Talk:Andrew Sledd

Andrew Sledd: additional information needed
The available sources unfortunately leave a handful of holes in Dr. Sledd's story:

1. What specific policies or accomplishments did he have during his 5 years at Southern University?

2. What theology courses did he teach at Candler?

We would be grateful to anyone who could help us fill these information gaps regarding Dr. Sledd's life. Source documents from Randolph-Macon, Florida, Birmingham-Southern, Emory and Candler would be helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

3. What high school did he attend and graduate? I recently created Arkadelphia High School but I am not able to confirm his association. And if he did, then I would recommend his inclusion to WP:Arkansas too. Djharrity (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Review comments
User Dirtlawyer1 asked me to review this article. I'll add comments below as I go through; I'm reviewing with an eye to WP:FAC, which means being fairly picky.


 * I don't think you need to repeat "Sledd" at the start of the second sentence; the reader can be pretty confident about the referent of "He" this early in the article. How about "A native of Virginia, he"?
 * ✅ I like to repeat the use of the surname at least once in the lead, but I can live with a little less repetition.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
 * I agree; it varies the rhythm a little bit to go back and forth between "he" and "Sledd", but I think it's OK to wait another sentence or two here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "He later earned a second master's and doctorate degrees": I think "doctorate degrees" is imprecise; either "a doctorate degree", if it's just one, or give the number if there are two or more.
 * ✅ Agreed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A little overlinking in the lead: you certainly don't need the USA to be linked, and I think professor is arguable. I would also unlink "biblical", "minister", "magazine" and "literature".
 * ✅ Agreed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the lead doesn't give the events in chronological order -- I think it would be easier on the reader to make it chronological, and avoid "he previously served".
 * ✅ Rewrote sentence to clarify chronology. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pity that three of the institutions in that paragraph require either "formerly known as" or "now known as"; it's quite a distraction to the reader. I think the first should be left as is, since that's a fairly important one, but could you just have "Southern University" link directly to Birmingham–Southern College (perhaps to the history section) and just drop the second one completely, leaving the clarification to the body of the article?  Actually since you say "formerly known" it's not clear to me whether that name was in use when he was there; if it wasn't it's certainly unnecessary.
 * ✅ Agreed. Will rely on body text for further explanation.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly improved, but now you have "first" twice in quick succession. Per the U of F article, it seems that it was called by the prior name while he was there, so I think "then known", as you originally had it, is OK -- the history is quite complicated, it appears, and "first known" is even slightly misleading as there were precursor institutions. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hmm. I think it's defensible, as the University of the State of Florida was a new legal entity, but I see your point.  Reverted the parenthetical to "then known as the University of the State of Florida" for the sake of accuracy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The infobox could also drop some links; again, professor probably shouldn't be linked. The current link to Methodism is from "Methodist minister"; probably better to link just from "Methodist".  The "university president" is OK but you have it in the lead so it may not be necessary here -- my usual practice is to link once in the lead and once again in the body, but that's my habit and not any kind of rule.
 * ✅ I usually feel no compunction about duplicating wiki links in an infobox, but the two links you mentioned are both relatively common words, so I'm following your lead.  "Methodist" can certainly use further explanation via link.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First para of body: how about a comma after "Virginia Methodist Conference" to avoid the reader taking the next clause as also governed by "The elder Sledd was"?
 * ✅ Agreed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Same sentence: it took me a second to work out that all three towns were in Virginia. How about: "Danville, Norfolk and Petersburg, in [or "all in"] Virginia."?
 * ✅ Rewrote the sentence to clarify that all three cities are located in Virginia.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That works well. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I know little about the history of Protestant groups in the US, and was surprised to see "Methodist Episcopal"; I thought they were two separate groups. The link is to Methodism (already linked by this time, so perhaps not needed), but I had to search that article to discover that there was a split in Methodism in 1792 and one group called itself the "Methodist Episcopal" church.  Is there perhaps a more specific link that would be helpful here?
 * You are correct, sir. Episcopalians are the direct organizational and doctrinal descendants of the Church of England.  The Methodist Episcopal Church, and its African-American sister church, the African Methodist Episcopal (a.k.a. "A.M.E.") Church were Methodist groups.  There was a Civil War–era schism in the white M.E. church that was later patched up in the 20th Century, and the "Episcopal" portion of the national Methodist church name was dropped.  The A.M.E. Church continues to exist and use that name.  FYI, the "episcopal" in the M.E. name refers to the church's hierarchical structure which relies on bishops as regional administrators, not to the American Episcopal Church.  Two different flavors of American Protestants.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my confusion was as to whether a "Methodist Episcopal" minister was the same thing as a Methodist minister, or if it implied something different. Does that branch of the church still refer to itself by that name?  Or is it not in fact a branch, but the main Methodist church, using a variant but perhaps still current form of the name?  I can't be sure if this is something that would bother other readers so you may want to get another opinion, but I've never heard "Methodist Episcopal" before, and if it would be just as accurate to replace it with "Methodist" it would be an improvement.  As I say, you might want to seek another opinion on this one.Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I had a friend who was a Methodist seminary student at the Candler School when I first wrote this article, and I had the same initial reaction (i.e. confusion) that you did. She explained that the major U.S. Methodist organization in the 1800s was the Methodist Episcopal Church, from which the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (and, yes, that's the odd way they punctuated it) split during the run-up to the U.S. Civil War.  The Northern and Southern M.E. churches were reunited during the 20th Century in an organization that became known as the United Methodist Church (we Americans like to be "united," except when we aren't).  Not sure why they dropped the "Episcopal" portion of their name, as they continue to retain an episcopal organizational structure.  May have had something to do with the obvious name confusion with the U.S. Episcopalian Church (the American branch of the Church of England).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Based on this I had a poke around in the Methodist categories, and found Methodist Episcopal Church -- could we make the link go to that? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added and edited wiki links to incorporate links to the generic Methodist denomination, the predominant Methodist Episcopal Church of the era, and its Southern offshoot, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That does it. I think those links are very helpful to the reader. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed "prominence" and "prominently" too close to each other in the lead; perhaps you could cut the latter, since it's just an intensifier.
 * ✅ Over use eliminated.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see some more overlinking -- e.g. "baseball", "principal", "hitter", "high school" and "degree". Could you take a pass through the whole article?  There's certainly debate at the boundaries but there are definitely too many at the moment.
 * ✅ Eliminated the wiki links for most of your suggestions above, but kept "baseball," since most of the Anglosphere apparently plays this very confusing sport called cricket and may only be passing familiar with its American cousin.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah. Cricket is simplicity itself.  OK on leaving baseball in; I agree it could be helpful for sports-challenged readers, and there are certainly plenty of those. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the source give any information about why he quit teaching in Arkadelphia to finish his degree? Seems like an unusual sequence of events; did he need money from the job to finish?  Was he unsuccessful or unhappy there?  No problem if the source doesn't cover it, but this is an article about the man as well as the career and his motivations are interesting to the reader.
 * Unfortunately, I have only oblique references in my current secondary sources. While Sledd was president of the University of Florida, he started an autobiographical sketch called "Biography of a Southern School Master," or something to that effect.  He never finished it, but the special collections section of the university library apparently has type-written copies of the manuscript.  I will request a copy from the university historian; I can't believe I had forgotten about it.


 * I suspect the answer to your question, at least in part, lies in understanding Sledd's personality. Like so many of the academic persuasion, he was a fairly quirky fella.  I have found oblique references to his early "agnosticism" (no doubt a reaction to being raised as the eldest son of a prominent minister), and his need to be a supreme rationalist in everything.  Reading between the lines, I surmise that he returned to complete his education when he figured out that he wanted to be a minister and professor in the mold of his father.  Unfortunately, I can't substantiate my conjecture, mind you, from the available sources.  Perhaps the autobiography will shed some light on it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I was able to locate some extended excerpts of Sledd's autobiography online.  He left Randolph-Macon to teach and earn money to finish his degree program.  Sledd's family, like many Southern families who were relatively well-off before the war, were broke after it.  I was also able to fill in some of the blanks about his early education and his undergraduate course of study, with some nice details to gild the milestones.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are nice touches. You've managed to fill in a lot of the gaps in the story now, I think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a quick look via Google Books to see if there were any other possibly relevant sources, and found Emory College and the Sledd Affair of 1902: a case study in southern honor and racial attitudes by Ralph Reed -- is that something you could use? I also found (in a book called Spam Kings, about porn!) a more detailed description of the lynching and some quotes from Sledd's article; I think you could expand your description of the affair a bit (not using Spam Kings!), perhaps quoting Sledd's article a little.  And how about adding Sledd's Atlantic Monthly article to the bibliography?
 * Porn? Now, that was a little unexpected.  LOL  FYI, Ralph Reed is a somewhat controversial American conservative political consultant who is coincidentally based here in Atlanta.  Reed did his Ph.D. at Emory, which is probably what prompted his interest in Sledd.  Prompted by your suggestion, I have e-mailed his office to request a courtesy copy of his article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the same Ralph Reed? Interesting. I recognized the name but didn't know it was him, though of course I should have guessed, given the topic.  He is indeed controversial; I would have thought his article would count as a reliable source, though, since it's not about his own endeavours. I've struck the comment about adding Sledd's article to the biblio as I see you did that. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gave up waiting on an email response from Reed's political consulting firm. I did a little bit of on-line detective work, and discovered that contrary to Google Books, Reed's "book" was actually a 30-page journal article written while he was a third-year Ph.D. candidate at Emory and published in the Georgia Historical Quarterly in 1988.  I called the Georgia Historical Society's Savannah library, and the librarian faxed a copy to me this afternoon.  I have perused it, and it appears that Reed had access to the private correspondence of Sledd, Bishop Candler and others associated with Emory.  Should make for interesting reading.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added the Ralph Reed journal article to the bibliography, and incorporated a number of facts from it into the text with appropriate footnotes.  More importantly, I am continuing to mine the various sources listed in the article's footnotes.  Per your suggestion, I have also added two quotes from the Sledd's article to the text, and one extended passage in the notes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like that was a useful source. I'll strike, but I would suggest you tweak the phrasing of 'he dismissed the "negro race" as the equal of the "white race"'; I think it needs to be something like "he dismissed the idea that" or "he did not believe that 'the negro race' was ...". Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure about this one, but see what you think. The end of the early life and education section mentions his Ph.D., which is reasonable, but of course that means that you have to jump forward several years and then immediately back to Emory College for the next section.  How about eliminating any mention of the Latin teaching at the end of the early life section, and simply saying, "He did not complete the doctorate he started at Harvard, but earned his Ph.D. from Yale, several years later, during a break in his teaching career."  That could probably be improved, but it segregates the material a little.  Does that work?
 * ✅ As I previously mentioned below, the Harvard M.A. was in Greek; the Yale Ph.D. was in Latin.  So, it not really accurate to say he later returned to grad school to complete his Ph.D.; the master's and doctorate weren't in the same course of study.  This was what I meant when I mentioned it being a "terminal Master's degree."  (I picked the phrase up from my own grad school professors; it's American academic jargon, apparently.)  Having re-read the two substantive mentions of the Ph.D., I have reduced the first mention to foreshadowing in the "Early life and education" section, where I believe it deserves brief mention for any reader drawn to the section title, and have provided the substance at the end of the "Emory College and the Sledd Affair," which is consistent with the actual chronology.  See if this works for you.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very neatly done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "After resigning from the Emory faculty, Sledd completed his doctorate in nine months at Yale University in 1903,[16] and obtained an appointment as a professor of Greek at Southern University": as with the teaching post in Arkadelphia, it would be nice if the sources give any more details on this -- was he unable to get a job immediately, and so went back to his interrupted studies, or did he view the interruption as an opportunity to complete the degree? Again, no problem if the sources aren't specific.
 * Sledd was available to attend Yale because he had been canned from Emory as a result of the controversy created by his Atlantic Monthly article. He was apparently politically radioactive in Georgia.  The Atlantic Monthly publisher, as well as some of his supporters at Emory, helped him obtain a scholarship and other funds to enroll in Yale's graduate school.  The quality of Sledd's scholarly work apparently spoke for itself.  The Barnett monograph suggests that he was offered the presidency of Stanford University after completing his Ph.D., but turned it down.


 * BTW, the Harvard degree was a terminal master's in Greek. The Yale Ph.D. was a full research degree in Latin.  I have never been able to find a source that specifies his undergraduate major or the subject of his first M.A. from Randolph-Macon.  I have also not been able to find the date of his ordination as a Methodist minister.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, all of that is excellent material for the article, it seems to me, assuming you have a reliable source for it. I don't follow "terminal master's" so perhaps you could gloss that if you include it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am still trying to find out what he did immediately after resigning/being fired from Emory in early September 1902. It's possible that he was already working on the his Ph.D. after being fired, and the source simply assumed that he did all of his Ph.D. work in the first nine months of 1903.  It's a small mystery.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have clarified the 1902–1903 time line (and answered several of the questions posed above) with a combination of facts from the Reed article and contemporary newspaper accounts from the on-line Google News Archive. When I first wrote this article, most of the additional newspaper accounts were not yet available; it's great to see Google continues to scan these old newspapers whenever they get their hands on another cache.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The added material is great; good detail, better continuity for the reader, and interesting. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a little more detail is needed for the U of F at Lake City story, or perhaps just more explicit connections between the dots. It seems that the faculty was academically very weak, and that's why the board of trustees removed them?  Can we come out and say that, in that case?  And presumably Sledd was selected with the intention of raising academic standards?  Was it because Sledd had been recently dismissed that he agreed to take a rather difficult and seemingly undistinguished position?
 * ✅The old University of Florida at Lake City was a real mess in 1903; the state legislature had just changed its name from Florida Agricultural College to the University of Florida, and it probably didn't legitimately deserve either title. At your suggestion, I have added a little detail to provide a flavor of the problems the "university" was then experiencing.  If you want additional details, I can probably provide more.


 * After Sledd accepted the presidency in the summer of 1904, he actually got into a fist fight with one of the former faculty members who had come to his office to demand his job back. Prof. James Farr, who also has a WP article, apparently had to pull Sledd off the much larger professor whom Sledd was beating soundly.  Give WP:W, I have struggled with ways to work this anecdote into the text, but I really don't want the article to become one about the university's first president beating a faculty member.  I will probably eventually work the story into a footnote.  If anyone were ever looking for the early origins of Florida's athletic prowess, here it is.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much what I was looking for, and I think the level of detail is about right. As for the fist-fight story -- well, I don't know if I could resist adding that, if I were you.  If it's in a reliable source, it would be entertaining.  The difficulty, as I think you imply (not sure what you mean by WP:W?) is to make sure it's given proper context -- we don't want the reader thinking Sledd punched all his faculty, or that all faculty got into fist fights, or that this defines Sledd's career in any way.  But there's the risk of a charge that the article is incomplete if it's a widespread story about Sledd and you omit it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My obtuse reference to WP:WEIGHT was my way of suggesting that I was somewhat uneasy about including a fun and interesting anecdote without having it overwhelm the rest of the article, and present Sledd in an inaccurate and unbalanced manner. (I suspect a university president beating the tar out of a professor carries that sort of potential.)  It is not a widely known story; my only source for the incident is the unpublished manuscript history of the university's early years by Prof. Farr, which the university historian has graciously lent to me.  Frankly, I was curious to see how you would react to the anecdote.  Right now, I'm leaning toward slipping it into a footnote as a little bonus for the diligent reader.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's in an unpublished ms it's probably hard to justify. Is that ms cited as a reliable source by anyone else?  What would be the basis for thinking that this is a reliable source?  Professor Farr is presumably reliable; it's the ms that's at issue here, though.  I suspect we can't use this unless you have some reason to think the source can be shown to be reliable. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have confirmation of the same incident in two different unpublished manuscripts&mdash;Sledd's and Farr's first-hand accounts. Sledd obviously was a participant, and Farr was an eyewitness.  I am inclined to make mention of it in an explanatory footnote, and see what the FAC reviewers think.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Although the university was a land-grant college under the Morrill Act, its finances remained tenuous." I think this needs a couple of parenthetical words of explanation; without following the links a reader has no idea why a land-grant college would be expected to have robust finances.  And is "tenuous" the right word?  Do you mean insecure, or insufficient, or at risk, or that they overspent their budget?
 * ✅ Mike, see if my expansion of this sentence provides some clarification for your objective English ear.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's good enough. A reader curious about the Morrill Act can follow the links, and specifying the lack of state funding makes the problem a little clearer. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My preference would be "6 to 4" rather than "6–4".
 * ✅ Pesky endashes again, eh?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "the new University of the State of Florida" finishes two consecutive sentences.
 * ✅ Rewrote to avoid the repetitive language. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First para of that section doesn't actually say that Broward backed Sledd as president of the new institution; it says Broward backed him politically, then they passed an act to consolidate the universities and colleges, and then there's the vote to place it at Gainesville. The reader doesn't yet know Sledd expected to be president, so the next paragraph is a bit of a surprise.
 * ✅ I have rewritten the offending passages to clarify Governor Broward's support for (1) the advocacy of university consolidation by Sledd and others, and (2) Sledd as the first president of the new university.  Hopefully, this is now much clearer for a stranger to the material.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks fine now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Murphree continued to serve": I don't think you want "continued" -- he remained president, but of a different institution.
 * ✅ Good clarification.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have "new Gainesville campus", "new campus", and "new Gainesville campus" in a single paragraph; I'd at least cut the last "new".
 * ✅ Eliminated the repetitive usage.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The caption for Buckman Hall seems too long -- the whole second sentence is information that the reader can find in the adjacent text. How about just "Buckman Hall, where Sledd lived from 1905 to 1909"?
 * ✅ Edited the caption for length.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sledd's role was instrumental": I think you mean Sledd was instrumental, rather than the role.
 * ✅ Rephrased to eliminate the issue raised.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Last para of the U of the S of F section; I would suggest rejigging to get the parenthetical remark earlier, so that the reader understands the power of the board to remove Sledd prior to mentioning that it wished to do so.
 * ✅ I moved the explanation of the Board of Control's authority to appointment and re-appoint the university president on annual basis to the same paragraph discussing his initial appointment as the first president.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That solves the problem. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Within several weeks": "a few weeks" would be more natural to my ear, but that might be just because it's an English ear.
 * ✅ Your "English ear" works fine on this side of the Pond, too.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "a position he held for the balance of 1909 until the summer of 1910": "for the balance of" means "until the end of", so I think this needs rephrasing, since he stayed beyond that. Perhaps "and through the summer of 1910", or "for the remainder of 1909 and the first half of 1910".
 * ✅ Adopted your phrase.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "he further developed his personal and professional reputation for financial probity and academic rigor by restoring the school's finances and improving the quality of its instruction": this sounds a bit less than neutral. I'd either cut the approving phrases, or else make it something like "he restored the school's finances and improved the quality of its instruction, giving him a reputation among X for financial probity and academic rigor", where X is the group among whom the source indicates he has that reputation.  It's not that I doubt that he has this reputation, but I think it's a good idea to ascribe interpretations to a source -- historian, biographer, or whoever.  Given that this source is from the Candler School of Theology, it seems unlikely to be completely neutral.
 * ✅ The rosy language was borrowed from the Firth manuscript, but in retrospect, I agree that it sounds less than objective.  I've revised the sentence to state "just the facts, ma'am."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was distracted by the Candler school, because of the coincidence of names, and of course when I looked it up I found it was named after Sledd's wife's uncle. I think it would be worth mentioning this at the first mention of the Candler school, just to avoid the reader wondering about it.
 * Hmm. Explanation in body text, parenthetical, or explanatory footnote?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can do it smoothly in the body text that would be fine, but it's probably hard to manage. I think I'd go with an explanatory footnote. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added an explanatory footnote regarding the naming of the Candler School and Sledd's relationship to Asa Candler. I also added another explanatory footnote in the "Sledd Affair" text regarding Asa Candler's role in Sledd's forced resignation from Emory in 1902.  Apparently the family relationships cut both ways.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a nice detail. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sledd returned to the renamed Emory University": renamed from Emory College; but the reader won't remember that. Well, I didn't, anyway; I had to go back and see what the name had been.  How about "Sledd returned to Emory College, now renamed Emory University"?
 * ✅ Good point.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the sequence at this point -- you have consecutive sentences saying: "In 1914, Sledd left the small Methodist university to accept a professorship at the Methodist Episcopal Church, South's new seminary in Atlanta, the Candler School of Theology. In 1914, Sledd returned to the renamed Emory University, by then relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta, as the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the newly established Candler School of Theology." separated by a section heading.  Was it at South's seminary or at Emory?  And in any case, assuming these aren't inconsistent as they appear to be, the material shouldn't be repeated in this way.
 * Mike, see if the revisions eliminate the issue raised. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's much improved. I have a suggestion, though: how about combining the two sections under some such title as "Southern University and Candler School of Theology" or "After 1909"?  That would avoid the need for a glide between the two sections.  The "Methodist ministry and Southern University" section is awfully short. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hate to merge these two sections if I can avoid it, because they represent two distinctly different eras of his career. At Southern University, he was an academic administrator; at Candler, he was a full-time professor with the time to develop his reputation as a noted biblical scholar.  I have some additional material to add to the Candler section, and I am sure that some of the additional resources cited by Ralph Reed and available at Candler will provide even more.  What I really need is more material about his time at Southern.  All of my best sources are currently Florida-based or Emory-based; I have virtually nothing about his four years as Southern's president.  It's a glaring hole in the story that I still hope to fill.  Southern being a Methodist school, maybe some of the Methodist histories, such as the Lazenby book you suggested below, will shed some light.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree a merge would be a little unnatural; still, short sections do look odd. I've struck the comment since I don't think it's wrong as is.  As you say, more material to include in the section would be the happiest outcome. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sledd led a distinguished career": I don't think one "leads" a career; one leads a life, but one has a career. And "distinguished" worries me; again the source is the Candler School.  Can it be cut or do you feel it's independently defensible?
 * ✅ Rephrased.
 * I believe the "distinguished" adjective is defensible, but I reserve the right to change it after I re-read the source on point. There may be something I can quote directly.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources may not cover this, but it would be interesting to know how influential his theological works were, and if they are still cited at all.
 * Apparently, they are not very influential today. They were cutting edge at the time, in what was the first generation of this form of biblical analysis and scholarship.  The Methodists in the early 20th Century were caught between the King James Version literalists and the new generation of analytical biblical and language scholars.  One can only surmise how this appealed to Sledd the Rationalist and Believer.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck, but if you can source "not very influential today" then that would be worth putting in. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "He was selected to be a member of the committee preparing a new American Standard Version of the Bible": I looked up the NYT obit and I see there's no more information on this, which is a pity, since it would be nice to know which edition this turned out to be. I tried "Sledd 'American Standard Version' Bible" in Google Books and got some possibles, including Bauman's Warren Akin Candler, the conservative as idealist, and Price, Irwin and Wikgren's "The Ancestry of our English Bible".  The Religion in Life volume 15 snippet that turned up looked like it might be specifically about that version.  I don't know if you have access to any of those sources but they might be worth looking at if you can.
 * I'm sure these must be available at the Candler School. I've become the Candler library's pet lawyer.  LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Incorporated material from Bauman's Warren Akin Candler; nothing new, but provided better source for several life history facts, including confirmation of Mrs. Sledd's full name and nickname. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From "his teaching inspired" to the end of the paragraph: can you be sure these are neutral assessments? Same concern as expressed a couple of times above.
 * You're right: this absolutely does have a "valedictory" ring to it. I think the conclusions drawn are perfectly defensible, however, based on several of the cited sources.  As I gain additional material to flesh out the Candler section, I plan to move these appraisals of his career to the "Legacy' section and directly quote the sources on point.  I think that would be more appropriate, don't you?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The direct quote gets around the problem at hand; I think that will work well. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Both "obtained a foreclosure deficiency" and "levied upon his personal property" seem rather legalistic phrases to me; the former is somewhat obscure in meaning, and the latter is an unnatural phrasing to someone unaccustomed to the law. Could these be made a little more colloquial?
 * ✅ See what you think of my attempts at clarification&mdash;does this sound somewhat more intelligible to the layman's ear? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is "elderly" suitable for someone who is 62 or 63? I think of "elderly" as starting at about 67 or 68.
 * ✅ Rephrased to address your concern.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk)


 * The picture of Sledd Hall has a long caption; I think you could cut the middle sentence and the last half of the last sentence, since that information is in the text.
 * ✅ Edited caption for length.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The list of portals and the list of "see also" links seem rather too long to me; WP:See also says you can eliminate anything linked elsewhere in the article, including in the navigation templates, and that probably cuts one or two. I think this is largely a matter of editorial preference, but you may find others also think the list longer than it needs to be.  I also think the list of external links is a bit too long -- my own rule here is that if an article links to the Wikipedia article on a topic, then it doesn't also need to link to the external website for that topic.  Here that rule would eliminate most or all of the links after the first one.  Again this is somewhat a matter of preference, but I thought I'd mention it.
 * ✅ Mike, I've critically reviewed the "see also" articles, portal links, and external internet links.  I struck one tangentially related "see also," but I think the remaining ones constitute a good "further reading" list of Wikipedia articles and lists that aren't linked in the text.  As I understand WP portal links, they are intended to draw the reader into related, but broader areas of reading, and I think this list accomplishes that purpose.  I followed your advice on the external links, and struck all of those that were duplicated by internal wiki links in the article text or among the "see also" linked articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm striking this comment because it's largely a matter of taste, and because the external links have been addressed; the portals and see also links seem lower priority to me. I'd cut more, but that's just me; we can see what other reviewers think. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall this is a very solid article. It's well-researched, well-structured, and I found it an interesting read. Most of my comments above are fairly minor and easy to address. The main concern I would have at FAC is whether you really have exhausted the available sources. I haven't seen for myself the sources I identified above as possibilities, so I can't be sure, but I would suggest that you get hold of them if you can, just to be safe. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've struck a few above that I see you've dealt with; if you respond under any other points as you work on them I'll take a look.


 * I had a bit more of a look for sources and found this:
 * Marion Elias Lazenby, History of Methodism in Alabama and West Florida: being an account of the amazing march of Methodism through Alabama and West Florida. Can't see much in snippet view, but there were 21 hits for Sledd so it might be useful, though Lazenby may just be drawing on Firth for his material.  However, an unpublished thesis might be a sourcing problem at FAC -- you'll have to convince folks that it's a reliable source.  You use Firth only five times, so replacing him with another source could be worth doing. Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to spend some time this weekend at the Candler and main Emory libraries, and see if I can find this book and several others. I am also going to check with the Candler librarian and see if one of their current professors functions as the informal in-house historian; that would not be unusual in a relatively small academic unit like Candler.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Finally got a copy of Lazenby's History of Methodism. It includes a one-page, post-mortem summary of Sledd's career, as well as numerous references to his election to the annual governing conferences of the church.  More importantly Lazenby provides references to two different published histories of Southern University, which should help us fill in some of the missing history from 1910 to 1914.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; it's always a pleasure to discover new sources, especially when you thought you'd found everything there was. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike, having exhausted my present sources, I think I've reached a logical break point. The only major hole remaining is the Southern University years, and I have requested copies of two histories of the university through inter-library loan at Emory. Pretty obscure subject material for a small college, but I'm still hoping for an additional two-sentence summary of Sledd's four-year tenure at Southern to round out the section. Now might be a logical time for you to give the article one more look-see in light of the last month's changes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK -- I should be able to take another look this weekend. I've been looking over the changes when I see it pop up on my watchlist and it looks good; it was an excellent article before but I think it's in great shape now. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Final review comments
I'm just going through the article again, with a fairly fresh pair of eyes as it's been a while since I've read it through. It's a fine piece of work. That's everything I can spot. Congratulations on a very thorough job. A couple of other comments: if you are interested in the style of separating notes from footnotes, I'd be happy to implement it for you -- an example can be seen at Hygeberht. Just let me know if you want me to take a pass at splitting them out in that way. I'm also curious about the naming of the article on Sledd Hall (Gainesville, Florida); shouldn't it just be at Sledd Hall? Typically a parenthesis is used for disambiguation, but this is the only Sledd Hall so I think it's not needed.
 * "... the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the newly established Candler School of Theology, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South's new seminary in Atlanta." This sentence cropped up before, and I think, looking back at the earlier discussion, that I understood it at that point.  It stopped me again this time through, though, so I think a rewrite is necessary.  The problem is that I'd forgotten about the comma in the middle of the church's name.  Without that I took the comma clauses to be explanatory, so I parsed this as "the newly established Candler School of Theology" (which is the same as) "the Methodist Episcopal Church" (which is the same as) "South's new seminary in Atlanta".  That's just a darn confusing name.  Could we hide the comma inside the link, like so: Methodist Episcopal Church?  Or if "Methodist Episcopal Church" actually means a different organization (as I suspect from our earlier discussions) then is there some circumlocution you can find to avoid the confusion?
 * "The small state university, in whose creation and early organization Sledd was instrumental" -- this seems a little clumsy to me. How about something like "The small state university, which Sledd had been instrumental in creating and administering in its early years"?
 * This might be US vs. UK usage, but I would have thought "earned doctorate degrees" should be "earned doctoral degrees".

I will watch the article, and I watch FAC anyway, so I will almost certainly notice when you nominate, but feel free to ping me. I will support, though I will also probably mention the long list of See Also links as something to consider trimming. I don't think anyone could possibly oppose over that, but you might see more opinions on the point. Good luck with it! Mike Christie (talk – library) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Sledd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220131856/http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/2004-2005/memorials/sledd/sledd.html to http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/2004-2005/memorials/sledd/sledd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)