hit or miss) or GOCE. The article had a comprehensive peer review. We will await further comments by reviewer, and if they are favorable, will ask you to take a second look at the article and to reconsider. In the interim, we would welcome any further comments you may have and thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have read through the comments and suggestions in the above review, and in general find myself in agreement with the nominators where they have resisted suggested changes. The reference to "all the needed work" seems inappropriate; any outstanding changes are of a relatively minor nature, if not optional, and should be no barrier to the article's promotion. We all have stylistic preferences, but should be prepared to accept the choices of others unless they are plainly wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support, and for the thoughtful words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Designate and Wehwalt, I just looked this over again, and it's definitely improved over the past week. Good work! Fair points for some of my comments, but here are my explanations for the others:

  • Commas: MOS:DATE says to include a comma after a year, i.e. "On November 19, 1834, Pierce married Jane Means Appleton" as opposed to "On November 19, 1834 Pierce married Jane Means Appleton". My bad for neglecting to mention this at first.
  • Siblings: my basis for including them was FA's like Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Harry S. Truman.
  • "campaigned vigorously": "enthusiastically" would be better
  • "Great sympathy": I meant that the "great" part wasn't needed, even if the source included it
  • Pierce and King not communicating: For those who have no previous knowledge of their political relationship, I felt it could benefit them to know why Pierce don't follow Buchanan's advice
  • "Soften the blow": I think "console" would be fine
  • Legacy: From what I've read in other articles, "legacy" tends to have a more positive connotation. For example, Barack Obama is an FA whose legacy contains honors and praise rather than criticism. For Pierce, I would've imagined his criticism would be in a different section than "legacy". Regarding Hitler and Stalin, they certainly had prominent impact on society, but I haven't exactly heard people describe it as a legacy per se.
  • The brief relationship after Jane's death: Given how this isn't regarded as a prominent aspect of his life (at least compared to Jane), it seemed trivial to include when compared to widely reported/discussed relationships like Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings, Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Lucy Mercer, or Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky.

I'm almost ready to support this, most of my doubts seem to have been resolved and I'm much less skeptical now about this meeting FA criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, I'll support this nomination now. It's much better than when I first reviewed it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and for bearing with us while we improved the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoriaearle

I started reading this a few days ago but got sidetracked. I'll try to finish it this weekend. So far the only (extremely minor!) nitpick I've come across is that somewhere it mentions fall (as in autumn) and I think per some MoS rule we're supposed to use a month. I'll be back - it's an interesting read. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. When I did that the source was not ambiguous and it was clear from context North American seasons were intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, you're right! I was trying to wrack my brain to find something to comment about. This is beautifully written! And it's such an important period, which we tend to overlook. Thanks so much to both you for taking on this task and doing such a fine job. With much diligent work I have found a few comments to make, but they won't stand in the way of supporting.
  • Lawyer and politician": Which paper did Hill found? Not important, I'm simply curious.
Hill's New Hampshire Patriot. Interesting discussion of its future history [1]--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Election of 1852"
I had some trouble with this sentence: "He publicly declared such that a nomination would be "utterly repugnant to my tastes and wishes", but understood that his position as state party leader was in jeopardy if he flatly refused.[64]"
… and with this sentence: "Their son Benjamin wrote to his mother, hoping that Franklin would not be elected, as neither mother nor son would like to live in Washington.[66]"
Both clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foreign and military affairs"
Fourth para has "First In 1854," (prepositional phrase + comma) followed soon after by "In his December 1855 message to Congress Pierce set forth the American case" >> these need to be made consistent. I tend to use fewer commas but it's up to you.
  • "Bleeding Kansas"
The map is tiny. Can it be boosted a bit. Also some of the pics throughout are inconsistently sized, some "upright" and some not; these should probably be fixed, but not a big deal (except that they're all very nice images)
  • Sources:
What are we doing about "Further reading" sections these days? Just thought I'd mention.
There's one there. Is there a difficulty with it?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought we tried to avoid them? But, I might have dreamed it. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but I follow very few discussions these days. If anyone has a view on this, feel free to weigh in. We had more sources than we were actually using, so rather than delete the surplus one, I grouped them into "further reading".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, when I get a chance, I'll probably go through and trim your g-book references so they don't include the search string with the page number. But I'd only do this with your permission (maybe when the FAC is over) and would want you to know because those kinds of fixes look like a lot is being deleted.
I know what you mean. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent job and thanks so much for writing this. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your your comments and your support. I will work through these later in the day or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten to them all, though I am not the best guy on images and others should feel free to adjust.
Okay, thanks. The clarifications are good. I might play with the images a little on another day (I'm about to log out) because the images are nice and maybe worth boosting a bit if the space allows it. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I got sidetracked. Yes, the explanation about further readings is fine. I've gone through and made the image formatting consistent; if you hate it, it's fine to revert or rejig. Just a comment re the review above mine: you don't need me to tell you that we don't cherry-pick sources, and that we follow the sources. If the sources tell us his legacy wasn't great, then that's what happened. I am vaguely familiar with this period but much more through literature, (I love the Hawthorne connection and had forgotten Pierce visited Hawthorne in Rome), and there's a very good reason the legacy is what it is. Furthermore, I meant say this the other night but held back: I think this is an exemplary article, fwiw. I read straight through, top to bottom without a hitch. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I had less patience than Brian did; I stopped reading the opposing review after disagreeing with 13 of 13 review comments.
  • "During Pierce's childhood his father served as a governor's council member and county sheriff, while two of his older brothers fought in the War of 1812; politics and republicanism were thus a major influence in his early life.": I think it would be better to state the influence directly rather than implying it ... if you want to state the influence. It could be something like: "Pierce's interest in politics and his country started early; he looked up to his father, who served ..., and his older brothers, two of whom fought in the War of 1812." Or you might not have information on or want to focus on the influence his family had on him ... in which case, I'd leave off the "politics and republicanism ..." part. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reelection", "re-election": consistency
  • "toward", "towards": consistency
  • "cant heresy and treason": If "heresy and treason" is accurate, I'd recommend that.
  • Oops. VisualEditor just lost all my edits to the second half of the article ... I click on the "Save page" button, and nothing happens. Sorry about that. I'll run through it again, but I might miss things I saw the first time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to only hire": that they only hire
  • "filibuster": unauthorized military excursion
  • "future filibuster attempts": such attempts
  • "slow embrace of new technology": I moved things around to change this to "slow to embrace new technology" (but lost the edit).
  • "as well to as": as well as to
  • "6": six (if I didn't get this already)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed; I've made most of your changes, though sometimes in my own words. Where is the "6" that you refer to in your final caveat?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't remember if I lost that edit; it must have saved. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Coord notes

Note -- Having walked through the FAC list, I'm going to call it a night but I expect I'll be back to promote this in another day or two, as I think sufficient effort has been made by the nominators to accommodate the suggestions of the sole opposing voice, and consensus seems to be that the remainder is more a matter of taste. In the meantime though, as usual, pls just check that you need the duplinks that Ucucha's checker will highlight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through this again, my oppose isn't so strong now, Ian. Only several comments now, and I'm closer to supporting than I was last week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snuggums, please check you're working off the latest version of the article. For example, your complaint about the missing comma is just wrong - it's been there at least since you edited the article on 1st September. And I really don't know why you think that getting your preferred adjectives should be the price for this article's promotion. I agree with the others who have said that the remaining matters are questions of taste, and as it happens I would prefer to defer to Wehwalt's taste on such matters. BencherliteTalk 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
indeed; consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Nominators are allowed to leave oppositions stand. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see this has resolved itself positively in any case. Last thing then, hopefully -- Designate/Wehwalt, did you in fact check on the duplinks per my query above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All set. —Designate (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2014 (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/Franklin_Pierce/archive1&oldid=1138461088"