Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Johnson/archive1


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013.

Andrew Johnson

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Andrew Johnson is today not considered anywhere near the top of the list for American presidents. Yet he had a public career of over forty years, and became the only former president to serve in the Senate, so I hope you'll agree that there's more to the man than met the eye when they impeached him. Enjoy. Thanks to Khazar2 and Rjensen for reviewing the article.Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN40: publisher?
 * FN107: doubled period
 * Fn115: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Better than I usually do! I'll fix these tonight.  Thanks.--20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Great to see the three of you at FAC, if you're all here ... Milhist is putting together a GLAM collaboration, and you're all welcome to jump in during the planning stages.
 * I wasn't wild about "natal characteristic", I went with: "Being born in a log cabin was a potent symbol of political virtue and simplicity in the 19th century, and Johnson did not hesitate to remind voters of his humble birth in future elections." (I'm going partly on my memory of a BookTV talk by Gordon-Reed ... if this doesn't correspond to pp. 17-18, feel free to fiddle with that.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see what the writer has to say on the speeches, but I'll certainly scrap the adjective. Do you have a link on the GLAM?  Happy to help if I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Start with WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "As a consequence, Johnson assumed an attitude of white supremacy, which he kept throughout his life.": I removed "As a consequence" and otherwise left this alone. I guess this is mainly a personal preference based on what seems to me to be a firm trend in expository prose, but IMO there's a broader point; feel free to disagree. Sociologists and historians can make scientific statements about attitudes associated with certain economic conditions. They're on slightly looser ground when they assert which way the causation goes ... but the case can be made. They're on quicksand when they attempt to assert that a particular 19th-century figure's attitudes were a direct result of such-and-such; for all we know, he had unfortunate experiences in his formative years, or he got his attitudes from his mother. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was a bit loose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Johnson supported the Polk administration's decision to fight the Mexican War, which was seen by some northerners as an attempt to gain territory to expand slavery westward.": "which" dangles: does it refer to the war itself, or his support? Probably best to reword ... if it's the former, I'd go with: "Johnson's support for the Mexican War was seen ...". - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "the office was a bully pulpit which allowed him": that allowed him, or allowing him
 * "the ticket of Buchanan and former Kentucky representative John C. Breckenridge, which was elected": Not wrong, but you usually see "who were elected" in a context like this.
 * "he made proposals which were popular among Democrats": probably "he made proposals popular with the Democrats"
 * "a Union which could not be dissolved": "that" would be correct, but I'd go with "an indissolvable Union" or some synonym. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "in areas which had been in revolt": that
 * "most states which voted": most states that had voted
 * "without making political deals, which occurred": ... which he did
 * "a proposal which had been defeated": that
 * "The veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is often seen as a key mistake of Johnson's presidency, which convinced Moderates ...": The veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, often seen as a key mistake of Johnson's presidency, convinced Moderates ...
 * "engaging in arguments with hecklers which were criticized as undignified": "engaging in undignified arguments with hecklers", unless you're saying the arguments were misrepresented as undignified
 * By the standards of 1866, for a president to engage in back and forth with hecklers was seen as undignified. I am trying to tell the reader how they were perceived, rather than describing what they were. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, I didn't get that. Okay, write what you just said :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The Republicans gained two senators and a state which promptly ratified the amendment.": Probably "The Republicans gained two senators, and a state that promptly ratified the amendment."
 * "after which the Senate confirmed Schofield": and the Senate confirmed Schofield (to prevent repetition of "after which")
 * "Another treaty which fared badly": Another treaty that fared badly
 * "a pardon which ended": a pardon that ended, or a pardon ending
 * "where cities which had been hostile to him during the war as senator and military governor": where cities hostile to him during the war [which implies senator and military governor, I think]
 * "setting a pattern which would be repeated": that
 * "Through the days which followed": that
 * "personal flaws which scarred his presidency", "deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency": both require "that" ... and they're a bit too similar.
 * "A series of highly-favorable biographies ... which": A series of highly favorable [no hyphen] biographies ... that - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All those are done. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, but we're not off to a good start ... I picked just one issue, misuse of "which", and pointed out all the problems, and it's still wrong: "t Buchanan", "which had been in revolt", "engaging in arguments with hecklers which were seen as undignified for a president" (among other problems, referent and verb don't agree: it wasn't the (plural) arguments that were undignified, or the hecklers, it was that he was engaging in them, so "were" is wrong), "days which followed", "deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency". Disclaimers on "which": I've noticed that people who write about earlier times use the word more liberally, because that's how it was used back then. It continues to be used in the sense you're using it informally (I use that way all the time), and it is also used in the best prose occasionally to signal emphasis. Having said all that: this oppose is not a "thumbs down" of any kind, simply an admission that there's more to do here than I have time to do, particularly if I have to go back and check to see if you've really made the fixes you said you did. If you can find another copyeditor who does have time, and I get the sense that they're doing a thorough job, I'll be more than happy to strike my oppose and turn the job over to them. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll ask you to look in after other reviewers have taken their shot.  Sorry if I was hasty, I'm doing this in hasty hours this week.  Would you mind if I took a second shot at the above, and perhaps you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed or rephrased anything likely to cause offense. It was not inattention, that particular distinction is not one of my strongest suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't fix it myself, but "Johnson" is repeated way too often. Use forms of address ("the Senator" for instance) and "he". - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "the senator". I'll see where it can be done without looking forced.  Note that we may not agree in full on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "came to refuse": refused? later refused? - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * [Johnson opposed] "the prohibition of alcohol, and the Know Nothing Party". It's better not to use one word in two different senses at once. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Put another way: what does it mean that he opposed that party? Whatever it means, it's not the same thing as opposing a proposed law. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll play with it. What it's saying is he didn't like their anti-immigrant policy, which was controversial, and especially since their members were initially told, rather famously, that if asked about the party, they were to say they knew nothing about it.  They didn't last long, the country had bigger fish to fry.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "on a tied procedural vote broken by Vice President Breckinridge against the bill": Since you reverted me, I guess I don't know what you're saying, I thought my version was clear ... maybe it was clear and wrong :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "breaking the tie in a procedural vote" read oddly to my ears. I didn't revert you actually. I think it's OK for people to toss back alternate versions at each other until they find one that sticks, when both are trying to accomplish the same end.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard the expression "breaking a vote". What's a broken vote? - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Meant to say "tied", sorry, but that still wouldn't help. I've taken another shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I accidentally lowercased two things inside quotes, I've restored them. Btw, "Southerner" vs. "southerner" is a nice example of how uppercasing makes sense in one context but not another. Current style guides prefer uppercasing for general readers, but people for whom "southerner" can only mean one thing can lowercase it without fear of being misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thank you for the time you've put in on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "The President gave permission for constitutional conventions": I don't know what "gave permission" means.
 * He issued proclamations, directing the people of a state to elect delegates to gather and decide on a(n acceptable) constitution and hold elections under it. It's alternative language as I have Johnson issuing proclamations multiple times, so I wanted different language.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "received considerable public support, which he took as unconditional backing for quick reinstatement of the South. While he received such support from the white South": The first sentence says his policies "received considerable public support"; the second sentence says the support came from a minority. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add "In the North". The white South was initially rather apprehensive, given Johnson's past statements about rebels.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Andrew_Johnson. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing. "This sum of $7.2 million is equivalent to $120 million in present day terms.": Please see User:Dank/Copy2. "present day" is a WP:DATED problem. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that it is produced by an inflation template it is possibly best to have it undated.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer, except for the problem I just mentioned, and I'll leave that for others. (Personally, I'd put the conversion in a footnote.) These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a most thorough review and for bearing with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tackling the really hard stuff. My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - "Johnson, born in poverty, became a master tailor." I don't like how this sentence reads, I don't understand how being born into poverty is linked to him being a "master tailor". --Andrew 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've recast it, and deleted the "master" which is difficult to quantify.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I carried out a detailed informal peer review, details on the article's talkpage. I am happy with the responses, and have just a few points outstanding:
 * In the "Congressman" section: "general-election" is not a hyphenated term
 * In the same part of that section (and continuing a point I raised in the review): "Rival for a fifth term" implies that both Haynes and Johnson were seeking fifth terms. Was this the case? Otherwise, they were merely rival candidates for election.
 * In the "Impeachment" section there are two separate mentions of Stanbery giving up his office to act as Johnson's counsel.

I have also done some general copyediting. The nom may have been a mite premature, but I believe that the prose is now of the required standard, the narrative is compelling and the research looks terrific. I have not done an image review but I can't see any likely problems here. This looks a fine addition to the "American presidents" series (only about 30 to go and they'll all be FAs) Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. I'll work through these.  "Rival for a fifth term" was a phrase I struggled with and would welcome suggestions from FAC page stalkers.  All the other ways of putting it I could come up with seemed somewhat awkward.  Thirty?  Well, we will have to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I got the last one, and Wehwalt and I got the first two. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Something like that. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * In November 1867, "the Democrats took control of the Ohio General Assembly, allowing them to defeat for re-election [...] Senator Benjamin Wade". According to his article, he was elected senator in 1863 and did not faced election this year.
 * Before 1866, states were rather random with how they elected senators; Johnson wasn't even elected until after his term began in 1857 (there was probably some shenanigans with split control of legislative houses to avoid a Senate election, too, that happened a lot in Tennessee). In 1866, Congress passed legislation that standardized when the election of senators took place.  Congress decreed that the election take place shortly after the legislature which would be in office when the Senate term expired first convened.  So Wade's term expired March 3, 1869, and the Ohio legislature which would be in session when his term expired was elected in November 1867 and would convene in January 1868, and the law forced them to begin the balloting for senator the second week of the legislative session, and to keep voting if they couldn't decide.  So basically, Wade became a lame duck a little under 14 months before the end of his term.  Ohio changed this, to even-year elections, in 1905.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article is literally correct, Wade was defeated in the 1868 elections. The January 1868 elections, in the Ohio General Assembly.  I suspect whoever wrote that really didn't understand that.  When I get a chance (after this FAC closes, for transparency) I'll do something about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Kansas Senator Edmund G. Ross received assurances that the new constitutions ratified in South Carolina and Arkansas would be transmitted to the Congress". Could you explain this sentence because I do not see the link with the impeachment. Les3corbiers (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "When the President was slow to officially report ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment by the new Southern legislatures". According to Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the President has no formal role in the process of amending the Constitution. Was Johnson some kind of unwilling PO box who refused to send ratifications to the Congress to prevent the adoption of the amendment ? Les3corbiers (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The executive branch still administers the process; the beribboned ratifications from the legislatures were sent to the Department of State, although Trefousse specifically states that Johnson, not Seward, did the notifications to Congress. Today, I recall from the ratification of the 27th Amt. that it is the Archivist of the United States who does the work.  So yeah, pretty much.  He was trying to be as difficult as he could without breaking the assurances he had given senators like Ross and Grimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand it much better now. By the way, I have translated the article into French. Les3corbiers (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. Very nice article. A have a few comments and questions: ...more comments to come. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the lede, the language about AJ being a "logical choice" is confusing to readers who don't understand the National Union party. Maybe a few brief words about why Lincoln chose a Democrat.
 * In "Boyhood", the sentence about his "lifelong love of learning" is confusing.
 * In "Tennessee politician", I'd change the last sentence to remove the semi-colon and end with "and about eight or nine slaves".
 * Good to see you, and thanks. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you substitute something for "chattel"? I only see that in legal and scholarly contexts these days. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments:
 * In "Vice President", the phrase "it is known that" adds nothing. I'd cut it.
 * In "Accession", I'm not sure Castel's opinion adds much. He doesn't contradict Trefousse and Gordon-Reed, so I'd just say that Johnson & Lincoln discussed whatever, unless there's some pressing reason to get into the historiography.
 * In "Judicial appointments", is "crony" the best word? Seems a bit POV-ish.
 * It's how we described Day in McKinley. Except Canton crony.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Guess I can't complain then! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Historical view" section is very well-written, but could probably be summarized more succinctly to the extent that it discusses Reconstruction generally and not Johnson's reputation specifically.
 * I don't know how you separate the two ... the two rise and fall together, or possibly one rises as the other sinks.
 * That's true. AJ's rep is as much tied to the perception of Reconstruction as anything.


 * I'd delete the "See also" section altogether.
 * That's it. Great article -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate it. Good seeing you again.  Except as noted above, I'll implement.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad I could help. I changed to support.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and support. By the way, looks like I started the "crony" in Hanna and it went on from there.
 * Request Could someone do an image check please? For delegate summary purposes, we have three supports and nothing presently going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-1923, own work). Sources and authors provided (or Library of Congress-image with sufficient background information). Some minor bugs/typos tweaked. GermanJoe (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you on that. Three supports, checks done. I'm available if anything else comes up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.