Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John J. Crittenden/archive1

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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011 [1].

---

John J. Crittenden

John J. Crittenden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John J. Crittenden/archive1

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Career politician in the 19th century who served as Congressman, Senator (four times), U.S. Attorney General (twice), Governor, and state legislator. Second only to Henry Clay in leadership of the Whig Party during the Second Party System. Had his "Crittenden Compromise" been approved, the American Civil War might have been averted. I think this article gives a comprehensive overview of his long and illustrious career. I look forward to responding to any concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:-

• Ref 119: page reference lacking
  • Got this from an unpaginated online source, but I managed to find the page number it appears on in the print version. Fixed.
• No citations that I can see to "Kentucky Governor John Jordan Crittenden"
  • Should be citation #16.
• Bibliography:
  • Publisher information lacking for Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, American Law Encyclopedia, and Taylor, Jeremiah R.
    • Added for all except the Biographical Directory, which uses a Wikipedia template. I'm not even sure who counts as the publisher of record for this work.
      • My guess is that the US Congress is the publisher of record for the online directory, which seems to have been compiled by agencies from the House and Senate. As the citation is to the online version, a retrieval date should be added.
        • Done.
  • Consistency required on publisher locations, i.e. all or none.
    • Done.
      • "Kirwan" still lacking location
        • Oops. Got caught up in whether the source I used (and had already returned to the library) was the original by the University Press of Kentucky or the reprint by Greenwood Press. Fixed now.
  • Retrieval dates are not necessary in the case of printed sources
    • Fixed.

Otherwise sources all look good Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this back in October, 2010, and thought it was looking pretty close to FA material. I told the nominator to please let me know when it was at FAC. On a close reading now, I am leaning towards support, but have several issues I would like to see addressed first. The biggest issue is that when I started to review this, I felt many of the points were familiar, so I went back to the peer review, where I now see that almost all of my comments were ignored. I paste the whole peer review below. I have struck the one comment from the PR that was addressed (on references). New issues to be addressed follow the original peer review (which I now see as actionable requests).

Begin Peer review

Ruhrfisch comments: I see this is now a GA but did not really receive any PR comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• United States is generally not linked in articles like this - lead After the expiration of his term as attorney general, he was again elected to the U.S. Senate, where he urged compromise on the issue of slavery in order to prevent the breakup of the United States.
• It might be helpful to say it was the Revolutionary War in His father had surveyed land in Kentucky with George Rogers Clark, and he settled on the land just after the end of the war.
• Since the sons who were generals had their countries identified, it might help to give some indication of the country or timescale for the admiral grandson in Daughter Sallie Lee "Maria" Crittenden was the mother of Rear Admiral John C. Watson.[14] Either say US Navy or give the years of his service
• Would it help to remind to remind the reader that Crittenden first studied law with Bibb in In 1814, Governor Shelby appointed Crittenden to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by George M. Bibb; ...?
• Watch for places where the text can be tightened, for example In his capacity a[A]s speaker, Crittenden presided over a particularly tumultuous time in the legislature.
  • [New] Could do the same tightening in In his capacity as attorney general, Crittenden issued only one notable opinion.
• Since US Senators are now popularly elected and since the Kentucky General Assembly has both a House and Senate, would it make sense to add US here: When the [US] Senate term of Martin D. Hardin, one of Slaughter's unpopular nominees, ...
  • [New comment] Otherwise I wonder if people might think this was the Kentucky senate.
• In Legislative interim, would it make sense to say that Frankfort is the capital of Kentucky (since he moved there)?
  • [New comment] I would explicitly say here that Frankfort is the state capital for better context After leaving Congress, Crittenden moved to Frankfort, Kentucky to attract more legal clients and be nearer the center of the state's political activity.[23]
• In the Old Court – New Court controversy section, I would use the {{Main}} template rather than see also
• I would also give a brief sumamry of the controversy - I know it is linked, but if it could be summarized here in one or two sentences, that would provide constext to the reader
• First in Kentucky or first in the nation? On July 4, 1834, he called to order the first organizational meeting of the party at Cove Spring, Kentucky.
  • The sentence now reads On July 4, 1834, he called to order the party's first organizational meeting of the party at Cove Spring, Kentucky. whioch sounds a bit ungrammatical ;-)
    • Or even borderline incoherent. This is what happens when you're trying to hurry because your wife needs the computer to do online bill-pay! :) Fixed.
      • My original concern was that it was unclear if this was the first ever such meeting (in the nation) or just the first in the state. The current version On July 4, 1834, he called to order the party's [very?] first organizational meeting at Cove Spring, Kentucky.[46] is cleaner, but to me still seems ambiguous as which first is meant (assume first ever). Assuming it is first ever, would "the party's very first organizational meeting" work (as I put in square bracketts, above)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I originally thought it was the first ever meeting, but I thought adding "very" was a little too colloquial. After getting the Kirwan book again, I see that it was the first meeting in the state. I've edited the sentence to reflect this.
• "virtual lock" seems like slang - could more encylcopedic language be used? Crittenden was re-elected to the Senate in 1840 even though he was a virtual lock for a position in Harrison's presidential cabinet.
• Unclear sentence He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, allowing them to elect their congressmen at-large. would instead make it something like He opposed giving states the option to forgo apportionment, which would have allowed them to elect their congressmen at-large.
• I would add "and death" to the section title "Service in the House of Representatives"
• More tightening The town of Crittenden, Kentucky and Crittenden County, Kentucky are named for him. could be In Kentucky, the town of Crittenden and Crittenden County are named for him.
• References need more consistent and complete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

End pasted Peer review

New concerns in reading this for FAC (not a complete list, I want to see the responses to my original peer review comments and these before reveiwing further):

• In Early life, could the total number of children be given? It seems that he had at least one sister, but it is not clear how many children his parents had. Knowing infant / child mortality rates were high then, perhaps just saying the numbers that lived to adulthood (i.e. are the brothers listed the only siblings who made it to adulthood?).
  • Typically, I include birth order and number of siblings if they are available. I've already returned Kirwan's biography to the library (I can get it again) but if he had given a number of siblings, I'm sure I would have included it. This book (which I didn't consult at first because it is mainly about Crittenden's children) says he was the first of eight siblings, but since Kirwan says he was the second child, it's possible that a first child may not have survived infancy. I may be able to find another source to clarify, but if not, I may have to add another explanatory note.
    • I will assume you have included all that reliable sources have to say on this, and trust that you will add more information, if found. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Went back to the Kirwan biography and found more information. Must have been having an off day the first time I read it. Clarified now.
• Could the years or his age be added here? Crittenden began a college preparatory curriculum at Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[5] From there, he was sent to a boarding school in Jessamine County.[5] Also, when two sentences in a row use the same ref and are not direct quotes or contentious, I think most editors are fine with just the second ref (at the end of the two or more sentences).
  • Please see explanatory note "a" in the article, as well as the article's GA review for reasons why this is difficult.
• Did his first wife really hyphenate her last name? Would it also help to identify her better in this sentence: [His first wife] Sarah Lee-Crittenden died in mid-September 1824.[14]
  • No, she didn't hyphenate it. I was trying for a smooth transition. In the first sentence, her name is Lee. I also use Lee in the second sentence because it is about her family. Then, after the discussion about their children, I found it difficult to make a smooth segue back to talk about her death. As she has not been referred to as Crittenden at all in the article, I was afraid this would introduce ambiguity.
    • If she did not hyphenate, then the article should not use that form of her name. I was more confused initially because Sallie (her daughter's name) is a nickname for Sarah, so I was not sure who had died at first. My suggestion is something like His first wife, Sarah Lee Crittenden, died in mid-September 1824.[14] or just His first wife, Sarah, died in mid-September 1824.[14] or perhaps Sarah Lee Crittenden, his first wife, died in mid-September 1824.[14] Each makes it clear that she was his wife and reminds the reader that at least one more wife is on the way. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • A clearer way to introduce this finally hit me yesterday. See what you think.
• Is "he" clear enough here or should it be Crittenden? Thus, he returned to the Kentucky House, where was elected speaker over John Rowan.[19]
  • I've tried to edit the sentence to provide clarity but avoid repetition of "Crittenden". In an article this long, I fear there are enough places where it can't be avoided that it becomes somewhat tedious to read over and over.

I have to say that finding my PR comments were completely ignored has soured me a bit on what is a generally well-done article. Please respond to my comments and I will complete my review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I honestly forgot I had listed this for peer review. Now I remember that I wasn't expecting to be able to get a GA review for a while and I did that in the interim. Really didn't mean to ignore you. I'll try to get to these in the next few days. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is OK - sorry to be cranky above. Look forward to your responses, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have struck all the comments above and will read the rest of the article and make any more comments next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Last comments - I also made some minor copyedits as I (re)read the article, please revert if I introduced errors or made things worse.

• Old court - New court controversy section. Should the ultimate resolution of the controversy be briefly mentioned here (I realize it was after Crittended was not re-elected to the state legislature)?
  • I don't think that strays too far off-topic. Done.
• Would this be clearer? Todd's daughter Catherine married [Crittenden's son (and] her step-brother[)] Thomas, and their son, John Jordan Crittenden III, was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.[35]
  • I've tried my own re-write. See what you think.
• In the Association with the Whigs section, I think it should say he was elected to the US Senate for clarity. When the Assembly convened, they elected Crittenden to the [U.S.] Senate over Democrat James Guthrie by a vote of 94—40.[48]
  • Indeed. Done.
• In the Harrison and Tyler administrations section, why is the committee he serves on referred to as a US Senate committee, when in the previous section only the names of the committees were used (and not the US Senate part)? Just seems like the names should be consistent. During the 27th and 28th Congresses, he served on the U.S. Senate Committee on Military Affairs.[9]
  • They should be. Just an oversight on my part. Fixed.
• In the Civil War section, I would change this as follows [In 1860, h]e was named chair of the National Union Executive Committee – a collection of congressmen and journalists who feared that sectional differences would destroy the Union – in 1860.[115] The 1860 at the end is awkward
  • Done.
• Can any more be said on his legacy? How do historians view him, for example?
  • Well, Kirwan opines that, had Congress adopted the Crittenden Compromise, the Civil War would have been delayed and perhaps averted altogether. That's a pretty bold statement, though, and I'd hate to make it just based on this one opinion. I was actually surprised that there was only one biography of him, given how much he did in his life. For a long time, he was second in influence only to Henry Clay, yet the disparity in the volume of material on him versus that on Clay seems vast to me. It seems he is mostly mentioned in terms of his effects on other politicians, making it difficult to find an overall assessment of his life and legacy. I also found it hard to believe that only Kentucky seems to have places or things named for him, but that's the case, as far as I can tell.
• Did Crittenden own slaves at any point in his life?
  • I'm getting pretty far removed from having read through the biography, but I don't remember any mention of him owning slaves. Kirwan does mention that his father's estate included seventeen slaves at the time of his death, but it makes no mention of what became of them.

I am very close to supporting, but will wait until these are addressed. Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and your patience. I've been uncharacteristically slow in responding, and I apologize. Feel free to leave any more issues here, and I hope to ultimately win your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have switched to support. I would still like to see something on his legacy (even if it is an attributed statement that his Compromise might have averted the Civil War (though I note it would have been at the cost of preserving slavery - how awful), and if anything on his personal connection to slavery can be added, I think that would help (even the mention that his father owned slaves). Nice job, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments.

• I would like to see belles-lettres made more precise; the term was contemporary then but is ambiguous now, as the article says. I assume it means literature, and if the sources allow you to be specific I think that would be a better term to use.
  • I also found this unsatisfying, but unfortunately, this is the only term used by Kirwan in the source.

    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can "aide-de-camp" be expanded upon? It's a bit too general a term to leave unmodified, as you do, isn't it? Like saying he was given the added responsibility of assistant? Or is it a specific role in the government of that era? And just as one would say "the responsibility of governorship" rather than "of governor", shouldn't it be "the position of aide-de-camp" or something similar?
  • It seems like this title gets thrown around a lot when discussing people from Crittenden's era. It seems to always designate some kind of personal assistant, particularly for military folks. I've reworded slightly to reflect that. Beyond that, I don't really have any specifics.

    That works. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since there's more than one John Jordan Crittenden, can you be sure that the signature is of the right person? The description doesn't specify, and I see you're not the uploader. Or does the name, when unqualified by "III" etc., typically refer to this chap?
  • Yes, the file in question was traced from this one, which specifies that it is this Crittenden. I'm also thinking the unqualified name would usually refer to the more famous grandfather than the less famous grandson.

    OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have a question about the 1824 presidential election. A look at that article tells me that it was decided by the US House of Representatives, via the Twelfth Amendment; but as far as I can tell from this article Crittenden was not in the house. If I'm not mistaken, then how is his support for Clay material, as your paragraph on the election makes it sound? I think I must be missing something here.
  • While I don't have the source at hand at this moment, I believe this refers to his use of his influence during the general election campaign and later with specific congressmen during the battle in the House. Having already served in the U.S. Senate, he probably held some sway not only with his state's congressional delegation, but with legislators from some other states as well.

    I'll strike, since it is accurate as written, but would it be helpful in that case to change the first instance of "support" to something like "used his influence to support", to avoid the question? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done.

• "but any movement one to one side or the other drew opposition from the opposing side": looks like an excess "one" in there, but even with that corrected I am still confused. Wouldn't the opposing side be the opposition regardless of movement? I am not clear what's intended here.
  • I struggled with the wording here. I was trying to convey Clay's difficulty in softening his earlier views on annexation. Some politicians can skillfully backpedal on earlier stands, but every attempt by Clay to moderate upset the side from which he was backpedaling as much as it helped him with the side he was trying to appease.

    OK, I see. Part of my confusion was that the article currently only mentions him softening his stance in one direction, not both. How about "Clay then tried to moderate his views on annexation, but his attempts to soften his stance met with opposition from the pro-annexation faction." Alternatively, if the point is that he vacillated, or at least moved back and forth, how about: "Clay tried to moderate his views on annexation, but his changes of position drew opposition from supporters of both sides of the issue, as he attempted to find a middle ground." Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, I like this last sentence better. Changed.

• Why did Crittenden not assume his Senate seat till 1855 though he was elected in 1853?
  • I suspect, given what I know about this period, that the Whigs, already on the decline nationally, saw their party losing power in the state legislature as well. They probably decided to hold the election as early as possible so they could elect a U.S. Senator from their party before the party lost control of the state legislature. I don't have a source immediately at hand to confirm that, but that's what I suspect.

    OK. I will strike, since it's accurate, but if you can find a source that specifies this it would be worth adding as a modern reader is going to be surprised by the time lag. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Having learned that John Archibald Campbell, an Alabaman serving on the Supreme Court, had decided to resign in light of his state's secession, and President Lincoln proposed to appoint Crittenden to the vacant seat": this sentence doesn't have a main verb; I suspect a copyediting error.
  • Your suspicion is correct. Fixed.
• There's no citation for the statement that the resolution blaming the secessionist states was repealed in December 1861.
  • This was in the article before I started working on it, so I accepted it on good faith. Not sure if the resolution had a name, so I suspect I'd have a hard time digging up a cite for it. I can remove it if it is problematic. I don't think it is particularly critical to a biography of Crittenden himself.

    See Google Books, p.87 of From conciliation to conquest: the sack of Athens and the court-martial of Colonel John B. Turchin by Bradley and Dahlen. It seems it wasn't really repealed, but a vote to reaffirm it was tabled. It also seems from the digging I did there that the resolution is known as the "Crittenden Resolution"; shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for this find. Cited. The formal name of the resolution was the "Crittenden-Johnson Resolution". The word "resolution" in the first paragraph under "Service in the House of Representatives and death" is linked to the wiki article. Do you think I should reword to get the formal name in the visible text? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think it would be helpful; right now most readers won't click on "resolution" since they will feel they know what that means. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done.

• "he became the channel through which many reports of unconstitutional military arrests in Kentucky were channeled": can you change one of the uses of "channel"?
  • Indeed. A truly wretched example of writing on my part! Fixed.
• There's something wrong with the third reference in the ref list; it shows as template code, not as a reference.
  • Not sure I'm finding the problem here. Can you be more specific?

    Looks like Brian fixed it already. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and your patience. Bad idea on my part to start an RfA and an FAC at the same time! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Switched to support above. Another thoroughly detailed and carefully written article about a Kentucky governor; only 46 to go, if I haven't miscounted. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Right now, I'd just like to get 19 more governors promoted to move it to a featured topic! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• File:MFillmore-congressman.jpg - should probably include author name and dates on the image page itself, although I realize they`re available on the linked site. An image description would also be helpful, but not required
  • Changed to different image per your comment below.
• File:MrsJJCrittenden.jpg - again no author name or dates on the image page, but this time I don`t see that information on the linked site either. Without that info, the copyright tag cannot be verified
  • It's part of the Brady-Handy collection which is public domain; see here.
• File:GBCrittenden.jpg - no indication of first publication date or venue, information not included on linked page, and therefore copyright tag cannot be verified
  • Forgot that I never found the source for this one. After much digging, I've located a replacement.

Other than those three, the images seem fine. I am curious, however, why you chose an image of Fillmore as a congressman when it was his actions upon becoming president that are being discussed in the associated section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There was probably a reason for the image I chose of Fillmore, but I forget what it was! Hope my responses help. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments I have not yet been able to review the entire article, but will do so soon. However, for now, the one thing I've noticed is a minor issue involving numbers. In this sentence, for example: "None of them polled more than sixty-four of the 69 votes needed for confirmation." The numbers should be either using digits or words, but this sentence uses one of each. I believe the MOS permits either as long as it is consistently applied, so I did not make any edits on this myself; I thought you would want to decide which was best. I did add a couple of commas which you can check out, but so far the article seems to be extremely clear and well-written and I can find little on which to comment. More later. Omnedon (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support I've made a few more copyedits to the article; all were minor, though you may want to check them. I learned a lot by reading this article, which I felt was particularly well-written and which flowed very well. It seems quite comprehensive, yet does not go into unnecessary detail. Omnedon (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.