Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Goebel

From 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 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] William Goebel

Self-nomination: I finally have the images to take this from good to featured status. I believe it meets all the criteria, and would appreciate your support. Acdixon 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought that images were not required for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • They aren't, but they help. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And shouldn't the citations list the specfic pages in the book? I don't know the exact rules for this, but it might be needed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In order to cut down on the length of the References section, I just included the book itself in the cite. If you find a policy that says it is required, I suppose I'll have to withdraw this nom until I can check the books out from the library again. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I realize it's a pain to do at this point, but see FA's like Daniel Boone, the citation to the page number really helps should anyone want to fact check or get more information. It's really not a strict requirement for FA status, it's ultimately up to the participants in a given FAC to deem whether the citations are good enough. --W.marsh 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It is indeed a big pain but it's most definitely preferable. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I have provided chapter names for all book references except Klotter and Woodson. Most of those chapters are a page or less, with none of them being more than 10 pages. I will be on business for the next couple of weeks and won't be able to get back to the library to get the Klotter and Woodson books. Since this is not a strict requirement for FA, would you all consider supporting this nom in spite of the page numbering issue? Acdixon 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well referenced, well researched, well written, a credit to wikipedia that satisfies all the criteria. --Wingsandsword 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Changing to Support. Lots of reasons. It's a mess.
    • Let's start with the lead. What's he notable for? Being controversial, being assassinated. Great that's in the first sentence - but that's it! Can't we have at least something more on that in the lead, rather than his voice and his sex life, or rather, lack of it, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article body? I'd dump the entire second paragraph, and replace with a bit more on, oh, the duel, the election law, the assassination and aftermath, his actual politics ... you know, the stuff the rest of the article is about, per WP:LEAD.
      • I have attempted to improve the lead, but this is admittedly my weakest Wikipedia skill. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Par 1: Born Wilhelm how did he become William? Spoke German ... meaning only German?
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Par 2: "Goebel's father moved the family to Covington, Kentucky, on his return from military service in 1863. He attended school in Covington, and became an apprentice to a jeweler in Cincinnati, Ohio." - the meaning of "He" changes in two consecutive sentences!
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How did he study law under Stevenson? In college, in law school, private tutoring, on-the-job training? Was Stevenson a teacher after being a governor? Our article on him doesn't say. Aha ... "rejoined Stevenson's practice" - when did he join it the first time?
      • Clarified as much as possible with the sources I have available. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm. William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath By James C. Klotter, page 7 on Google Books implies strongly that page 6, which it doesn't present, is what you want here. Do you have the actual work, or just Google Books?
          • I had the actual book. I returned it to the library, but will try to obtain it again when I return from the business trip I am currently on. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I am presently sitting in the library with the book in my lap. I have clarified the text as much as I am able from what Klotter has written. Acdixon 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Political career - "However, while Goebel had to stick close to his allies in the Democratic party, the Union Labor party courted the vote of Republicans, and made the election close" - why was this a problem? Normally, when you run as the candidate of party A, and a third party siphons off votes from party B, that's not a bad thing for you, that's a good thing!
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact, we sorely need the sentence "He was a Democrat" somewhere prominent in the article, besides the infobox. That's kind of important in an article on a politician.
      • Added to lead. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • James W. Bryan, John Lawrence Sanford, Wat Hardin, William Stone - so many names without wikilinks?
      • I will wikilink them if redlinks are preferable to no links. I'm sorry no one has taken the time to write articles on these men. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Presumably you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about them. Use your judgment as to which would make good articles. For those, yes, red links would be preferable to no links. If all someone is known for is as an unsuccessful political candidate, probably not. If they did something else, probably yes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The only one of the group that is listed in The Kentucky Encyclopedia (a 984 page tome of most important people, places, and concepts related to Kentucky) is Wat Hardin, and the highest office to which he was elected was Attorney General of Kentucky. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "This system, however, proved to be just as manipulable" - Why the "however"? - since it passed by sharp party lines, it seems clear it was intended to be manipulated, only by the Dems instead of by the Reps.
      • Not sure I agree with this assessment, but it doesn't damage the sentence to remove the word. Done. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "When the plan was exposed," what does "exposed" mean? Written about in a newspaper?
      • Clarified, I hope. With that many delegates talking about it, word was going to get out. It is possible that spreading the word was deliberate to entice Hardin to drop out, but none of my sources confirm or deny that speculation. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Stone had been stabbed in the back" - overly colorful language in an article involving a couple of actual shootings
      • Corrected.
    • Why did "three hand-picked Goebel Democrats, ruled 2–1 in favor of Taylor"? needs explanation
      • No kidding. I said it was a surprise decision. None of the authors I have found even offered speculation as to why. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow. I guess if you say so...
        • I have provided the official explanation given by the board, per Klotter. This still doesn't explain it for me, since the questionable tactics used throughout the campaign suggest that the Board was able to do whatever it pleased. Still, perhaps this will add some closure for you and any other concerned reviewers. Acdixon 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "For several days, the state hovered on the brink of civil war." Surely not. Each side seriously considered raising troops and fighting it out on the field of battle, for the governorship of 1900 Kentucky? Where would the US Army be during all this? Just a bit of overstatement there.
      • This is the language invoked by James Klotter and Lowell Harrison, two extremely prominent Kentucky historians. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "In a final act of defiance, the governor's body was carried" - whose final act? Goebel directed this? If so, say so. In what way was it defiant anyway?
      • Goebel spent his career fighting against the Louisville and Nashville railroad, which is mentioned in the political career section. Goebel's body was carried on the rival railroad's line. Klotter does not mention who orchestrated this. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "The idea of Beckham as governor" - who? What? This is first mention of Beckham in the text! If he became governor, surely he deserves a Wikipedia article and wikilink.
      • Clarified. An oversight. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Augustus E. Willson is wikilinked twice in the same section, and the first time he is mentioned it is not clear if he was governor of KY or IN.
      • Not sure why the governor of Indiana would have the ability to pardon someone from charges made in Kentucky, but clarified, nonetheless. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Youtsey turned state's evidence - so what did he say? What was his evidence?
      • None of the sources I have access to says what his evidence was, only that he turned state's evidence. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There seems to be a lot on Rootsweb.com: [1] [2] [3] probably more ... goes into "fits" Youtsey was subject to, and his recanting, which should probably be mentioned given the importance of his testimony. See this: [4] "It was Youtsey's confession about the alleged conspiracy to kill Goebel that led to the conviction of the others."
          • Thanks for these links; I'll try to read up on them and clarify in the next few days. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • General question - why was the KY governorship of 1900 so important that it led to so much gunplay, anyway? Remaining civil war issues? Surely not just a bit of corruption over a railroad?
      • This is the same place where the Hatfield-McCoy feud had just ended. That was over a land boundary. Remember, dueling was so prominent that it is still in the state's constitution that participants in a duel are barred from public office. People have been killed for less. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Many things improved. A few more issues
    • PBS in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/maps/maps_mwusa.html says "With the state assembly charged with deciding the winner, Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, protected by an armed militia. Attempting to confront the militia, Goebel was shot." That's a fairly important difference from an assassination plot. Can you clarify or work both views in somehow?
      • It is true that Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, but Goebel was only "confronting" them in the sense that he was attempting to enter the next-door Old State Capitol (also barred by militiamen) to carry out the business of the General Assembly. There was no physical contact, as Goebel was shot several feet from the entrance of either building. (I have a picture of myself standing on the spot where he fell if you would like to see it for reference.) All accounts I have read have the shot coming from the state house, but which floor of the building remains in dispute. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Goebel was never known as a particularly genial person in public, nor as a gifted public speaker" - Can you rephrase that to be a positive statement? That Google Book says things like "cold, secluded, taciturn, deep harsh words"...
      • I can try. I suppose I was trying to avoid sounding too POV. Klotter remarks "critics would portray him as a cold, power-hungry man... Allies, however, presented Goebel as ... a caring man who dared attack the old guard and the old ways." Harrison says "Goebel was denounced by some as a ruthless, heartless demagogue and hailed by others as a compassionate, dedicated reformer." In the interest of not taking sides, I crafted the somewhat ambiguous statement above. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Issues addressed ... not completely, but let's say as well as possible. Supporting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Poorly written. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that a complete and thorough copy-edit is required. Please don't just fix these examples; fresh eyes are required.
      • What would you suggest, then? I've already sent it to peer review once. In a month, all I got was one automated bot review. Now I bring it here and you basically tell me it's beyond my ability to fix ("fresh eyes are required.") As seen above and below, I've actively attempted to correct any and all concerns brought to my attention, and will continue to do so. What more can I do? Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have recruited several editors I respect at WikiProject Louisville to look this over. They collectively brought Louisville, Kentucky to FA status almost two years ago, and many continue to participate in FARs and FA development. I may also post an all-call on relevant WikiProject talk pages. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "to die in office from assassination"—When does assassination not result in death?
        • As I understand it, assassination is when the attempt is made, regardless of whether or not it results in death. This phraseology sounded weird to me too; I took it from one of my sources. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP adds value if possible to the sources it draw on; your critical eye might have seen this error. Dictionary says: verb (often be assassinated) murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.
No problem here with changing to a simplified wording. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "His tendency to utilize the state's political machinery earned him, at various times, the nicknames"—"Utilize" is an ugly equivalent of "use", but neither is suitable here. They beg the question of how he used the machinery. Remove "at various times" as redundant.
      • The deal-brokering and deal-breaking described in the article is how he used the machinery. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it begs the question in the lead, which should prepare the reader for the greater detail in the body of the text. Just be more specific here: "... use the state's political machinery for his ... purposes earned him ....".
Hopefully corrected. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is "the common man's" in quotes?
      • I thought it appropriate, as it's a bit of an ill-defined term, but I have no problem removing it. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Goebel's abrasive personality made him many political enemies, but his championing of "the common man's" causes, like railroad regulation, won him just as many friends. This schism came to a head ..." "Just as many friends"? What, exactly the same number as his enemies? Who's counting? This is what I call a false equivalent. What schism?
      • I consider the reference to "just as many" a figure of speech. I have reworded to hopefully correct this issue. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "having elected the party's first governor four years previous." Ungrammatical ... ly.
      • Easy enough to fix. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead finishes with a major statement that is unreferenced: "The resulting political maneuvering brought tempers to a boil, and resulted in Goebel's assassination." Yet trivial information such as his nicknames is referenced in the lead. Tony 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that the article itself supports this assertion.
That's circular. Since it's the lead, the requirement for referencing is looser; but "brought tempers to a boil" is highly subjective and attitudinal, so I suggest that you remove that bit and deal with it in the body of the article, where it can be comfortably referenced.
If that phrase is the issue, it is removed easily enough. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My interpolations are above. Now what about the rest of the text? Please locate some good copy-editors who've worked on similar FAs. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've done some recruiting, and hopefully, they will be able to help me clean up the prose. In my (meager) defense, much of the lead was re-composed at the prompting of AnonEMouse above, so it is the most recent part of the article (read: has had the least time to be reviewed.) I hope the rest of the article is better, but you seem to indicate that it isn't. I will continue to try and fix issues as you or other editors bring them to light, which I hope you will continue to do. (Specific instances are easier to fix.) I still hold out hope that this can become an FA, and that right soon. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: The article has been improved from one that was in poor condition to one that is well referenced throughout, well supported with verified sources, and is also well written. You can't expect much more from that. If this does not pass, let me say that you did a fine job Acdixon on improvements! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look over this article and provide suggestions for improvement. Here are my comments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Assessment: All in all, the article is great. Well referenced, and the prose is excellent. In particular, the sections 2 and 2.1 were good enough that I had to check your sources for plagiarism. It's already probably FA-worthy, and if my suggestions below are dealt with, it will be unambiguously an article that "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation"
    • References suggestions: Always check Google Books for your sources. One of your primary sources, "William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath", is (partially) available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=cw-1wFeQoIgC. Also, page numbers would help. The best way to do this is to have separate References and Notes sections, with the Reference section listing the books in alphabetical order by author (including publisher data, etc.), and the footnoted Notes section citing the references above in an abbreviated fashion with page numbers. Example: "Klotter, William Goebel, pp. 301-305." Also, the full name of "The First New Dealer" is apparently "The first new dealer, William Goebel: His origin, ambitions, achievements, his assassination, loss to the state and nation; the story of a great crime", according to Amazon.
    • Organizational suggestions: The article is lacking a section on Goebel's personal characteristics. The lead section mentions his personality, as does the last paragraph of "Early Life", but it would be better as its own section. (After all, the fact that he never married isn't really a part of his early life.) Also, the Goebel Election Law section seems to need a concluding sentence, in my opinion. Also, in the "Assassination and aftermath" section, you state he was hit in the chest, and the reader wonders "Is he dead? What happened to him?", but the text veers off into discussing political disagreements before confirming he was not killed (immediately). It would be better to say something right after saying he was shot, like "Goebel survived, but was seriously injured, and pandemonium broke out", or something.
    • Suggestions for clarity: In the "Gubernatorial election of 1900" section, was the maneuvering illegal? I can't tell. Was it widely considered unethical? Also, I assume Hardin dropped out because he realized he couldn't win against Goebel's and Stone's agreement, and I assume that he reentered when he believed he had a chance again, but both should be stated explicitly. Later in that section, you say the Board of Election "ruled 2-1 in favor of Taylor", but you never say what the case was or what they were ruling on. (Presumably they were asked to review individual county results?) What does "go behind" mean in "go behind the official county results"? Reword this. Finally, it says "the Republican minority was incensed", and I assume this means the minority in the Generally Assembly, but this should also be explicit. In the "Assassination and aftermath" section, the last sentence should be reworded. (Split it up, and make it clear that "the company" refers to the railroad.) And the article's very last sentence should say "conclusively identified" instead.
    • Rewording suggestions: In the lead, "common man's causes" would be better as "populist causes" so as to be NPOV. The last sentence in the lead suggests that the assassination was a natural result; it should instead say "Goebel was assassinated amid his controversial political maneuvering" or something. I don't think "Perhaps because of his stern demeanor" makes sense in explaining his lack of romance; plenty of stern people marry. Anyway, it's speculative. In the Goebel Election Law section, replace "much opposition in the politics of Kentucky" with "much Republican opposition in Kentucky"; it's clearer, and lets the reader know what kind of opposition it got right up front. Immediately afterwards, "after the passing" should be "after the passage". In the "Resolution of the election" section, the phrase "cooler heads prevailed" sounds too casual to me - reword. In the first sentence of Trials and Investigations, the "but" is a bad idea -- he didn't flee despite suspicion, he fled because of it. I would say, as a separate sentence, "Seeing an indictment looming, he fled to Indianapolis to avoid having to testify."
      • Thanks for taking the time to leave some great feedback. I've addressed the "easy ones" tonight, but I'm headed to bed following a long day with the wife at Holiday World. I'll try to get to the rest of them in the morning. Of course, if any of my corrections don't adequately address your concerns, please let me know. Thanks again. Acdixon 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I have now addressed all of the concerns above, with the exception of page numbers which a) will take a while and b) are not strict requirements for FA. Please review my changes (summarized below) and comment if the new prose can be improved. Acdixon 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (link to Google Books) Done. Thanks for the tip regarding Google Books. I didn't know this was common practice.
        • (long title of Woodson's book) Done. I used the short title for convenience, but I suppose the long version is more appropriate.
        • (personal characteristics) Done. I've added a section to address this aspect of Goebel's life. I hope this is what you were looking for.
        • (hit in the chest) Clarified.
        • (political maneuvering) I can't find anything that says it was illegal, but Klotter seems to believe it didn't win him any friends, especially in his own party. I've made this more explicit in the prose.
        • (Board of Elections) Clarified.
        • (the company) Reworded.
        • (Goebel Election Law) Actually, the law was unpopular with voters from both parties, but was driven by the Democratic political machine in the state. I've tried to clarify this.
        • Where simple wording changes were suggested, I generally took them verbatim.
  • Support. All my suggestions (except page numbers, sadly) have been dealt with. The new "Personal characteristics" section is absolutely great, by the way. Congrats on your accomplishment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.