Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Merrill Woodbridge/archive1

Add links
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 by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Samuel Merrill Woodbridge[edit]

Samuel Merrill Woodbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not the shortest article brought to FAC (I think there are a few 8kB FAs), but I think this is the little biography that could. FYI: I started the article on 18 September, it was promoted a GA about a half hour ago (21 September), and I have a DYK hook pending review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

OpposeComments: nominating at FAC within half an hour of GA promotion is not generally a good idea. It assumes that there is no distinction between GA and FA, which is not the case; one would expect at least a few days' polishing and preparation with the FA criteria in mind. I've taken a brief look at this very short article, and without any close inspection have spotted a number of errors and infelicities:

  • Reply: I don't remember anywhere in WP:WIAFA that there was a requirement for the passage of time between GA and FA or any other statuses. But maybe adding seemingly unwritten rules seems to be the norm around FAC.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I agree with ColonelHenry that there is no rule saying that there must be a waiting period between getting GA status, and applying for FA status. It's different groups of reviewers for GA and FA. Earlier this year, I helped write an article that went straight to FA status without ever having had a GA-review. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that there is any rule or requirement about the timing of a FAC nom, merely that articles shouldn't be hurried into FAC without some due diligence, whether they have been through GA or not (and GA is a very uncertain preparation for FAC). Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As an undergraduate student, Woodridge was a member of the university's secretive, all-male Eucleian Society and be elected to Phi Beta Kappa." Faulty grammar.
  • Woodbridge is variously described as "Woodbridge" and "Rev. Woodbridge" without any logical distinction. The former should be used consistently, after his full formal title is given in the lead.
  • Done (21SEP13) - Reverted usage to the former. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise there is a disparity in form between "The Rev. Samuel Merrill Woodbridge" in the lead image caption and "Rev. John Ludlow" in the text.
  • Why repeat Woodbridge's postnominals and birth–death years in the image caption?
  • Reply: -- Why not? Can you point to anything about the caption anything that violates MOS or WP:CAPTION? If not, this is a non-issue. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unnecessarily repetitive to have the same details in adjoining spaces. MOS doesn't cover everything, and shouldn't be cited as the ultimate reason for doing or not doing things. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, although I have numerous reservations about the use of infoboxes in WP articles, it is customary for general biographical articles to have them, at any rate when they reach FAC. Any reason why you've decided not to have one?
  • Reply: Because I chose not to. Per WP:IBX: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. What really would be sensible about having an infobox on a short article? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to agree with you, but others may not. Long experience of infobox arguments leads me to think that your decision should be backed by more than personal preference. I think your citing the length of the article is a sensible justification, certainly the one that I would use if a box was added later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense error: "During his tenure at the seminary, Woodbridge would also provide instruction in the areas of..." → "...Woodbridge provided instruction..."
  • Done (21SEP13) - changed to "also provided instruction" --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rev. Woodbridge received honorary degrees from New York University (A.M., 1841)" Really? He was 22 at the time - a bit young for receiving honorary degrees; can you check this?
  • Reply: I actually don't need to check this. An "A.M." was typically given by early 19th century American universities seemingly as an honour for being alive a few years after graduation, and typically bestowed upon clergymen after a few successful years at their first pastorate, for educators, or for academic distinction in the years after their baccalaureate work. It did not become a taught degree in the States until later in the 19th century. For instance, Princeton stopped giving honorary A.M.s about the time it changed its name in 1896, Harvard and Yale stopped the practice a decade or two earlier as they developed real graduate programs. In its honourary 18th and 19th century form, it is similar to the Oxbridge Master of Arts. Remember, Thoreau refused to pay Harvard for his A.M. diploma. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that, in modern terms, "honorary degree" means a degree honoris causa awarded for distinction in some field outside the university's remit. This probably covers Woodbridge's later degrees, but hardly the 1841 A.M. which looks like an upgrading of his A.B. in the manner whereby, today, Oxford and Cambridge BAs become MAs after three years - these are not "honorary degrees". If the A.M. was essentially automatic, it's perhaps best to omit it altogether from a sentence dealing with "real" honorary degrees. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But they weren't "automatic" like the upgraded varieties. Rutgers and NYU's catalogues don't show that many A.M. degrees being handed out, and in Rutgers' case they list it as an "honorary" degree. so I lean toward keeping the description as "honorary". NYU's is a little more vague, but given that NYU didn't hand out degrees across the board to his fellow 1838 classmates, it would be in keeping with the notion of an honorary degree. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (24SEP13) I checked with NYU's archivist yesterday, and she emailed me that the NYU 1841 A.M. degree was a "promoted" degree, which both could and could not be considered honorary and that roughly half of the class would get the promotion based on their going into the clergy or being admitted before the bar as an attorney. It seems those who entered a life "in commerce" seemed to get passed over. I will defer to referring to the NYU A.M. as being "promoted." The Rutgers 1841 A.M. will still remain as "honorary" because the Rutgers catalogue describes it as such (at p. 339).--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His first marriage was to Caroline Bergen (d. 1861) in February 1845 and the couple had one daughter, Caroline Woodbridge (b. 1845)". The "and" conjunction is inappropriate. Also, the sentence should be fully prosified: "who died in 1861", "born in 1845".
  • I think bodies are normally interred "in" rather than "at" family plots.

These comments, remember, are based on a quick glance-through rather than a careful review of the text. The article obviously needs more attention. There's no reason why short articles shouldn't become FAs, but there are fewer hiding places for errors, so special care needs to be taken. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, but FAC is effective at eliminating those errors and hiding places. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments

I have had time for a more detailed reading, and have the following additional comments:

  • Lead: "Woodbridge later led the seminary as "Dean of the Seminary" and "President of the Faculty" from 1883 to 1901." It's not entirely clear whether by "the seminary" you mean the New Brunswick seminary; the link actually confuses the issue here. You could get rid of the confusion, and the repetition, by rewording, e.g. "Woodbridge later led the New Brunswick seminary as Dean and President of the Faculty".
  • Biography: "According to a genealogical chart in Munsey's Magazine..." - you could give a litle more information, e.g. "According to a genealogical chart published in in Munsey's Magazine in 1907..."
  • Biography: "Classis" is a fairly obscure word for the general reader; why not say "governing body"?
  • Biography: "He would retire from teaching" → "He retired from teaching" - and a comma should follow "professor"
  • Biography: "According to church historian Charles Edward Corwin, Rev. Woodbridge was described as having a "strong personality" that "made dry subjects to glow with life," adding that Woodbridge "was very firm in the faith but his loving heart made him kindly even toward those whose opinion he considered dangerous." Several issues with this sentence. The wording "According to church historian Charles Edward Corwin, Rev. Woodbridge was described as..." is very heavy-footed. Why not simplify to something like: "Church historian Charles Edward Corwin recorded that Woodbridge had..." etc? That way, the "adding" participle works, which it does not at present. Whether or not you adopt my wording you need to lose the "Rev". Also, I don't think that a commonplace phrase like "strong personality" warrants quotes.
  • Done (23SEP2013) per your suggestion. "strong personality" was put in quotes because it was part of the source quote in Corwin's Manual . I will remove them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books: Why not give publication details (location, publisher)?
  • Reply (23SEP2013). I haven't found that information. I suspect it should be "New York: Board of Publications Reformed Protestant (Dutch) Church" like several others at the time. The books aren't online for me to check, and my emails to research librarians at the Seminary and at Rutgers haven't received a reply. Standby.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (26SEP2013) - Added notes regarding what little there is on the books.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books: "Rev" appears again in the image caption.
  • Sermons and discourses: the presentation is not fully consistent and looks incomplete. Details of publication are missing in a couple of cases, more precise dates are given in two other instances. Unless those two dates are of specific importance I would drop them. Where publication details cannot be determined I would add a note to that effect, to avoid the impression that the table is unfinished.
  • DoneStandby - awaiting email replies from research librarians at Rutgers and NBTS before I proceed on this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brianboulton: - I believe I've addressed the bibliographic issues that you raised, please do let me know if this suffices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You obviously have the issues well in hand. I have struck the oppose and look forward to supporting when your final researches are complete. Maybe ping me a reminder when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DonePartly done (26SEP13) as far as books, awaiting a little more information on the smaller articles/sermons.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up completed the issues regarding "sermons and discourses" section.

Support: All issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your help in whipping this article into shape. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DavidinNJ[edit]

Support I have a few minor suggestions, but I believe that this article definitely meets the feature article criteria.

1a. Well-written - The writing is as good as an article in a major newspaper or magazine.
1b. Comprehensive - Though the article is relatively short, it thoroughly covers all aspects of Woodbridge's life and works.
1c. Well-researched - The article uses high-quality encyclopedic and archival references.
1d. Neutral - Article has no bias.
1e. Stable - Article history shows no evidence of edit warring.
2a. Lead - Lead is concise and summarizes Woodbridge's life. I suggest removing the words 'American Reformed Christian.' The sentence does not describe what kind of author he or where he was a college professor, so it shouldn't go into detail about his denomination.
2b. Article structure - The structure of the article is good. I suggest that the biography section be broken in two sections (e.g., early life, career).
2c Citations - reference style is excellent and highly consistent throughout the article.
3. Media - Selection of pictures is good. Add alternate captions to the pictures.
4. Length - Size is appropriate for the type of article. There is no one proper length for article; it depends on the among of information available for the given topic.
DavidinNJ (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DavidinNJ:, Thank you for your support and your suggestions. I'll look into that first sentence shortly and weigh some alternatives. As for the alt-text, I'll add that forthwith. As for splitting the biography section...I considered splitting the biography section into smaller sections, but it doesn't seem to work well. If I divide off his career work, which begins as a clergyman in 1841, I split the second paragraph--which seems to be a rather awkward break and would leave the material for the "early life" section too short as a separate section. If I were to split it later, like after the second paragraph, it would be in 1857 (when he was 38), which means half of his life including his 16-year ministerial career, would be "early life." I would venture to say the 6 paragraphs of biographical content work better as one section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (21SEP13) - added alt text to the three images.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your changes. I see your point about the biography section, and have struck my previous comment about splitting the section. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (22SEP13) - Addressed the comment about the first sentence, kept "American" removed "Reformed Christian" since the rest of the lede sufficiently establishes that. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

  • Quick comment – Don't have time for a full review right now, but I noticed a pp. in note 1 that should be p. instead since the citation is to a single page. As Brian says, an article this short really needs to be spotless to merit FA standard, so this should definitely be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (21SEP2013) - I think you meant footnote "a", which the one I noticed as "pp.40" and fixed to "p.40". --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to be using international-style date formatting for the birth and death dates. Since this is an American subject, this should likely be changed to U.S.-style formatting (April 5, 1819), unless there's some other circumstances I'm missing.
  • Reply: I'm not a WP:STRONGNAT supporter. I find its forceful application to be a jingoistic and nonsensically exclusionary policy. (1) I find the policy based on a fallacy, because there is no longer, in this globalised world, one consistent "American style", (2) I disagree that just because someone happens to be an American is not sufficient in my book for claiming a 'strong tie' to any particular style, and (3), the guideline says "should" not must. The conditional modal verb is exactly that, conditional. (see IEEE style guide 13.1 for the optional character of "should"). Guideline = recommendation = should = options. Lastly, style guides in the humanities, including the editors of Chicago-Turabian, are moving consistently toward international style.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 7: Looks like a word is missing after "the June 1871". Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (27SEP13) - You mean note "g", to which I added "issue" after June 1871. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jimfbleak[edit]

  • Comments from Jim Not my area of expertise (if any), but looks sound. Just a couple of niggles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biography—I thought that "Biography" was frowned upon as a heading in biographies, with "Life" being preferred. If I'm wrong, please ignore
  • Reply: I don't see anything of the sort at WP:BIO or within the MOS, and I can point to several GAs and FAs that use the section title "Biography". If you can point me to anything regarding that, I'll be glad to address it then.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 years—numbers less than ten should be spelt out
  • Done (23SEP13) two "7" and one "16", and one "11th"...most style guides say numbers under 20 should be spelled out, so I went by 20/twenty.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • seminary as "Dean of the Seminary" and "President of the Faculty" —Are the quote marks necessary? And can the repetition be avoided by something like seminary as its Dean and as President of the Faculty
  • Done (23SEP13) - addressed in revision regarding Brian's comments on the lede above. removed also in the Biography section --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rev. — just checking that it's standard to always abbreviate
  • Reply: I've been removing "Rev." per Brian's comments above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classis—I don't know this word, can it be linked or explained?
  • Rutgers College—link
  • Reply: I linked to it in the lede, and decided not to here because of WP:OVERLINK.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He would retire from teaching in 1901—He retired..."
  • The "Biography" was just a vague notion since I don't write many of this sort of article. Other concerns have been addressed, and I note that you are moving on with Brian's comments (some of which appear to be the same as mine) so I'll change to support above. Good work. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your support and for your help here in improving the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I was the reviewer of this article at GAN at which time several improvements were made. A few further points:-

  • "Both schools were then affiliated with the Protestant Dutch Reformed faith." - It is not clear to me whether this refers to synchronous affiliation or subsequent affiliation.
  • Reply: During the course of his life, both schools were affiliated with the Reformed faith. While I do see the basis for your comment, I think it's adequately conveyed unless you have an alternatively better wording--I'd prefer not using the trite and repetitive "at that time". There is an explanatory note attached therewith stating that Rutgers became nonsectarian in 1945. I would assess that the details of the school's religious affiliations (see WP:SUMMARY) are not appropriate at this biographical article and assert that it is a discussion that's best explored at length in the history sections of the articles for Rutgers University (affiliated with the RCA 1766-1945) and New Brunswick Theological Seminary (affiliated with RCA 1784-present)--both of which I have worked on (moreso for NBTS).--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would look better if the image of the church was vertical. It looks a couple of degrees off to me.
  • Reply: Taking a photo on a narrow street of a tall building is always problematic. Secondly, FA criteria just ask that the photo is relevant, free content, and properly captioned. There is no discussion about aesthetics.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: After taking a longer look at the picture, yes, the vertical orientation of the church is negligibly off by a few degrees, however, this slight angle is augmented by the incline in the street...the curb at the right edge of the photo is about 12-16" inches above curb at the left edge. Further, take into account the distortion of taking a photo of a tall building across a relatively narrow street, and there's the effect you mention. It would take me 90 minutes to drive each way to New Brunswick to take a replacement photo, and given gas prices, and from a cost-benefit analysis there isn't a pressing need and it's frankly a waste of time unless I had other things to do down there. However the image isn't up for featured content as a featured picture, the article is, and as far as the FA criteria go, the aesthetic shortcomings of the photo aren't quite important. I don't think there is an issue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material is a bit sparse. To what extent have you searched for other possible sources? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Define objectively "a bit sparse" in terms of the FA criteria and specific shortcomings so that I can determine if this is an actionable issue. I assert that I am sufficiently familiar with the sources available for Rutgers and NBTS history, church history, and those for persons connected with them, so as to be able to speak and assert that there are likely few if any other sources beyond those cited that would substantively or qualitatively expand this article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two points are not deal-breakers. With regard to the image, software is available that can rotate images but in this instance the non-allignment is quite trivial. Your final reply makes it seem likely that the article is as comprehensive as reasonably possible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review

  • Agree that postnominals and dates of life are superfluous in lead caption - however, consider including a date for the image
  • Done (27SEP13) removed, added "c. late 1860s." (explained below)--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Samuel_Merrill_Woodbridge_1819-1905.jpg: licensing tag is incorrect. You didn't take the original image, so scanning it in does not create a new copyright. Is the creator of the original image known?
  • Reply: I will repair the tag, I do not know who took the original image, most likely a local New Brunswick, NJ photog--but not Robert Boggs who signed all his work on the negative. Because of the original's fading pattern I think it's an AgCl or AgF print, and the style of its cartes des visite, it would be from the late 1860s. Therefore, should I change it to a general PD or "too old to be copyrighted" tag? I admit, my knowledge in selecting Wikipedia's licensing tags is sorely inadequate--and that day, I think I uploaded several images and this was likely a mistake made mindlessly while going through the uploading process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (28SEP13) - fixed it with a PD-old template.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:New_Brunswick_Theological_Seminary_Faculty_c1904.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I don't know of any publishing of the photo. I know it's in the NBTS and Rutgers library special collections, I know there's a copy in the RCA archives at Hope College in Michigan. I have a copy in my collection of NJ and Rutgers-related stuff because it was released both as a regular print and on card-backing, c. 1904. I have both, but the print is better quality.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (28SEP13) - I believe I've explained that adequately on the image summary.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: - I'll address the above comments above later today after work. In the meantime or thereabouts, since I know and respect your reputation for keen detail in addressing FAC reviews, would you be able to do a full review in case there are things other reviewers and I have missed? --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Done (29SEP13) - there were three in the article, one in the lede, two in the body. I removed the link at "Reformed Church's Classis of New York" and kept the one at "Protestant Dutch Reformed faith" since I think "Dutch Reformed" would benefit more from the link and the other is contextually sufficient. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any critical commentary or review of either his theology or his sermons? Of his publications?
  • Reply (29SEP13) - None that I know of--and this is an area I know a lot about. His books were more like textbooks or primers. Mostly they were prepared to aid his instruction to his students--since before the 1850s/1860s most Reformed theology instruction was donimated by adherence to the writings of Johannes van Marck (Marckii Medulla Theologiae) which was in Latin. Woodbridge basically provided an English-language textbook. As for his sermons, in the 19th century there really wasn't much in the way of criticism of sermons, they were just published, and often if they were referenced by other writers/clergy it was typically to reinforce a point in their own sermons and writings. When you get to a critical discussion of homiletics it's more an analysis of rhetoric or pedagogy and the means of effectively communicating the message than a critique of their premises and content. However, homiletics doesn't emerge as a scholarly discipline in the Protestant tradition until about 40 years after Woodbridge's death (with the work of Andrew Watterson Blackwood Sr. at Princeton Theological Seminary), when his work was largely out of circulation or ignored.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the difference at the time between dean and faculty president?
  • Reply: (29SEP13) None really besides title--I established they were both successors to the post of seminary president which places it in context. Both posts were given to the oldest, longest-serving professor at the Seminary--which I discussed regarding the "Dean" title. Am I mistaken in thinking "president of the faculty" is rather self-explanatory--especially given the context before and after its mention.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know dates of birth/death for the second wife?
  • FN4 includes a doubled period
  • I believe that "passim" is discouraged in citations in much the same way that ibid is
  • Reply: (29SEP13) "discouraged", not prohibited. However, "passim" isn't mentioned at WP:IBID. The rationale by which "ibid", and "op. cit.", "loc. cit." is discouraged stems from their usage to refer to other specific page mentions in previous notes that can be removed, separating the full source from the subsequent note which just says "McCormick, ibid.", or "McCormick, loc. cit."--"passim" does not make a specific reference that would be lost if it were removed. In this article, I don't just say "McCormick, passim." as a short reference and leave it) The guideline mentions ibid. for this reason, and says "other similar abbreviations". I would venture to say "passim" is not similar in this regard--especially since both cites to this source are full citations (i.e. I refuse to use short citations for this reason among others). Unfortunately with a book where the two statements (the two ubiquitous factoids that Rutgers became a state university and that it was previously affiliated with the reformed faith) are referenced throughout the source, "passim." is appropriate. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10 title should use endash

Finally, can you describe briefly what steps you've taken to search for additional references? This source, for example, may have been missed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: (29SEP13) - J.H. Raven's Biographical Record (your link), of which I am familiar, offers the same information that I've cited from other sources, including the NYU and Rutgers catalogues, the seminary's 40th anniversary "Festschrift" (I cite Raven's 1916 Rutgers catalogue, but his 1911 seminary Biographical Record references the 1909 Rutgers catalogue which he compiled, and earlier editions before his tenure). I did not cite the work you linked above because it is largely derivative of, and duplicates, the works I've already cited in the article. As I stated above, any additional works that are out there (and I'm likely aware of all of them) don't add anything more substantively or qualitatively to the content of the article beyond what I've already presented and cited.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Samuel_Merrill_Woodbridge/archive1&oldid=1076192075"