Wikipedia:Peer review/Franklin Pierce/archive1

Franklin Pierce

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… Designate and I intend to take it to FAC and we'd like to do as much of the heavy lifting in advance as possible.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. The lead is great. I did some copyediting on it per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size in the Bibliography
• there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINKing, "slavery in the US" in the lead, the 1928 election, Whig Party, Isaac Hill, Representative, temperance, war against Mexico, dark horse, TB, AG, internal improvements, Navy Secretary, Dobbin, Portsmouth, Andover, Grant, civil war and manifest destiny
• the article is at the limit of readable proze size (at nearly 10,000 words), but that is probably ok for a POTUS
• checklinks identified one link that needs attention per this
• a couple of images need alt text per this
• I converted a bare ref
• I ran a dash script and fixed a couple
• I'll do another read through later on today for obvious grammatical errors, feel free to revert anything I do
• you are obviously familiar with this system of referencing, but I suggest switching it to sfn for simplicity and to avoid bare and uncombined refs cropping up, and to compact the citations
• the older books have oclc numbers which should be added, they available via Worldcat
• I haven't looked at image licensing
• the use of intersectional in the lead is confusing, as it is known more for its use in feminist works than in this sense. I suggest "sectarian"
• the need to establish the construction of the schoolhouse is unclear, I think you could dispense with it
• I'm surprised it hasn't been nom'd for GA yet

Well done, IMO it has an appropriate level of coverage for a much-maligned POTUS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I will work though these later today unless Designate gets to them first. "Sectarian" I really understand to mean inter-religious battles. We plan to bypass GA and go straight to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Sectarianism can include differences of almost all types, including regional or political. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's sectionalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, a peculiarly American idea around slavery in particular, and that appears far more appropriate than what is there now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with the over linking. I'm up to Mexican-American War, and I'm inclined to let that one stand as the first link occurs in an unexpected spot. A couple of others similar logic, the rest are done. Still looking at the other concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I got the OCLC's. I'll leave the alt text for Designate as people always complain about mine. Not sure what is meant by the schoolhouse.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what the significance is of mentioning that he "put him in a brick schoolhouse". Is there a significance in it being brick? Does that have a meaning in terms of the quality of the schooling, otherwise "brick" could be dispensed with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. I've shortened it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Brick schoolhouse" might be an Americanism—I'm not sure. It's a construct like "log cabin" that carries more than the explicit meaning. It's a tad symbolic without being unencyclopedic or flowery. —Designate (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have strong views about the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

To the end of Election of 1852:

• Childhood and education
  • "rambunctious" – I had to look that up in the dictionary and I think most non-American readers will too.
  • "He was admitted to the bar in the fall of 1827" – the MoS bids us avoid the seasons if poss, to avoid confusing or annoying readers in the opposite hemisphere.
• State politics
  • "had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough" – ambiguous – his first house, which was in Hillsborough, or his first house that was in Hillsborough?
• U.S. Senate
  • "chronic health issues" – perhaps just "chronic ill health"? See Gowers on issue: "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute"
  • "continued to roil Congress" – another word I had to look up. ("Now Brit. regional and U.S.", says the OED.)
• Lawyer and politician
  • "As he would as president" – not sure of your policy on capitalising job labels. Lower case for "president" here, but earlier "The young Speaker used his platform".

I think we're pretty much going lower case except when direct titles are used, but Speaker is an exception, because it is prone to misconstruction if lower case is used. I had a discussion with Eric Corbett about this point some time back and he seemed to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Point taken: clarity over consistency every time – quite right! Tim riley talk 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Return to New Hampshire
  • "accusations of abuse" – a bit vague: do we know what the alleged abuse was?
• Election of 1852
  • "it was "one of the least exciting campaigns in presidential history" – I think this might perhaps be attributed inline.

More soonest. Enjoying this. Tim riley talk 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the review. I am glad you are enjoying it. I hope to get to them later in the day, unless Designate picks them up first. I'm not sure on the Shakers thing, Designate, I think you inserted it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done or responded to all these things except the Shaker. I've taken that book back to the library, but can go get it if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will track that down. —Designate (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch from Tim

• Tragedy and transition
  • "Avoiding the word slavery" – I think perhaps I'd put this in inverted commas rather than itals. Just a thought.
• Administration and political strife
  • "Hards and Softs" – God save us! This is a horrifying pre-echo of la vache Thatcher with her "toughs and wets". (Ignore this: Thatcher's dark legacy causes pain and shame here even now, and it bubbles up now and again.)
  • "selecting the Cabinet" – again, a question – not very important – of whether and when to capitalize

I tend to capitalize "Cabinet" as an ongoing institution. Personal view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• • "gave it to states'-rights advocate" – this is comprehensible but not very pretty English
• Economic policy and internal improvements
  • "reforming the Treasury, which he found to be inefficiently managed" – who found: Pierce or Guthrie?
• Foreign and military affairs
  • "instead of the ostentatious diplomatic uniforms" – POV, you puritanical Yankees! The adjective you are looking for is "elegant" or at most "elaborate"

I am very tempted to stand on WP:ENGVAR. I'm sure Hay looked good in one. I think "elaborate" will do.

• • "Relations with Great Britain were tense" – Great Britain is not the term you want here and later in the para. After 1801 "Britain" is acceptable shorthand, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – the UK for short – is what you need here.
• Bleeding Kansas
  • "a link from Chicago, Illinois" – as opposed to which other Chicago?
  • "The administrations' opponents" – really plural rather than singular?
• 1856 election
  • "his chances were slim, to say nothing of his chances of winning the general election" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here. Perhaps "as were", rather than "to say nothing of"?
  • "Pierce expected a plurality, if not a supermajority" – neither term is familiar in this neck of the woods (offshire island north of France) and neither is possible to guess from the context.
  • "Douglas' managers" – consistency of ess-apostrophe and ess-apostrophe-ess: see above, in Bleeding Kansas: "a crucial part of Douglas's plans"
• Post-presidency
  • "travelling" – but it was "traveling" in the lead
• Civil War
  • "Pierce, who was with the author when he died unexpectedly" – needs reading twice to check who died – perhaps rephrase to avoid even this momentary ambiguity?
• Final years and death
  • First para – this is nine sentences, 181 words, and covers booze, spirituality, sexual goings-on, doings with J Davis, J Hawthorne, defection to the Episcopalians, and half a dozen political points. All with one citation. Are we sure it covers the lot?

I am, as I own the book and just checked. I'm going to split it into two cites because the "old farmer" (located on page 366) should probably be cited at the end of the sentence. It pretty much covers everything from 1865 until his final illness.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • "Pierce, who saw slavery as a question of property, rather than morality" – I don't see how that squares with his words quoted earlier in the article, "I consider slavery a social and political evil, and most sincerely wish that it had no existence upon the face of the earth."

I've changed it to "the slavery question". His personal views were not implicated.--Wehwalt (talk)

• • "The historian David Potter" – but in this and the next para you use the false title for Messrs Nivison and Gara.
  • "who authored a book" – he did what? Didn't he just write it?

He most certainly did (versatile man, that) but as the word "wrote" is used later in the sentence, it seems ill-advised to use it twice.

That's all from me. I knew nothing of Pierce till reading this excellent article. From this side of the Atlantic he seems less culpable in domestic affairs and more reprehensible for his imperialist policies, but it all happened a long time ago. Pray give me the nod when you have him up for FAC. – Tim riley talk 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I shall indeed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

First batch: I think I am benefitting from my role as tail-end reviewer, as much has been done already, leaving me to quibble over minor matters:

Lead

• Is there a distinction between "Cuba" (3rd para) and "Spanish Cuba" (4th para)?

Despanished.

• "after the war" tends to imply immediately or shortly after; in this case , 4+ years after – maybe adjust the prose?

Done.

Childhood and education

• Do we know the year he graduated from Bowdoin College? Likewise, can we have year indicators for his semester at Northampton and his period of study under Judge Parker?

I'll have to consult Vol 1 of Wallner, which I only borrowed and have returned. I will likely go over to GMU on Wednesday.

State politics

• "By 1824, the state..." As it's a new section, the state should be named

Named and so forth.

• Could a footnote advise us of the nature of a "town moderator"'s office?

I've piped to an appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Pierce's father, meanwhile, won a second term as governor, after which he retired." This sounds as though he retired after winning the election, rather than after completing his term, so I'd clarify here. (Were governors' terms for just 1 year, at this time?)

They were. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The younger Pierce was appointed as chairman of the House Education Committee and re-elected the following year": we had "the following year" in the previous line. Could we have the actual year here, to avoid chronological confusion?
• You could also mention when Pierce joined the state militia

I will have to check Wallner on these when I go to GMU library later in the week, unless Designate gets to it first.

U.S. senate

• "Pierce was a reliable party-line vote..." – can a person be a "vote"? Perhaps "voter", or rephrase, e.g. "Pierce voted the party line on most issues..."

Per your suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• "the Whigs were growing in strength" → "the Whigs were growing in Congressional strength", thus linking to the "small majority" mentioned later in the sentence.

Ditto, but with lower case

• "He took interest in military pensions" → "He took an interest in military pensions

Done that.

• "he urged a modernization and expansion of the Army" – "he urged the modernization..." etc

Fair enough.

• "New Hampshire Democrats felt that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be re-elected." This seems a little loose, particularly the "felt that" wording. Would it be right to say: "The policy of the New Hampshire Democrats was that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be eligible for re-election."?

Well, he was eligible as he met the constitutional requirements (age 30 or over, resident of the state, etc.). It's just they wouldn't do it. Or so we're told. State legislatures did odd things in Senate elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've rephrased, though it does not seem to me to be ideal.

Lawyer and politician

• "supported the use of government charters to support..." – avoidable repetition
• What is meant by "eminent domain"? (there is a link article)

Both done above.

• "Pierce was closer to the radicals philosophically, and reluctantly served as attorney in a publisher's dispute against Hill, which made tensions worse." It's not clear for whom he was acting as attorney, or why he was reluctant.

Tweaked. I'll look at this at the library too. Designate, you might want to look this over for factual accuracy.

• Three "ands" in the section's final sentence, which should be tweaked.

Continuing....

Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I don't think I will get to these tonight, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's more

Mexican–American War

• "He then returned to command and led his brigade throughout the rest of the campaign..." I think "returned to his command", or perhaps "to command and lead his brigade..."

Return to New Hampshire

• Link Shakers
• "while others wanted it barred" – need to clarify "it", not obvious at present.
• "the majority nominating former Michigan senator Lewis Cass for president..." You should mention the context, i.e. the 1848 elections, which will also help understanding of the rest of the paragraph.
• "Senator Clay, a Whig..." He hasn't been mentioned for a while, so I'd probably slip in a Henry, for identification

Last two sections' stuff is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Election of 1852

• "Delegates selected Alabama Senator William R. King, a Buchanan supporter, as Pierce's running mate, adopting a party platform that rejected further "agitation" over the slavery issue..." This wording conflates the selection of King and the adoption of the slavery platform, which are separate issues: "and adopted" would serve better.
• Since the Free Soil party's candidate was Hale of New Hampshire, who has been mentioned before in the article, I think he should be named here. (I see he is named at the end of the section, but I think this should be brought forward)

Administration and political strife

• "His Cabinet members coordinated on an early system..." Can you co-ordinate "on" something? The meaning is unclear anyway, and I suggest you reword.
• "...gave it to states'-rights advocate John Archibald Campbell, an advocate of states' rights" Er, ahem, er...

he felt very strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Addressed.

I'm over half-way through, now, and should finish on Monday or Tuesday (depending on the weather). Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I'm in the midst of writing, so will catch up on these as I can. Thank you for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Except for the few issues I need to go to the library on, most likely Wednesday, we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

and finally

Economic policy and internal improvements

• "...reforming the Treasury, which was be inefficiently managed..." – some typo here?
• "overwrought" = "in a state of nervous excitement or anxiety". Are you sure this is the word you want here?

Foreign and military affairs

• "foreign operations" – again, a peculiar choice of word. Basically you're talking about American consular establishments, rather than "operations" in the broader sense.
• "Davis, advocate of..." → "Davis, an advocate of..."?
• "Negotiations were nearly derailed by William Walker's filibuster into Mexico..." Most Brits, including this one, are unaware of the secondary meaning of "filibuster", as an unauthorised military attack. We know the word means an interminable speech, and may be confused to find it in this context. Suggest link here
• "Congress reduced the Gadsden Purchase to the region comprising southern Arizona and part of southern New Mexico" – maybe insert "now" before "comprising"?
• "Congress also included a protection clause for a private citizen, Albert G. Sloo, whose interests were threatened by the purchase." I wonder if this bit of detail is worthy of inclusion?
  • It's a bit awkward, I know, but every biography of Pierce I consulted for this article discussed at length Sloo's involvement in the bill. I decided that due weight requires the name, at least, to show up in the article. It does offer a hint of Pierce's economic philosophy aside from mere imperialism. —Designate (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• "...which Pierce saw as a first step toward annexation of Canada." Annexation by whom?
• Overlink second mention of Crampton within the section
• "Pierce inserted language in his December 1855 message to Congress setting forth the American case" – this sounds unnecessarily complex. Instead, "In his December 1855 message to Congress Pierce set forth the American case..." etc
• ...which they looked to remedy" – this is implied, need not be stated explicitly

Bleeding Kansas

• As this title is an allegorical description rather than a geographical entity, it should br in quote marks

It's still a fairly well remembered phrase. I am inclined to let it stand. Designate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should follow the sources in this case. We'd be the only ones putting it in quotation marks. —Designate (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• "was necessary to settlement" → "was necessary for settlement"
• "including territory North of the compromise line" – capitalisation of "North"?
• After "When Free-staters..." I would insert parentheticaly: (who opposed the extension of slavery into Kansas), to avoid dependence on the link

In view of the fact they were clearly opposing the pro-slavery Border Ruffians of the previous sentence and the word "free" in the name, I think it speaks for itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The link you have on "shadow governement" looks inappropriate. The phrase is pretty well in common use, and I don't think needs linking.
• "highest numbers yet" → "highest numbers to that point"

1856 election

• "chances of winning denomination" – reads amusingly (with the appropriate accent), but I think you mean "the nomination"
• If possible, find an opportunity to name the main candidates (Republican and Know-Nothing) who opposed Buchanan in the 1865 election

Post-presidency

• "Due to illness, he declined but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground". Needs more (and slightly different) punctuation, e.g. "Due to illness he declined, but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union, and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground"

Civil War

• The weighty second para, largely dealing with the hoax letter, is perhaps rather too detailed for a side issue, and could perhaps be summarized.

It was probably the biggest event of Pierce's post-presidency (which is obviously not saying that much) though I've shortened it a bit.

Final years and death

• "supported acquittal in his impeachment trial": "his" requires clarification, e.g. "the president's..."

Sites and memorials

• Slightly confusing sequence in the first para. If the two extant historic Pierce sites in NH are the Hillsborough homestead and the Pierce Manse, these should be listed together before mention of the destroyed Franklin Pierce House.

It's a question of listing on the historic places register. I've added a bit to make it clearer.

• We have "named after" and "named for" in the same paragraph

Legacy

• "during Pierce's presidency he served": seems like the wrong way round, thus: "during his presidency Pierce served" reads more naturally.
• "a question of property, rather than morality" – I think the comma is superfluous.
• "stating that his expansionism \ those of later presidents" – there is clearly a typo here, but I can't work out what it is.

I had heard of Pierce, initially as the answer to a quiz question ("What other American president was christened Franklin?"), but I knew very little about him before reading this article, and I feel gratifyingly informed now. Some fascinating politics and history here – will be a worthy addition in the featured presidential series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've made or responded to all (I hope) except for the ones I will check on at the library later today. Must return my latest set of books and browse for an interesting and not-too-well-covered subject that GMU has books about.

Comment Just in case you haven't seen, User:Billmckern has inserted a load of WP:OVERLINKs, presumably for the benefit of people who don't know what a liver is, and have never heard of Japan or Spain: you may want to revert before you go to FAC, where they would be jumped on from a great height. Tim riley talk 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll guarantee you I didn't wiki link "liver," but I appreciate the snark. If anyone thinks any links I included are overlinks, I don't have any objections to them being removed.

Billmckern (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm working through them, keeping some edits and removing others. Mostly stylistic. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've kept some changes, discarded others. I unlinked liver.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been to the library and made the changes I said I needed to consult Wallner on.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We are closing this and taking it to FAC. Our thanks to the peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. —Designate (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)