Talk:Alben W. Barkley/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do this review. Sorry you've had to wait two months. I'll do a first readthrough of the article today and/or tomorrow, noting any preliminary issues, then begin a formal checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough

This is terrific work. The prose is excellent and interesting, the coverage clearly comprehensive, and the sourcing thorough. Use of summary is the only major issue I see on my first pass.

A few comments:

I've reduced the density of the links in the lead section per WP:LEADLINK. I won't be offended if you revert any or all of this, though, as it's not a factor for the GA criteria.
- They're all linked in the article, so it's fine. I tend toward overlinking. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally, Wheeler only offered free access to his extensive law library as payment for Barkley's services" -- free in the sense of "unfettered"? or free as in "giving away for nothing"? It seems a bit contradictory to give something free for "payment". Perhaps the word "free" could simply be removed here.
- Removed. On second look, it is a little superfluous. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The faction's attempts to recruit Barkley to challenge incumbent anti-prohibition Senator Ollie M. James in the 1917 Democratic primary were not encouraged by Barkley" The passive voice and repetition of Barkley's name make this sentence rather awkward. Perhaps, "Barkley did not encourage the faction's attempts to recruit him... "?
- The awkward wording resulted from not re-reading the sentence after it was copyedited. See if it reads better now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Woodrow Wilson drove the crooks and corruptionists out of New Jersey, Governor Pinchot is driving them out of Pennsylvania, and if I am elected Governor of Kentucky I promise to drive them out of Frankfort," he declared" It's not a factor for a GA review, but per MOS:QUOTE, quotations shouldn't include wikilinks except in the rarest of cases.
- I find that an odd rule, but I've changed this to a footnote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"fact that he generally disliked him." pronouns are getting a little confused here.
- Yeah, that's a little ugly. Replaced with names, but it's not much better. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite his predictions of a Democratic victory" --Barkley's or Stevenson's?
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He was diagnosed with cataracts and just after the election, he had cataract surgery." --the chronology seems slightly disordered here. The previous sentence is the end of his VP term, but this sentence takes us back to "just after the election".
- It is, a little. But the relative importance of the events (end of term vs. cataract surgery) and their reasonable chronological proximity made me think this would be acceptable, especially since I don't have an exact date on the diagnosis or surgery. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Historian Glenn Finch opined that Barkley" -- it's unclear if statement is from 1954, or later when Finch wrote the article.
- Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"meme" -- seems like an imprecise use of the term, and anachronistic. Perhaps "charge" or "attack"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fix Poole/Poore spelling--not sure which is correct, but they should correspond. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Length

This article is amazing in its command of detail, but unfortunately that comes at the cost of making it a little long for a standard Wikipedia article. Per WP:SIZE, an article with >60kb readable prose "probably should be divided"; this one weighs in at 72kb. While not directly a good article criterion, this is touched on in 3b, use of summary, and this is the only real area of concern I see so far. (Looking at the history, I see you've already taken a pass at some of this [1]). Here's some more sections I'd suggest summarizing more succinctly or cutting:

Democratic embezzlement scandal while county attorney--gets more space than all of AB's actions during the Harding years, and could be much more concisely summarized
- That an election which was the subject of a lengthy scholarly article should occupy more of the article than the four years when Barkley was one of a few hundred legislators, in the minority party, and under a president from the opposing party doesn't seem terribly unusual to me. Besides, the 1923 gubernatorial election was during the Harding period, too. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
failed race for governor nomination--gets a lot of article space for an office Barkley didn't reach
- Yes, but the party dynamics established here – particularly Barkley's party loyalty – are important to his later career and popularity. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge by Happy Chandler -- details like "Traveling from Covington to Latonia Race Track, Chandler secured the middle position in the back seat of the president's car, separating Roosevelt and Barkley." are amusing but could be cut without the reader losing much understanding.
- I think this is a fair point. Chandler was known for antics like this, but it adds little to the narrative about Barkley. Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Many senators resented Roosevelt's interference in a traditionally legislative prerogative" -- an aside that could be cut.
- Maybe, but it helps explain the growing legislative opposition to Roosevelt. That's important when Barkley finally broke with Roosevelt, gaining respect from his colleagues. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" Dissatisfaction with Truman's administration continued to grow in the lead-up to the 1948 presidential election; Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright even publicly called for Truman's resignation.[143]" -- suggest cut, it's already clear.
- OK, I think you've convinced me on that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the discussion of Barkley's ruling on a cloture rules change in which he was in turn overruled appears to me something that could be cut entirely; unlike other legislative actions discussed in the article, there are no obvious consequences to this, and takes a full 'graph to explain. If essential, I suggest summarizing it more succinctly.
- Two reasons I want to retain this. First, the reliable sources make it clear it was a big deal at the time, even if it may not have had lasting impacts. Second, there is typically embarrassingly little to comment on about a person's tenure as vice-president. "Presided over the Senate" doesn't tell the reader much; this gives a specific example of why that can be a big deal. I'm open to suggestions about how to better summarize it though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
his visit to Emory could be cut; it's not clear that this was a significant moment in his life or for US history.
- Essentially, this is to provide some context for the naming of the Barkley Forum, which seems to bear mention, but doesn't fit naturally anywhere without the other details. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"On his return, he helped pass Truman's plan to replace 64 Internal Revenue Service collectors with 25 deputy regional directors" -- I'm not familiar with the history of IRS organization, but this sounds quite trivial.
- Yeah, that can probably go. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The River and Harbor Act of 1954 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct locks and dams along the Cumberland River.[182] The lowermost mainstream project, the "Lower Cumberland Project," was completed in 1966.[182] The dam and the lake formed by the dam were redesignated Barkley Dam and Lake Barkley in Barkley's honor" This could probably be distilled into one sentence--the precise history isn't necessary to understand Barkley's life.
- Trimmed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 2008, Paducah's American Justice School of Law changed owners after failing to secure accreditation from the American Bar Association.[185] It was renamed the Alben W. Barkley School of Law, but remained unaccredited, and closed in December 2008.[185]" --an unaccredited law school, named after him for only one year, can probably be cut entirely. (Perhaps this can be moved to a see also if considered essential).
- Basically just wanted to point out that none of Barkley's descendants were involved with this venture. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are only suggestions, but I would like to see this article's lingering tendency to overthoroughness be addressed at some points. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a closer review of the talk page, which I admittedly should have done first, and saw that this specific length was approved by the community in an RfC. Fair enough. I'm leaving my comment above, and I hope you'll consider acting on some of this, but I won't fail the nomination on these grounds. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss specific changes. The RFC was an attempt to halt non-specific "too long" complaints. Collect (talk · contribs) is helping me work through this and reduce the length while retaining the essential content. That process is ongoing. A peer review will also be in this article's future before its submission at FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Excellently written. Spot checks in Google Books for plagiarism/close paraphrasing show no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sourcing is minute and excellent.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all phases of a diverse career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	My feeling is that the article is over-long, even for a subject with such a long career, and could use a little cutting. (see "length", above) However, a community RfC approved this length, so I won't stand in its way.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Kudos to all involved. This is an excellent piece of work.