Talk:Thomas R. Marshall/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article. Let me say at the outset that while I think it is a very engaging article, I'm somewhat struck by the number of typographical errors in the article, at least one of which totally stunned me. I'll try to point out a few of them as I go, but I really think this article needs a good proofreading/copyediting job from someone not involved, and I don't mean me.

Lede:

The first sentence is excellent. The second is nowhere mentioned in the article, except in a brief passage. I suggest rewriting the lede, having the first paragraph being a brief summary, keeping the first sentence and mentioning his service as Governor of Indiana. Have the second paragraph summarize his pre-VP life, the third about him as VP (Wilson didn't trust him, war bonds tours, that kind of thing). Have the fourth mention the Wilson health crisis, what Marshall did, and perhaps throw in a sentence at the end that says that he remains well known for sense of humor, and give the cigar joke, just the punch line.
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

"the family spent several years moving," It doesn't take that long to move! Seriously, I'd rephrase and say, "the family lived in several states during Thomas's childhood."
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"unionist". Perhaps capitalize, especially as Confederate is capitalized. Check WP:MOS for advice here.
- Capitolized, but changed confederate to Southern, as the Confederacy was not quite concieved at the time of the incident.
"Confederate sympathizers" As the American Civil War neared? Wasn't no Confederacy until April 1861, so it would be hard to say that they were sympthizers with something that hadn't happened yet. Suggest rephrase.
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon settling in Princeton, Indiana, Marshall was enrolled in public school. After two years of elementary school, the family moved again, and he attended high school in Fort Wayne , graduating in 1869." Obviously times spent at different levels of school differed then, but this makes it sound like he went to elementary school for two years, and high school for seven, graduating at the age of fifteen. Watch that space before a comma there, too! More later--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded that whole section. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, more:

"they enrolled him in the Wabash College," I'd make this active voice. Students actively enroll in postsecondary education, they aren't enrolled by others. Yes, he was only 15, but still the active voice is better.
- Changed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Harrison was able to get the suit dropped, charged Marshall no fee, but gave him a lecture on ethics." There's an "and" or "but" missing in this sentence. I'd say "and" and strike the first comma.
- I broke this into two sentances. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tutoring law: Almost certainly, we're talking about reading law here, a combination apprenticeship and study still used now in then in some states (among them, my own state of Virginia]]. I doubt if he was tutored, he had a job as combination clerk and learner.
- Fixed. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer:

"work the juries". Perhaps rephrase to make it sound less colloquial. What does the source say? I don't think doing jury trials would be described as "working the juries" in a formal article.
- The source says he would deliver the actual agruments before the the jury and the judge, while his partner worked out their rationales. Marshall was the better communicator, his partner the better "lawyer". It says he was good at convincing a jury. Tried to fix this, let me know. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"After trying numerous cases ..." I feel the word numerous is often used sloppily, and suggest something like "The firm tried many cases before the local circuit court, and became well known in the region."
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As a Democrat candidate" Suggest "Democratic".
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
prosecuting attorney of his district Better to give it its formal term. District attorney?
- The source doesn't give an exact title, but it was a district that consisted of two counties. Would that be a district attorney?
around the state, Too informal! Perhaps "throughout"
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His involvement gave him greater exposure among the state party Greater implies a comparison, I don't see one.
- It is intended to show that he went from a regional well known, from his law practice, to a statewide known person. Reworded this a bit. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall was involved in many other private organizations. No private organizations in which Marshall was involved have yet been mentioned.
- Fixed. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as he grew wealthy from the income he earned through his law firm. Rephrase, please to make less wordy
- Fixed, —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rose to the grade of the Scottish Rite of the thirty-third degree by 1898. I'm pretty sure you've phrased this wrong.
- The source calls it the Scottish Rite of the thirty-third degree. It does sound backwards though - I am not familiar with masonic titles, so I am unsure. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Family life area: I would think that his family deserves at least one paragraph. I think you would do well to combine this with his wife's assistance in overcoming his alcoholism.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Other than his wife, he had one adopted son who died at 13, which is mentioned in the paragraph preceding his alcholism. I will check though if there is anything more in the sources I have, if not there is probably something I can get from his memior. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in responding, I have been traveling. I should be able to resolve these issues later today. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's more coming, I've been sidetracked today and may not get to finishing this until sometime this weekend or even Monday. Still, given the way that section is backed up, you're doing well time wise.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Here we go.

"was endorsed by a reporter of the Indianapolis Star." Does a single reporter endorse or did the paper give him its editorial board support?
- The source (Gugin) says editor, not the paper. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"of his support of prohibition." Ambiguous. I assume Marshall?
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This drew the support of the anti-prohibition men in the state, while retaining their own prohibition supporters." Huh?
- fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and that proved" Perhaps "the dispute over local option proved ..."
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Progressive agenda: avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Marshall"
- Done. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Marshall was an advocate of making United States Senators elected by popular election." sentence doesn't make sense
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was one of the earliest and most prominent opponents ..." Perhaps, 'He was an early, high-profile opponent of eugenics laws ..."
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"raising a convention to rewrite the state constitution" Possibly, "getting the legislature to call a convention to rewrite the state constitution"
- fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of the state constitution, I think that this should form its own paragraph, or possibly two paragraphs, not start in the middle of a paragraph with it. PLEASE read it over to yourself, I do see another couple of goofs that could possibly vanish in a rewrite. And who was this guy Dunn? Some random or a state official?
- Dunn was not too heavily involved in political offices, but he was a big state historian, his family was politicians, he was wealthy, and heavily involved in alot of charity and important civic groups. I have copy editted the section too. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The opponents believed that the direct-democracy portions were a violation of the United States Constitution that required states to operate republican forms of government." surely this should be earlier in the paragraph and you should end with the historical view.
- Done. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need to give the reader some measure of information about what the dispute was. I'm guessing that it's like California, that amendments could be passed by the legislature and the people, but revisions required a convention. Also, if the Dems controlled the legislature, why couldn't he get them to pass a convention? We're missing some links here.
- Done —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President:

"1912 Democratic national convention" For sure capitalized.
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"compromise nominee" Between Wilson and ... (I know, but does the reader?) Was he a favorite son?
- Added —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Marhsall’s popularity" ahem. Besides that, did Wilson select him or did the convention? In those days, the presidential candidate might not have even been asked about his VP choice.
- The convention selected him, technically, but Wilson wanted him which is really why he got on the ticket. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson/Marshall relationship: Is there any sense of why Wilson didn't give Marshall any responsiblity?
- Wilson thought Marshall was too conservative is what I take from the books I used for sources here. Other things I have read suggest Wilson was a power-monger... I added a bit about Wilson's lack of confidence in Marshall's progressive credentials. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"last state governor" last former state governor.
- fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and gather support for his League of Nations idea." gathering?
- Fixed —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the ceremonial functions" Such as?
- My source doesn't list any. I looked online and couldn't find any either, it just says ceremonial duties in Gugin.—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should state that the discussion of Marshall while Wilson was ill could really use significant expansion.
- I expanded it somewhat. Will try to grab a more detailed source to add more. By book by Gugin, which I used the most, is focused mostly on his term as governor. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Marshall did not have opportunity to meet with Wilson " Marshall's office was in the White House! Please rephrase. Did he even try to get by Edith Wilson? Did he write or say anything? Quotes would be good here.
- Wilson was kept secluded and only a few people who were trusted to tell nothing were let in. Marshall did try to meet with him according to one source, but was unable to - it gives no details to the incident. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all on the first round. Frankly, there were enough typos that I want to take a very close look once you've made the changes. This article suffers from a lack of details on the subject that is going to interest the reader, the latter part of Marshall's time as VP under Wilson. Please remedy it. Looking forward to the new and improved version, good work so far!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes sound good. I'll take a look through tomorrow and let you know what I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede still contains a number of grammatical howlers. Can you please take a look at that?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited the lead again, please let me know. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flying today and will not have internet access until tomorrow, I will read it then and let you know then. Could I ask that you please spend a bit of the time reading over the article carefully so I don't see other goofs that, honestly, shouldn't be in there at this late date?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to pass the article. You desperately need a pair of eyes on this article that aren't your own. Just looking still at the lede, I see a reference to the US Supreme Court followed by the word "who" and "moral" when you mean "morale". It isn't the job of a GA reviewer to be a copyeditor, but I've done what I can to help. I really suggest you find another experienced article writer to look things over and go through things with a fine tooth comb. Sorry I can't pass it. Good luck! If you aren't satisfied, please feel free to ask for a second opinion, I won't be offended.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]