Talk:1844 United States presidential election/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, 36hourblock. Per a request on my talk page (permanent link), I have decided to review this article. I understand that you may be dejected from earlier reviews, but I hope you will work with me to see if this can be passed. I should note, however, that I am not a period expert, so I will be reading as a layman. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

On February 21, 2014, User:Adam Cuerden opined that "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly…"

A month later, still incommunicado, and having exhibited a studied indifference to his GA reviewer chores, he reports that "The article's full of poorly-introduced, poorly-explained concepts” and has “tons of problems".

As to his personal attacks against me, I'll just say that silence is the most perfect expression of contempt.

That he contacted you, Crisco, to intervene, does no credit to your reputation as an editor. Frankly, I don't have faith in your ability to handle this review objectively.

I'll be happy to work on the article with someone independent of your clique. 36hourblock (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I will point out the actual comment is "This is a pretty good article, and think it will pass shortly, however, there are issues where background isn't explained." There were a lot of issues. You then took almost two weeks to get back to me saying you had looked at the first set of issues. I've seen people being reviewed act quickly, and move an article rapidly towards promotion when the material and research is there, but there's prose issues. However, the issues actually need dealt with, preferably before the reviewer leaves the period of relative calm he was in, and enters a busy period. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * BlueMoonset also asked me to have a look. If you think Blue is part of a "clique" with Adam, you are sadly mistaken. Blue, what do you think? We're giving 36hour a second chance, but he/she doesn't seem to be willing to take it. This article (at a glance) looks reasonably comprehensive, but there appear to be extensive issues. Some GA reviewers would simply fail the article here and now, but I don't like to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: Your services as reviewers are neither needed nor welcome on this article. Why not bow out gracefully? 36hourblock (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adam is not reviewing this article. He is defending himself against misquotation. Now, if you are unwilling to address the issues I pointed out (despite having started this review in good faith, and having suggested that we let you skip to the head of the line), then I will be forced to fail this. And, if this is nominated for GAC again, you will more likely than not be asked why you haven't addressed my comments by the new reviewer. Do you really want to wait that long? Or do you want to see if we can work together to polish this article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 36hourblock, after you posted to my talk page about Adam's actions, I was the one who went to Crisco's page and asked for his assistance since he is an admin and one I have worked with very collegially for the past few years. I was pleasantly surprised and pleased when he offered to take on the review because you'd gotten a raw deal—my opinion was and is that he is an independent reviewer and can be counted on to review this fairly and impartially. Frankly, he's doing you a favor in taking this review immediately after Adam failed the last iteration, as he noted above. If you aren't prepared to work with him, then your nomination will be failed again due to the issues raised thus far, and if you renominate you'll go to the back of the reviewing line and can expect the process to take a very long time. Furthermore, any future reviewer will be looking at past reviews and asking you to do the work Crisco has just requested. I realize that Adam made you wait an unconscionable period of time and that's a shame, but Crisco is not Adam and is ready to work with you. I strongly recommend you buckle down and do so if you're interested in this article being listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Buckle this. 36hourblock (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you prefer I fail this and you wait in the queue for however long it takes. So be it. I strongly recommend you look into the images before nominating again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

6 (images)
.
 * Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, avoid sandwiching images. We have sandwiched images in #Whig Party convention and campaign, #Whig Party campaign tactics, #Van Buren's Hammet letter, and #James K. Polk: Dark horse.
 * In line with the above, I think this needs to have the number of images reduced by at least 5.
 * It is standard to have images positioned under the section break, not right before it. I don't see that in the MOS though, so I cannot consider that as part of the GA criteria. If you plan on going further, however...
 * I doubt there is any value in using galleries for a single image. It looks tacky with all that whitespace.


 * Copyright and specific image concerns
 * File:JamesKnoxPolk.png - How is this CC-BY-SA? Also, when did Kelogg die? PD-70 does not apply in the US, so you need to either show publication before 1923 or that the creator has been dead for at least 100 years. Furthermore, for display purposes a JPG would be much better (JPG is a lossy format, but it is rendered correctly by Wikimedia's software; PNG, on the other hand, is not)
 * File:Clay.png - For display purposes, a JPG would be much better. It would be preferable to have Darby's lifespan marked.
 * File:ElectoralCollege1844.svg - Please ensure that all of the electoral vote numbers are correct. There appear to have been multiple issues in the lifespan of this article.
 * File:Clay vs Polk campaign.jpg - This is fine, more or less (though the lifespan of the artist would be nice to have). I am preparing a larger resolution version, from the LOC.
 * File:Clay Frelinghuysen 2.png - This is most certainly not from May 2010; the date field needs to be corrected. For display purposes, a JPG would be much better. Also, the style is quite similar to this 1864 poster; how do we know that Currier and Ives (responsible for the Polk–Dallas banner) did not do this?
 * File:Theodore Frelinghuysen - Brady-Handy.jpg - fine
 * File:Henry Clay-headshot.jpg - What proof of publication do you have for PD-1923?
 * File:08 Martin Van Buren 3x4.jpg - Brady's YOD would be nice to include (available in the Frelinghuysen image). The "Candidate" in the caption should have a small c.
 * File:"No Annexation of Texas" 1844.jpg - Where did you get this? Scanned an original document, from a book, or?
 * File:"The Little Magician Invoked" Martin Van Buren, US Presidential Election, 1844.jpg - Please link to the LOC page for this image, and consider adding the LOC template. Regarding the caption, our article is at Locofocos (no space, no capital F)
 * File:MartinVanBuren.png - Do we really need this? I mean, we've got a photograph already. Also, for display this should be jpg. Healy's year of death (1894) would also be good to have
 * File:LewisCass-portrait.png - For display this should be jpg. Huntington died in 1906; that should be noted on the description page.
 * File:RichardMentorJohnson.png - For display this should be jpg. Peale died in 1860; that should be noted on the description page.
 * File:JamesBuchanan crop.jpg - Original year of the painting should also be included, as well as Healy's year of death.
 * File:JohnCCalhoun.png - For display this should be jpg. Missing year of publication and Darcy's year of death.
 * File:Vice-president of the US George Dallas.jpg - When was this published? We can't know this is PD-1923 without having at least a rough year of publication. The source link doesn't go to the correct page, either.
 * File:President James K. Polk, circa 1840s. Copy of engraving by H. W. Smith., 1943 - 1945 - NARA - 535919.tif - For display we should use a JPG
 * File:Polk Dallas campaign banner.jpg - *shudder* That needs restoration (not part of the GA criteria, but as someone who often restores images this one frightens me).
 * File:Johntyler.jpg - What's the source of this image?
 * File:John Tyler.png - "No artist details listed" - so how do we know this was a work of a US government employee? This is originally from the Library of Congress; you should find their listing to establish this image's copyright status. Also, this should be jpg
 * File:JamesKPolkLocalVictoryParadeLancasterPA11261844.jpg - Link is dead. Any archives? No doubt about the copyright status, but to be safe...

Let's get through the image review before we continue on to the remainder of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)