Talk:Solomon P. Sharp

POV
Apparently this article has been POV-tagged before, but someone saw fit to remove it because there was "no discussion on the talk page." However an article as blatantly biased and unencyclopedic as this one scarcely needs furtehr justification for the POV tag. It's full of peacock terms and utterly one-sided, lavishing praise on its subject in almost every sentence. This sentence early in the article is representative of the whole: "No more instructive or interesting life, no nobler or more elevating character, no brighter intellect and no more unselfish devotion to duty to family and to friends, can be found in the history of Kentucky's Lawyers and Lawmakers than is exemplified in the rehearsal of the life of Solomon P. Sharp." For goodness' sake! This article requires a complete rewrite. Richard75 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what are you waiting for then? A formal invitation? Dwain 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.Richard75 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! Dwain 22:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The POV concerns were the result of a copy-and-paste job from Levin's Lawyers and Lawmakers of Kentucky. Most of the bios in that work are decidedly POV. Since the work is out of copyright, I guess it doesn't qualify as a copyvio, but I'm doing the requested rewrite just the same. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth
Was he born in 1787 or 1780? This website has it as 1780. I have left it at 1787 for now as some sites give that date, but if anyone knows of a positively reliable source then please check. Richard75 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The website above is the only one I have seen that gives a birth year of 1780. If I find any more sources with that date, I'll add a footnote. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. Thanks for helping to make this article better. Dwain (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
 * The Anne Lee source is lacking a publisher. I'm not sure that this is the best source for the information, it might be better as an external link, given that the one thing it is sourcing is also backed up by another source.
 * I've added a publisher. It's not that the other source backs up the claim; it's that it backs up one part of the claim while the Lee source backs up the other. Namely, the Lee source mentions the $1000 reward offered by the Frankfort trustees; the Cooke source mentions the $2000 in private funds. I'm not sure the publisher helps make the argument that this is necessarily a reliable source, but one might argue that this is not information that is likely to be challenged. I've never liked that vague criterion anyway. If I need to do more work to address this issue, let me know. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That works. The idea is that you make it easier for others to find your sources. Also some publishers aren't reliable, so supposedly we'll notice an unreliable publisher or something. Like you, I just cite everything rather than try to figure out what might be challenged. It's just so much easier! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal life, first paragraph, third sentence. Was John Sharp Thomas or Solomon's grandfather? Context is unclear.
 * There is a bit of overlinking going on. I'm not sure stabbed, lottery, slaves, acres, square miles, square kilometers, poisoned, dagger, suicide, hanged need to be linked.
 * The units of measure are linked in the convert template used. I can't unlink them without removing the template. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * took out the links in the convert template (It's the lk=on variable that links the units) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Political career section, third paragraph, did he get promoted after the war? Because earlier you say he became a major during the war. Perhaps clarify when he became captain and colonel?
 * I wish I could. From the sources I was able to gather, I haven't been able to tell when these promotions occurred. It seems strange that he could get promoted after the war, but the source I used made it clear that the object of his military service was to gain a political advantage. It is possible that strings were pulled to elevate his rank to make him more politically viable. But that's speculation on my part. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is where I get to draw on my medieval history experience. When the sources are unclear, you can always explain what's up in the text. Bald exposition of the facts isn't opinion, so you could say "In total, the expedition lasted only forty-two days; nevertheless, Sharp recognized the value of a record of military service in Kentucky politics. He eventually was promoted to the rank of captain and later, colonel, although the sources do not explain when or why this happened." with of course the proper footnotes. (I get to say this sort of thing a lot on medieval bishops. It's so much fun!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was he elected to the 13th congress first and then re-elected to the 14th?
 * I think so. The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress says: "elected as a Republican to the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Congresses." Is there something in the article that seems to indicate otherwise? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You say he was elected in 1813, but don't mention that it's the 13th Congress. Later you refer to the 14th Congress, but there is no mention of him running for the 14th. It was just a hole in the coverage that I noticed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think some background on the Old Court-New Court controversy within the article would help with context and understanding the article better. Also for folks who don't remember their school lessons about the Bank controversies, some context on that might be helpful also (Also for those readers outside the US who never suffered through US History at that depth of coverage).
 * The second illustration, I'd like to see the caption mention where the illustration came from to give the reader some context on how close to the events it is. Done.
 * A very nice article. As I mentioned above, some more context on the background would be good, but isn't necessary for GA status. If you're going to take the article on to FAC, it will be needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(Oops, forgot this yesterday) I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Making progress. When the sources don't allow you to go into detail, it won't hold back an article from GA. THe idea of the comprehensive requirement is that it be comprehensive in terms of the sources available, not that we write about things that just don't exist in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How are things coming? I know you're busy with RMJ, but just wanted to check in here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just adopted your suggestion regarding the mysterious military rank of SPS. I think that's the last unresolved issue above. If there are more things, let me know. Hoped to get this done this morning before work, but in addition to SPS and RMJ, I was trying to finish my expansion of Thomas Metcalfe in time to qualify it for DYK. I should know better than to put that many balls in the air at once. Thanks for your patience. If this wraps up SPS, I'm going to try and focus on polishing up RMJ with the Meyer source and make another FA run with that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Passing it now, looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Discussion at On Wikipedia
This article is under discussion at the On Wikipedia blog, where they have pointed out a substantial number of errors and omissions in the article if anyone is interested. HH Nobody (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the author of the blog post were as diligent about seeing why these facts might be in error as he is trying to show that they are in error, he or she might notice that the source that many of his contentions are sourced to (Schoenbachler's Murder & madness: the myth of the Kentucky tragedy) was published nearly a year after this article became FA. Not to mention, if he or she were so concerned about the correctness of the article, he or she could have been bold and corrected it, with sources cited, probably in less time than it took to write the blog post itself. Since I'm assuming that's not going to happen, I'll add the Schoenbachler book as "Further Reading" and try to get around to getting it on interlibrary loan and updating the article when I have time. (No promises, though; that source is almost 400 pages!) It's obvious to me that the blog post author has a problem with Wikipedia, not so much the accuracy of the Sharp article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dixon, I hope you will be happy to find out that there is (probably) not a need for interlibrary loan. An extensive preview of the Schoebachler book is available at Google books link, which seems to cover most of the pages the blog author discusses. Personally, though, I think it's a little wrong of you to speculate about the blog author's intentions it obvioulsy took him/her quite a bit of time to dig through the article and sources to do that work.  Regardless of his/her motivation, Wikipedia benefits. 92.4.26.10 (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)