Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andrew Sledd/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2015.

Andrew Sledd

 * Nominator(s): Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Andrew Sledd, an American Methodist minister, theologian, Latin and Greek scholar, and academic administrator who was the founding president of the modern University of Florida. Sledd achieved a large measure of notoriety when, as a young Latin professor at Emory College in 1902, he wrote an article for The Atlantic in which he condemned the all-too-common practice of lynching African-Americans who were accused of crimes or other acts that transgressed the strictly enforced racial segregation of the era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I reviewed this at GAN, several years ago, and am delighted that Dirtlawyer1 has decided to nominate this here. I think it's a fine article and I expect to support. A couple of minor quibbles first: -- That's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "declined all such offers": I think "such" is not quite right, since as far as we know there were no others. How about just "declined these offers"?
 * There are more links in the "See also" section than I think are necessary. This is a matter of editorial judgement, so I wouldn't oppose over this, but couldn't some of these be replaced by categories?
 * In the GA review you mentioned a fist-fight Sledd had with another professor, and after some discussion I think you were planning to mention it in a footnote. As far as I can see you haven't done this; any particular reason? I think it's your call, as you're the one looking at the sources, but it's a nice tidbit to add if you can source it properly.

In regard to the three issues you raised above -- Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I made the change you suggested, removing "such";
 * 2) I pared the tangential "see also" articles for which there are corresponding categories; and
 * 3) At the time we discussed it, I thought about the inclusion of the purported "fist-fight," but it was based on a second-hand account in an unpublished manuscript by James M. Farr.  In my editorial judgment, that was a little too shaky to include.

Support. The minor issues I raised have been settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Finetooth
I peer-reviewed this article in 2009, and it has improved steadily since then. The prose is of professional quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of suggestions:


 * The bolding of the quotation and Sledd's name in the pull quote is overkill. I'd delete the bolding.
 * The Buckman Hall image is displacing the University of the State of Florida head. The image would look fine if moved down one paragraph and inserted between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of that section, after the sentence ending with "as the location for the new men's state university."
 * Five portal links in the "See also" section are too many. I would delete the geographic ones, Florida and Georgia, at least, on grounds that they are too general to be useful to the reader in the context of this article. I have doubts about the Christianity and Education portal links as well. Wouldn't readers find related materials easily without these links?
 * For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in Harriet Tubman. You can generally find these via WorldCat, taking care to choose the edition you are citing. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of Andrew Sledd: His Life and Work as 1127786 here.
 * The lead image is good but has a few visible imperfections (dust motes, perhaps) that should be relatively easy to touch up. If you can do that, great; if not, I'd be willing to try, if you like.


 * -- Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In regard to your five suggestions above --


 * 1) I am strongly in favor of the pull quote -- how would you suggest that I present it?  Given the quote's relative brevity, I am afraid it will be lost in the surrounding text.  There is an even stronger quote buried in the text, in which Sledd describes lynching as a "diabolical carnival of blood," if we need something longer.  The mild-mannered minister did have a gift for words when his anger and indignation were aroused.
 * My suggestion would be to keep the quote and template as they are but remove the bolding. The fancy quotation marks already draw special attention to the quote. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I have removed the bolding from the pull quote text. What do you think?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I have moved the Buckman Hall photo to avoid the subheader displacement per your suggestion.
 * 2) I have removed the Christianity, Education, Florida and Georgia portal links.
 * 3) I have added the OCLCs for all of the bibliography publications for which an OCLC entry exists.
 * 4) The infobox head-and-shoulders shot of Sledd is one of my favorites, and was made from a large-format glass negative, with all of the fine resolution and other imperfections of the medium.  I do not possess the Photoshop skills to touch up the photo as you suggest, but I certainly would not object if you want to take a crack at it.  My only caveat is that I would not want to see any loss of the fine, granular resolution of the original.  It's a beautifully representative photo from that era.
 * I agree. I will tinker with as few pixels as possible, and you'll be free to choose between the two options. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the retouched version moments ago. I changed one pixel at a time using the eyedrop tool and pencil tool in Paint.net; the largest changes involved a total of about a dozen pixels. You can easily revert to the original if you prefer. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your retouched version appears to minimize the scratches and dust specks, and looks to be an improvement.  If MrToes, the original uploader and a University of Florida library employee, turns up in the near future, I will request that the university archive folks re-perform the digitalization of the photo in the hopes of improving the resolution in some of its marginal areas.  That's on the wish list, but I have no control over that.  Perhaps if this article is promoted we can get the university's attention.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Mrtoes could provide a higher-resolution image as well. His account is still active. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose, coverage, Manual of Style issues. I defer to User:Nikkimaria on the license questions. All of my other concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * Why italicize the lead caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply to visually distinguish the photo caption from the surrounding infobox text. IMO, it has always been a defect of our present Infobox person design that it does not already do so in a visually recognizable manner.  That said, if it is a condition of FAC approval (or your support), I will certainly remove the italics from the caption.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, just something we don't see very often so I thought I would ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * File:UF00031408.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The truth is I don't know with anything like 100% certainty, but I can make a reasonably educated guess based on my knowledge of Sledd and the University of Florida. Please keep in mind that I am not the uploader of the photo, and I simply accepted a photo from Wikimedia Commons with a valid rationale, which I uncritically accepted at the time because it was on Commons.  That said, I am pretty sure the c. 1910 date on the photo is incorrect.  Here's the source for the original upload, the University of Florida Digital Collection from the university's Smathers Library: .  Please see photo No. 5, which is our subject photo, which the university archivist ambiguously dates to the "1910s".  Please note that subject photo No. 5 appears to have been taken at the same time as photos Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (same necktie, same suit, same eyeglasses, same hair color).  Now, compare Sledd's appearance in photo No. 2, which includes his wife and young children, and we can date with some accuracy to c. 1906 because it only includes three of his eventual seven children.  Compare Sledd's physical appearance in No. 2 (dark hair, appears to be about 35 years old) with his appearance that in Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 (silver hair, and appears to be 50 to 60 years old).  Sledd was effectively fired by the state Board of Education in 1909 (see article for details), and to the best of my knowledge only attended one function at the university thereafter, in 1933, when then-president John J. Tigert invited Sledd to give the commencement address.  One of the apparently contemporaneous photos, No. 1, shows Sledd in his Ph.D. regalia, apparently dressed for graduation.  Given his self-evident age in photo No. 1, it was clearly not taken during his 1905–09 tenure as president, when he was 35 to 39 years old.  Assuming the validity of this bit of amateur detective work and photo analysis, it is extremely likely that the four contemporary photos, including No. 5, were taken during graduation weekend 1933.  This conclusion is, of course, based on a series of educated guesses by me.  That said, the 1933 date should not be a problem for the subject photo being in the public domain because the University of Florida owns the prints and negative, it's a state institution, and there is a specific public domain rationale for the documents and images of Florida state institutions under Florida law.  The Commons PD rationale should probably be changed to reflect that, thus making the date of publication moot for PD purposes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you would update the image description page to reflect your explanation I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which description page -- the Wikimedia Commons description and PD rationale? If so, I am happy to accommodate.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NM, I have changed the PD rationale for Wikimedia Commons as discussed above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now good to go on images. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Leaning to support. An interesting article about a man who deserves to be remembered. I have a number of relatively straightforward prose issues:
 * Early life section: "He received his early education..." – as the last person mentioned is Sledd senior, "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
 * Same section: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
 * Emory College section: I am sure that the lynching was indeed horrifying, but you refer specifically to the "horrifying aftermath". Was there some additional horror? Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
 * The highlighted quotation is the same wording as provided in the text. Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
 * University of Florida at Lake City section: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
 * University of the State of Florida section: The following sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control  charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville  as the location for the new men's state university."
 * Same section: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
 * "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
 * "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
 * I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
 * Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
 * Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
 * Candler section: "volunteered for the additional duty of serving as the board's treasurer" – a trifle verbose. "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
 * In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
 * Death and legacy section: Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
 * Suggest delete the terminal "however" (Third para, first sentence)

I see few problems in dealing with these, and look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In reply to your comments above --


 * 1) BB suggestion: "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
 * Hmm. I think this deserves a moment of discussion.  I understand the need to avoid emotive terms per NPOV, however, in this case the scene was truly that and goes a long way to explaining the rage this young Methodist minister felt.  They emasculated the victim and burnt him alive.  Sledd witnessed the aftermath when men and boys were collecting carbonized digits and kneecaps as souvenirs.  The use of the word in this case is neither metaphoric nor exaggerated.  Perhaps in lieu of the emotive word, a sentence of factual description would be better?
 * FYI, I live in metro Atlanta, about 20 miles from where this horror story unfolded, and it's a dark part of local history.
 * That might be better, but I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having re-read the entire section, and the footnote with the extended quoted passage describing the scene of the lynching witnessed by Sledd, I have decided to let the man's words speak for themselves. I have deleted the word "horrifying".
 * 1) BB suggestion: Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
 * I'm still contemplating what to do with the quote box in light of your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I add additional quoted text for context?  Can you elaborate a bit?
 * A quote box should enhance and supplement the text, not simply repeat what's in it. A slightly longer quotation, incorporating the "There is nothing in a white skin" comment, would be appropriate. If you think that nothing useful can be added to the brief quote, then it would perhaps be better to scrap the box. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the quote and added some additional context material in the quote box attribution.
 * 1) BB comment: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
 * Good suggestion. Done.
 * 1) BB comment: Sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new  Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville  as the location for the new men's state university."
 * Your rewrite flows better. Done.
 * 1) BB comment: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
 * Past perfect tense sounds marginally better. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
 * Agreed: "likely" is redundant. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
 * Tighter, better. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB comment: Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
 * Brian, how strongly do you feel about this? I think it provides a needed segue; Sledd resigned from the Southern presidency, and was not effectively fired as he had been from his previous Emory and Florida positions.
 * What I would recommend is: scrap the final sentence in the "Methodist ministry" section and recast the beginning of the next section as follows: "In the fall of 1914, Sledd resigned the presidency of Southern University and returned to Emory College, by then renamed Emory University and relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta. He became the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the Candler School of Theology, the newly established seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." That would maintain continuity and avoid the present repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestion: "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
 * Agreed. Done.
 * 1) BB suggestions: In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
 * Agreed: neither is necessary. Done.
 * 1) BB comment: Death and legacy section -- Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
 * Brian, I think we may have the problem of confusing "Candler" antecedents here . . . Bishop Warren Candler, wife Florence Candler, Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler, Candler School of Theology. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think a little repetition may be helpful to the reader in this case.
 * I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With your acquiescence, I'm going to leave this minor point as is.
 * 1) BB suggestion: delete the terminal "however" (last section, third para, first sentence)
 * Agreed. Done.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. The text is tighter and cleaner as a result. Please see my comments and questions under items 3, 4, 12 and 15 above, which require your responses. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Subject to my outstanding notes I'm happy with your responses. Please re-ping when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have addressed each of the outstanding four points above, making the suggested changes in the first three instances, and leaving the minor repetition in the case of the fourth. Please let me know if you have any further comments, suggestions or questions.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Support: All my queries/suggestions have been dealt with adequately, and I'm happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

FAC process, general comments, etc.
Gentlemen, I'm new to the FAC process. Is there anything else for me to do here as the FAC nominator? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Just at a quick glance it looks like we may still need a source review for reliability and formatting, and, assuming this is your first nomination, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. We can request those at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above can undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do whatever is required to advance the ball, sir. All online footnote sources were checked and all links were found to be in working condition during the first week of November 2015.  Several of the academic publications are offline, but available through JSTOR.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to pop round to the British Library to do a spot check if wanted.  Tim riley  talk    19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful for your help. As noted above, most of the academic references are available through JSTOR if they are not linked in the footnotes.  Some non-controversial "early life and education" details are provided by three unpublished manuscripts, which were graciously lent to me by the University of Florida and Emory University libraries.  The footnote style for newspapers and journals is old-fashioned, straightforward and simple -- and I hope very consistent.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot-checks
Some preliminary carping before setting out the results of the spot-checks. I'm afraid I found the referencing quite confusing:
 * I can't work out the logic for having the bibliographic information for some books (e.g. Bauman and Lazenby) in the References section rather than in the bibliography. (Bauman lacks its ISBN, too, which is 978-0-8108-1368-7; Lazenby lacks its OCLC, which is 1632564.)
 * Unfortunately, there was no "logic": the omission of Bauman and Lazenby from the Bibliography section was accidental. I have now added both to the Bibliography, and I have added the Bauman ISBN and Lazenby OCLC, respectively.  It's been four or five years since I wrote it, but I may also have omitted Bauman from the bibliography because it was relied upon for only one infobox fact: the correct full name of Sledd's wife, who is invariably referred to by one of two nicknames (Annie or Foncie) in other references.  The subject of Lazenby's book is Sledd's father-in-law, and if memory serves only mentions Sledd incidentally.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is mildly disconcerting to have authors listed by First Name Last Name in the References and by Last Name First Name in the Bibliography.
 * That's not an accident: the Bibliography is alphabetized by author, as is typical for all bibliographical lists. There is no reason to present the reference authors' last names first in the reference section.  The references are presented in the form of "spot references," including the pages where the cited facts may be found in the text of the particular reference.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are publications listed in the Bibliography that haven't, as far as I can see, been referred to in the text. If I am right about this (apologies if I'm not) I think publications cited in the article should be listed as "Sources", and the rest hived off to a "Further Reading" list below it.
 * I assume you are referring to the three works by Andrew Sledd which are not cited as references in the article text . . . None of these are relied upon for sourcing facts in the Wikipedia article, and I have moved them to a separate "further reading" section per your suggestion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that sources available online such as Lazenby's book and the Warnock article deserve to have url links (with the tag where appropriate).
 * Tim, I was unaware that Lazenby's book and Warnock's article in The Journal of Southern History were available online. Can you provide links, or provide the names of the services where they can be found?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are url links to paywalled sites (e.g. ref 15) that lack a "subscription needed" tag.
 * I have added the "subscription required" tag to The Atlanta Constitution newspaper articles which are linked to paywalled newspaper websites. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There can, I admit, be two opinions about squashing explanatory notes such as refs 17 and 45 in with the citations, and I don't press this point.
 * I would prefer to keep the two explanatory footnotes as part of the inline References. There are only four or five of them, and breaking them out for so small a number strikes me as unnecessary.  Several of them also rely on the same source cited for the preceding main body text.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Spot checks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing:
 * Drafting is all fine: no hint of close paraphrasing. (On at least two occasions I noticed a much more elegant phrasing in this article than in the original source.)
 * Ref 1 – fine
 * Ref 9 – fine
 * Ref 12a – this source doesn't say what the text says, but as ref 9 covers the information satisfactorily, 12a can safely be ditched.
 * I deleted 12a (ref name=hwarnock251) per your suggestion; please note that footnotes have subsequently renumbered, and footnote no. 12 is now Ralph Reed, and the Henry Warnock article is footnote no. 14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 14 – fine
 * Ref 18a – fine
 * Ref 18b – fine
 * Ref 35a – fine
 * Ref 35b – fine
 * Ref 35c – fine
 * Ref 35d – fine
 * Ref 35e – fine
 * Ref 35f – fine
 * Ref 36a – fine
 * Ref 36b – the source doesn't mention most of the information in the 82-word sentence ascribed to it.
 * Well, f---, that's embarrassing. I know the information regarding historically black Florida A&M University and the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind to be historically/factually correct, but I have clearly omitted the reference for about half of the facts mentioned in that sentence.  I have removed the FAMU and FSDB information from the problematic sentence for now, and will re-add it when I can locate the appropriate reference in my 5-year-old notes.  This may have originally linked to an earlier 2010 version of the cited University of Florida webpage.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 36c – fine
 * Ref 36d – fine
 * Ref 36e – fine
 * Ref 36f – fine
 * Ref 36g – the source says that most of the new faculty members were from Lake City but doesn't say (as the article ascribes to it) that Sledd "had previously selected [them] to be professors" at Lake City. But this information is given in Pleasants, p. 9, which should, I think, be added to the citation here.
 * To the best of my recollection, there are multiple sources for Sledd's selection of the new faculty, but the Pleasants citation will correct the problem now. Per your suggestion, I have added the Pleasants p. 9 citation, and I have also partially rewritten the text.  Please note the UF Past Presidents bio does support this in part, however, saying in pertinent part: "Sledd oversaw the transfer to Gainesville in 1906 and selected the initial faculty, most of whom were instructors at the Lake City campus."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 39a – fine
 * Ref 39b – fine
 * Ref 40 – I couldn't find any reference to annual appointments on the page cited, though I think I remember seeing it in other sources in passing.
 * Tim, there were multiple sources for this, and I will hunt it [them] down. I may have to pull some of my old reference materials out of storage.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Proctor & Langley (p. 27) provide the missing reference for the practice of annual appointments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 41 – fine
 * Ref 42 is an explanatory footnote which has no citation for the information contained in it.
 * Ditto. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The explanatory footnote (renumbered as no. 43) is now supported by a reference to Proctor & Langley (p. 25) which specifically supports Sledd's authority to nominate all faculty appointments and the Board of Education's authority to approve the nominations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ref 43a – fine
 * Ref 43b – fine
 * Ref 43c – I couldn't find any mention of the salary on the page cited.
 * The UF Past Presidents bio states a $2500 annual salary. To the best of my recollection, I found one or more reliable sources that stated the lower salary of $2250.  I will track the $2250 amount down or change it to $2500; I suspect that my source was the unpublished Sledd autobiography, which, given the author, I would treated as more reliable than the UF online website bio.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Proctor & Langley (p. 25) is the source for first year's annual salary of $2250, and elaborates on the reason for the discrepancy between the $2250 and $2500 figures. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me. I enjoyed the article, and I have no doubt whatever that every statement in it can be justified from a reliable source, but at present there are rather more failures to name the right source than I feel comfortable with for a featured article. –  Tim riley  talk    12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the first nine points you raised above, with the last three issues remaining to be resolved. I could rewrite and/or delete text in order to eliminate these three problems, but I would prefer to resolve the sourcing and preserve the text in these instances.  I will ping you back in a day or so, after I've done the required homework.  In the mean time, I would be grateful if you respond to my request for the online links to the Lazenby book and Warnock article mentioned above.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Urls h/w:
 * Ref 9: https://archive.org/details/historyofmethodi01laze -- (Lazenby)
 * Ref 12: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40581859 -- (Reed Jr)
 * Ref 14: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2204439 -- (Warnock)
 * Ref 45: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20700231 -- (Van Ness)
 * The last three need the template, being JSTOR articles.–   Tim riley  talk    17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assist, Tim. I have added those four article links provided above and the subscription templates.  Now I need to go chase the last three missing/incomplete references, but given Thanksgiving holiday time constraints here, it may be two or three days before I can resolve all three of them.  In the mean time, can you review and sign off on the other comments?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the three outstanding points mentioned immediately above, I am now happy with the results of the spot-check. Tim riley  talk    12:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Tim, I finally had a long weekend to pull the boxes of all of my University of Florida reference materials out of storage over the weekend. I have added additional footnotes and references for the explanatory footnotes, as noted by you above.  I think that should resolve the last outstanding comments.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Been a while since Tim completed his spotcheck -- are those oustanding points mentioned taken care of? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Still hunting down the last of three references that Tim wanted to see. If I can't find the missing ref in the next 24 to 48 hours, I will re-write the text to avoid the necessity of the last reference.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All now satisfactory from the spot-check point of view. I don't seem to have commented on the candidacy as a whole, and I am happy to remedy that omission, adding my support here.  Tim riley  talk    12:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough review and support, Tim., all issues raised have been addressed, no concerns remain outstanding, and editors (1) Mike Christie, (2) Finetooth, (3) Brian Boulton, (4) Nikkimari and (5) Tim Riley have expressed their support for promotion.  What, if anything, remains to be done?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . This was a surprisingly pleasant process, made more so by the insightful comments and suggestions of, , ,  and .  Many thanks for the care and thoroughness of the five reviewers.  It is a better article because of their efforts.  Merry Christmas, and best holiday wishes to all.  Cheers!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.