Talk:Andrew Johnson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any issues I can't immediately fix, and then start the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. Looking forward to seeing your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
This is a strong article and some really terrific work. Well-sourced from a variety of historians, great prose, and I found it a fascinating read. Everyone involved deserves a pat on the back for this one.

So far my only concerns around the article revolve around two GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

3b.
The only big issue I see both in terms of GA status and Wikipedia policy generally is that the article is extremely long: 91kb readable prose and just short of 15,000 words, which puts it in range of some definitions of a novella. Per WP:PAGESIZE, something around 40-50kb is the ideal before which a topic should probably be broken into subarticles, since many users will be looking for a briefer overview. In an ideal world, I'd say the 50-60kb range would be the right length for this article, with some of this excellent research moved into subarticles on various sections of Johnson's life. For practical purposes of this GA, though, I realize that would be a lot to ask for.

So let me just leave it saying that this doesn't yet meet 3b, but that I'm fine with a variety of solutions to slim this down: splits, cuts, etc. I think a minimum goal would be to get to the length of comparable Good Article Abraham Lincoln (78kb, though criticized even at that length for its page size), but I'd encourage you to reduce further if possible.

Partway through my first read of the article I started keeping a specific list of phrases and sentences that appeared to me to be redundant or overdetailed, and therefore ripe for cutting. I have no attachment to any specific one of these suggested cuts, so you can take them or leave them; they're only here to show you the sort of material I think could be cut to help get this into more summary-ish shape. I'd be glad to help suggest further cuts or summaries if you like, but I know it's often less painful to do this yourself than to have someone else "wield the knife"! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Main article: List of federal judges appointed by Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson appointed nine Article III federal judges during his presidency, all to United States district courts. Johnson did not appoint a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. In April 1866 he nominated Henry Stanbery to fill the vacancy left with the death of John Catron, but the Republican Congress eliminated the seat to prevent the appointment, and to ensure that Johnson did not get to make any appointments eliminated the next vacancy as well, providing that the court would shrink by one justice when one next departed from office.[171] Johnson appointed his Greeneville crony, Samuel Milligan, to the United States Court of Claims, where he served from 1868 to until his death in 1874.[172][173]
 * the President recorded of his final New Year's reception in 1849 that Among the visitors I observed in the crowd today was Hon. Andrew Johnson of the Ho. Repts. [House of Representatives] Though he represents a Democratic District in Tennessee (my own State) this is the first time I have seen him during the present session of Congress. Professing to be a Democrat, he has been politically, if not personally hostile to me during my whole term. He is very vindictive and perverse in his temper and conduct. If he had the manliness and independence to declare his opposition openly, he knows he could not be elected by his constituents. I am not aware that I have ever given him cause for offense
 * Johnson's demeanor was described by the newspapers as "solemn and dignified" and "his bearing produced a most gratifying impression upon those who participated."[108] Some Cabinet members had last seen Johnson, apparently drunk, at the inauguration
 * and directed the appropriate members to initiate Lincoln's funeral arrangements.
 * William Hunter was appointed acting Secretary of State for the wounded Seward.
 * The Republicans had not broken apart, but had formed a number of factions. The Radical Republicans sought voting and other civil rights for African-Americans.  They believed that the freedmen could be induced to vote Republican in gratitude for emancipation, and that black votes could keep the Republicans in power and southern Democrats, including former rebels, out of influence.  They believed that top Confederates should be punished.  The Moderate Republicans sought to keep the Democrats out of power at a national level, and prevent former rebels from holding positions of power in the South.  They were not as enthusiastic about the idea of African-American suffrage as their Radical colleagues, due either to their own local political concerns, or feeling that the freedman would be likely to cast his vote badly.  Northern Democrats favored the unconditional restoration of the southern states.  They did not support African-American suffrage, as that race's votes might threaten Democratic control in the South.
 * "Johnson was unhappy about the provocative actions of the southern states, and of the continued control by the antebellum elite there, but made no statement publicly, believing that southerners had a right to act as they did, even if it was unwise to do so. "
 * Johnson believed that the Radicals would now be isolated and defeated, and that the Moderate Republicans would form behind him. However, he did not understand that Moderates too wanted to see African-Americans treated fairly.[128]
 * to the delight of white southerners, and to the puzzled anger of Republican legislators
 * (as the White House was still formally known)
 * Johnson said it was an invasion by federal authority of the rights of the states, it had no warrant in the Constitution and was contrary to all precedents.
 * His home state of Tennessee ratified the Fourteenth Amendment despite the President's opposition.[137] When Tennessee did so, Congress immediately seated its proposed delegation, embarrassing Johnson.[138]
 * Efforts to compromise failed,[139] and a political war ensued between the united Republicans on one side, and on the other, Johnson and his allies in the Democratic Party, North and South.
 * Johnson blamed the Democrats for giving only lukewarm support to the National Union movement.[142]
 * for it to become part of the Constitution
 * to win the day
 * In the legislative process,
 * who in combination with General of the Army Grant
 * Johnson considered firing Stanton, but respected him for his wartime service as secretary, and the self-educated president was intimidated by Stanton's brains and support in Congress.
 * The new Congress met for a few weeks in March 1867, then adjourned, leaving the House Committee on the Judiciary behind, charged with reporting back to the full House whether there were grounds for Johnson to be impeached. This committee duly met, examining Johnson's bank accounts, and summoning members of the Cabinet to testify. When a federal court released former Confederate president Davis on bail on May 13 from the imprisonment he had endured since being captured after the war, the committee investigated whether Johnson had impeded the prosecution of Davis. It learned that Johnson was more eager to have Davis tried than any in his government. A bipartisan majority of the committee voted down impeachment charges; the committee adjourned on June 3. -- could be reduced to a sentence or two without much loss to the reader.
 * He was initially deterred by a strong objection from Grant.
 * Congress of War Secretary Stanton's suspension and Grant's interim appointment
 * Senators Grimes, Ross, Trumbull, William Pitt Fessenden, Joseph S. Fowler, John B. Henderson, and Peter G. Van Winkle (or move to footnote)
 * With the death of Thaddeus Stevens on August 11, one of Johnson's most implacable opponents was removed from the political scene.
 * Judicial appointments
 * Seward had dominated New York politics for the 20 years before Johnson took office, as governor and senator. Lincoln and Seward had been rivals for the nomination in 1860; the victor hoped that Seward would succeed him as president in 1869.
 * A reporter from the Cincinnati Commercial described the 60-year-old Johnson in 1869, that his "hair is now quite grey but otherwise there is nothing about him that would indicate his being over 45. His face is elegantly shaved, quite pale, as it always is, and in conversation he looks you straight in the face."
 * He spoke throughout the state in his final campaign tour.
 * the white domination would last almost a century
 * Among those who sent Johnson letters of congratulation were former Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, former Attorney General Stanbery, and former Kansas senator Ross, who had been defeated for re-election after voting to acquit Johnson
 * President Grant had the "painful duty" of announcing the death of the only surviving past president
 * in his journal article about the historiography of Reconstruction
 * I've done bios of significant historical figures that have topped 90K, and the three presidential FAs I've worked on, Richard Nixon, William McKinley, and Harry Truman are well over 100K. It's the nature of the beast on presidents.  And many of the things you list above are needed for context for readers who don't know a lot about the period, so people don't just seem to be ciphers.  Introducing, say, Seward in the manner that I have explains why he was able to dominate two presidents on foreign policy.  Note that in Lincoln, there's an awful lot of material that's in lower-level articles.  Continued interest in Lincoln and a huge volume of scholarship on the man allows us to support a family of sub-articles, many referenced through hatnotes, that allow for a very sparse style because the reader can go look at the referenced articles.  We don't have that for Johnson, excepting his impeachment, and his accession/Lincoln's assassination, which we cover in a very summary style.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And within the usual limits of presidential FAs, my view is that you don't play hide the parcel with the reader, and that if it can be within the top-level article without making it too large, well, it should be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... using User:Dr pda/prosesize, I have Nixon at 77kb, McKinley at 75kb, and Truman at 59kb of readable prose in comparison to the 91kb for Johnson--it may just be a question of different measures. (By the way, I thought the Nixon article was terrific when I read it on the main page a few days ago, and didn't realize you were behind it--thanks buckets for your work on that one.) Anyway, I greatly appreciate the cuts you've just made, and looking at them in diffs, I think they're good ones; I now have this at 82kb readable prose. This still strikes me as pushing the upper limit, but if he's within 5kb of a Featured Article, it's clearly fine for a Good Article. Thanks for the speedy and thoughtful work despite not entirely agreeing with me.
 * Tomorrow I'll do a second readthrough to make sure neither you nor I accidentally introduced any new issues with our edits, see if I missed anything on the first pass, check the images, and do a few spotchecks of sources. I feel like this is close to ready, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nice words on Nixon, though Happyme22 deserves a full share of the credit. I did a lot of sub-articles on that one, but it was more a way of learning about Nixon and getting ready to take on the main article.  Checkers speech and Bring Us Together, for example.  I will continue to look for places to cut.  I grumble but I know I tend to write a bit too fully. I expect that as it heads towards FAC (perhaps in a month, I just put an article there and it will take time to clear the page) it is more likely to gain text than lose it, so no harm in cutting the excess.  Sounds good, will wait to hear from you.  Thanks for being flexible.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice. I'm actually doing much the same with FDR at the moment, trying to fill in the articles on his family, cabinet, dog, and girlfriends in prep for tackling the main article. Next up I'm doing Louis Howe (mentor) and Lucy Mercer (mistress). Might be a while before I get around to his biography, but for now at least it's fun to complete these side articles, and as you say, good prep work. Anyway, more tomorrow! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1a.
On the whole the article's prose struck me as extremely clear, strong, and vivid. Some minor points that could be clarified--I apologize in advance if these are quibbly!
 * "he purchased the land there where he had first camped and planted a tree in commemoration" -- phrasing leaves it ambiguous whether he planted the tree while camping or after purchasing, though I assume it's the latter.
 * "She taught her husband arithmetic up to basic algebra" -- could be read as stating that basic algebra is a subset of arithmetic (that's how I read it on first pass, though on second glance I realized you meant something like "math from arithmetic to basic algebra".
 * " his friends McDannel and Mordecai Lincoln—the first cousin to Thomas Lincoln, father of the future president, had, as justice of the peace, married the Johnsons" -- this sentence gets a bit tangled and could perhaps be split. Maybe add a parenthetical along the lines of ("Mordecai, the first cousin of Thomas Lincoln, father of the future president, had, as justice of the peace, married the Johnsons").
 * "the Whigs on the question of government spending and support for the railroads, while his constituents looked forward to improvements in transportation infrastructure" -- this gets a little knotty for me. Was Johnson or the Whig party opposed to railroad support? The phrase " his constituents looked forward to improvements " also slightly confuses me--is this the same as saying they wanted improvements? Or were they happily anticipating improvements that had already been promised?
 * "Johnson believed, as did many southern Democrats, that as the Constitution protected private property, of which slaves were a form, neither federal nor state governments could abolish it" -- "it" lacks a clear antecedent here--I assume "slavery" is meant and not "private property". The multiple comma clauses also make this sentence a little tangled. How about something like "Like many southern Democrats, Johnson believed that neither federal nor state governments could abolish slavery due to the Constitutional protection of private property, of which slaves were a form"? Still a complex sentence, but gives you my drift.
 * " He also expressed his outrage at accusations made against his father" -- can a phrase explaining these allegations be easily included here? I wouldn't want to introduce too much of a tangent, but the phrase really piques the reader's curiosity. Perhaps a footnote?
 * "Beginning in his second term, promoted a measure requiring the turnover of all government jobs every eight years. In his second term, he " -- seems to be a missing pronoun, and also a repetition of "in his second term"
 * "the Nashville Union termed this "Henry-mandering" -- it's probably worth a footnote here to explain that this is a play on gerrymandering, for young or non-US readers.
 * "Johnson was surprisingly victorious" -- Is the sense that he won by a surprisingly large margin, or it's surprising that he won? If the latter, maybe rewrite as "Surprisingly, Johnson was victorious."
 * " albeit with a narrower margin" -- would it be correct to add "than in 1852"--is that the sense of this?
 * "Johnson, to no avail, used this platform to voice the urgency of military intervention in East Tennessee" -- a bit repetitive
 * "first time in the Senate" -- should this be "first term"? "First time" sounds a little as if he just stepped foot there that morning.
 * I dislike term because he did not complete either term, and "first term" is more familiar to the reader as if it is a series of terms.


 * "than any in his government" -- this comparison is a little unclear. Johnson was more eager than other government officers? He wanted Davis tried more than he wanted others tried?
 * "he refused to do so" -- is the correct sense of this "Stanton refused to resign"?
 * "However, Johnson refused to fire Treasury Secretary Hugh McCulloch, fearing to alienate wealthy supporters." -- did anyone ask him to do this? I'm not clear on the context of this statement.
 * with his body wrapped in an American flag and a copy of the U.S. Constitution placed under his head, according to his wishes -- this description occurs twice in the paragraph -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of these are quibbles, but I'm always trying to get quibbles out of the article (from my legal training I fear) so I'm very grateful for the comments and will massage them out. I'll look through the first list but I doubt I'm going to pull much.  For Lincoln, there's tons of articles on various aspects of his life, but for Johnson, this article (especially for the pre-presidential matter) is the only place for the reader to go on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough

 * "his fellow alderman" --should this be plural?
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "administration's decisions to fight the Mexican War" -- should this be singular?
 * Perhaps put the word "nativist" or "anti-immigrant" in front of the first mention of the Know Nothing Party, just to give the reader a touch of context.
 * "His final biennial speech as governor was pivotal" -- is it possible to briefly explain in what way this speech was pivotal? (i.e., for him or for the state, and in what way?)
 * "Democrats who were not minded to vote for the Lincoln/Johnson ticket" -- I wonder if it would be more straightforward here to simply say "his supporters" or "McClellan's supporters". This paragraph also has "refused" in two consecutive sentences; not of consequence for GA, but perhaps one could be rewritten.
 * "Completion of term" --this section should probably be moved to the end of the presidency section (after appts. and foreign policy) for chronologic logic
 * "there were few such, though including Davis" -- this phrase confused me--was Davis included in the pardon or not?
 * "Tolson notes that ", "Foner notes that" --consider rewriting as "states", "argues" or some such per WP:WTW -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made those changes. Thank you very much for your time and patience through this process.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)