Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bank War/archive3

Bank War

 * Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:
 * The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.
 * I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?
 * I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
 * "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.
 * Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "was exacerbated" - was worsened
 * I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "rapid emission" - printing?
 * I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies
 * Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?
 * I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?
 * Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Overall," - unnecessary?
 * Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?
 * Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?
 * Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.
 * State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "laid taxes" - did what?
 * Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?
 * Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?
 * Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?
 * Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "rendering Biddle" - giving?
 * I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "practically immediately" - almost immediately?
 * Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?
 * Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras
 * If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?
 * Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?
 * I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy
 * Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized
 * No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.
 * I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?
 * Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.
 * I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?
 * Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.
 * I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago
 * I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.
 * More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."
 * Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs
 * I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.
 * I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review (content)
I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?
 * Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).
 * Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
 * Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.
 * Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.
 * I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt— when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)
 * Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).
 * You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.
 * To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , do you have any more comments to make for this review, or is this all? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) No, regardless of outcome, I'm done with the source review "spotchecks" and based on what I looked at, it's a "pass".  Outriggr (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes
Unfortunately we're once again sitting well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion. Normally we'd archive at this time but I'm holding tight for a few days since this is attempt three. I've added it to the Urgents list. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think that the article is FA quality, and the majority of reviews that I've received during my three attempts have been supportive, but I am a little bit disappointed by the lack of interest. Thank you for your patience and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * A cartoon with illegible writing is not suitable for the lead image.
 * I'll try to find a better one, but I'm not sure I can. The cartoon shows Jackson fighting Biddle, the essence of the Bank War, and I'm not sure that I can find an image that encapsulates the Bank War so well. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The next best thing that I could find also had text which was mostly illegible. I'm afraid we'll have to continue with this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The columns of lead figures in the infobox should be headed for and against the bank.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The statements of the arguments for and against the bank is the second paragraph is biased. Arguments for are stated as facts, criticisms as "According to them".
 * The fact that the Bank was a stabilizing force in the economy that regulated inflation is not contested by historians, even ones sympathetic to Jackson. See Remini 1981 p. 229, or note 67. However, I removed the word "helpful" prior to "fiscal services." Finally, Jacksonians criticized the Bank for corruption, and it is indeed well-documented that it was corrupt. I added this to the lead. The other allegations against the Bank are still controversial with no consensus from historians, and therefore cannot be treated by us as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "the Bank's public–private organization". A sentence describing the bsnk's organization in the first paragraph would be helpful.
 * I added an explanation to the beginning of the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "financial assistance to Clay". You should spell out that Clay was the National Republican presidential candidate.
 * Added that he was running for president earlier in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "constructionists" What does this mean? It needs a link.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "would benefit a small few" "small" is redundant.
 * Replaced "small" with "group." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "big mercantilists". What does this mean? It needs a link.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The practical arguments in favor of reviving a national system of finance". This sounds POV. I would delete "The practical"
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Monroe hoped" This is the first mention of his name. Below you have "Secretary of State James Monroe". they should be swapped.
 * Replaced Monroe with "It was hoped." At this point, Monroe wasn't president yet. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Monroe informed Madison". You should say President Madison for clarity.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The federal government purchased a fifth of the Bank's stock". So B.U.S. was 80% owned by private shareholders. You should spell this out.
 * It isn't spelled out in the source, so I'm afraid I can't do that. It should be clear from the information given. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "B.U.S. notes were receivable for federal bonds." What does this mean?
 * A person could take a note in exchange for a federal bond. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Panic was caused by the rapid resurgence of the European economy" This seems a non-sequitur as countries are usually benefited by improvements in the world economy.
 * This created more economic competition. America wasn't the only market anymore. I'll try to see what I can add here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added that improved European agriculture caused the prices of American goods to decrease. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "He eventually began to call in loans, but nonetheless was removed by the Bank's directors". Why "nonetheless"? It sounds like a reasonable action.
 * It may have been, but it was too late. The panic had already happened and Jones was blamed for it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Kentucky Bank came in debt to the National Bank" "became in debt"?
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "was a man of the pen-quick, graceful, fluent". I do not understand dashes but this seems like the wrong one. It seems to say that he was a man of the pen-quick.
 * Added longer dash. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "which would choose among the top three vote-getters". This is wrong. It was the top three in the electoral college.
 * I meant in terms of electoral votes. But to make it clear, I changed it to "top three vote-getters in the Electoral College." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Jacksonian coalition dealt with a fundamental incompatibility between its hard money and paper money factions". This does not sound quite right. Maybe "had to deal with".
 * Replaced with "Had to contend with." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "he still maintained doubts as to the Bank's constitutionality" I may have missed it, but I am not clear why the Bank's constitutionality was questioned.
 * I couldn't find where Jackson had expressed his views on the Bank's constitutionality prior to this. Therefore, I replaced "still maintained" with "had." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . Over 3000 words on the background seems far too long to me. Is there any guidance on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I managed to cut down on the size of the lead a little bit, even while adding some material that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your review. I have implemented several of your suggested changes already, but am a bit busy and will need a little bit more time to get to all that you have suggested so far. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed all of your concerns so far. Thank you for your review and your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . Anything else? Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will try to come back ot it in the next day or two, but the background (sections 1 and 2, not the lead) still seems to me too long. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Second Bank's reputation in the public eye recovered a bit" This is too colloquial. I suggest "partially recovered".
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "To John McLean, who had urged caution in light of allegations of the Bank interfering on behalf of Adams in Kentucky, he wrote" This should be dated. The timescale of this paragraph is unclear, as it seems to imply a gradual build up of distrust towards the bank over Jackson's first term, but in the next paragraph it appears to be almost immediate.
 * I dated McLean's letter. Meacham doesn't give a date for Biddle's response, and I don't own a harcopy and so I can't look in the index. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Attendees of one meeting in Richmond" What meeting? This is far too vague.
 * Sentence removed. I looked at the source again but the source is fairly vague. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue" This is POV and should be attributed as "According to..."
 * Changed to "Many historians agree" and cited to five different historians all arguing that the claim was untrue. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Jackson’s official cabinet members were opposed to an overt attack on the Bank." What does "official" mean here? Were there unofficical cabinet members who took a different view? I see that you explain this below but I do not think you need the word "official" at this point.
 * I removed it and also moved the discussion of the Kitchen Cabinet up. The reader should understand why no clear policy emerged from the Jackson administration in 1830 and 1831 as it is reading about what happened during those years, not after. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * " According to Benton, it was "enough to excite uneasiness but not enough to pass the resolution"." What does "it" refer to here?
 * Changed it to "the vote tally." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Their presence created the appearance of balance, open-mindedness, and compromise, in spite of the fact that the rest of the official cabinet members were anti-Bank." This is an example of what I see as the main problem with the article, bias in favour of the BUS. The sentence is POV as it implies that the appointments were designed to give a false impression of balance, and is thus unattributed editorialising.
 * Yes, absolutely. Left over from an old editor to the article and unfortunately not removed. The sentence is now gone. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter" "strong" is an odd word here. Maybe "substantial".
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "After the liquidation of the debt, future revenues could be applied to funding the military." What does this mean - that all tax receipts would be spent on the military?
 * No, rather military funding would be increased. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "were wary of making ultimatums" I think "were wary of issuing ultimatums" would be better.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "James K. Polk" Maybe "future president James K. Polk"
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "These delaying tactics could not be blocked immediately" I had to read this several times to work out that you mean (I assume) that bank supporters were forced to accept an enquiry.
 * Replaced immediately with indefinitely, which appears to have been the intended word. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators." Why is this relevant at this point when you are saying that legislators went along with anti-bank forces?
 * The point is that the public would have grown suspicious about why congressmen were reluctant to investigate the Bank. It turns out, they had good reasons for not wanting to but eventually went along with it for fear of public pressure. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * " the report was filled with innuendo and largely unproven allegations" This is more POV which should be attributed to the writer who makes that judgment.
 * Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "supported his decision" Presumably supported his decision to veto, but you should say so.
 * Added "to veto." Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "One of the most "popular and effective documents in American political history"" Yet again, should be attributed.
 * I actually think that this is okay. It's in quotes and followed immediately by a citation, which makes it clear enough in my opinion that it comes from a particular person. If it's in quotes, it isn't a judgment made by me or any other editor to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Ignoring the Second Bank of the United States’ value in stabilizing the country’s finances" More POV
 * Replaced with "Jackson gave no credit to the Bank for stabilizing the country's finances..." This sounds more neutral to me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "a brilliant political manifesto" Needs attribution.
 * I'm going to say the same thing here as I did two points above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'm going to go through and address your comments, but first I want to point out a few things. Firstly, I do not think it is true that the article is based off of writers who are largely hostile to Jackson's views. In fact, it's the opposite. Remini is moderately pro-Jackson, and Schlesinger and Baptist heavily so. These authors are cited widely throughout the text. Authors Hofstadter and Howe, who are also widely cited, aren't pro-Jackson, but they do criticize Biddle for his obstinancy and using the Bank for corrupt purposes. Hammond is the only author cited here whom I know to be decidely pro-Biddle and anti-Jackson. Anyhow, I am happy to address your comments, including the ones alleging POV, and I intend to do so over the next few days. I think that it would have been more helpful if you had waited to see how I would respond to your concerns and only opposed if I had not agreed to make changes. I think that I might be able to persuade you to change your vote, but I ask for time to respond to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to finish my review and oppose at this point. This is an interesting article, but it is not written from a neutral viewpoint. It seems to me to be based largely on writers who are hostile to Jackson's views on economics, and whose comments are too often quoted without attribution as facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to look again once you have made the changes, but I would ask you to go through the article and look at all the places - not only the ones I have specifically commented on - where you have made a judgment without attributing it to a named author. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. There was one editor who worked on the article before I arrived and whose views seemed to be somewhat hostile towards Jackson. Some of the sentences that you singled out were written by him, and I simply didn't change them. At one point, someone claiming to be a professional historian, actually levelled charges that the article was biased in favor of Jackson. He made a lot of edits to the article, some good, some not so good, and this also accounts for some of the problems. It leaves me in a difficult spot because, while this may surprise you, I actually favor Jackson's views on economics. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It should not be a problem. Many of the comments on economics can be deleted and the rest attributed to named authors. It seems that you are left to clean up POV comments made by previous editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Further comments
 * If you want a cartoon as a lead image, there are better pictures online. There should not be a copyright problem in view of their ages.
 * I don't see any better images. The Whig cartoon of Jackson depicted as a tyrant might theoretically work better, but it's already in the article inside of the section on the 1832 election, where it belongs, and I am unsure about whether it would be best to use such an overtly partisan cartoon. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "owned excessively large amounts of material resources" What kind of material resources did the bank own?
 * Too vague. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sections 1 to 3 on the background are almost 4000 words. This is far too long. The length is also offputting for reviewers and may be one reason for the difficulty in getting support for promotion. There are many excessive details, such as the number of candidates in the 1824 election. How much of the background sections are really needed to understand the background to the Bank War?
 * I understand your point, but I think that at the very least most of it is. It's important for the reader to be given a brief explanation of the history of banking in the United States before the Bank War, which happens to be rather complicated. However, I have decided to remove some background material. Please see the article's history. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Panic of 1819. This should be linked.
 * It is linked in the first paragraph of the section "Panic of 1819." I removed the second mentioning of it because Jackson's 1828 campaign rarely addressed either the Panic of 1819 or the Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Jackson won decisive pluralities in both the Electoral College and the popular vote" I am not sure that 41% is a "decisive plurality" and its meaning will not be clear to many readers.
 * I don't think that the language is complex. His victory in the popular vote was decisive because the next closest finisher, Adams, ended more than 10% behind him, rounded up to 31%. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "He did not win an electoral majority" "He did not win a majority in the Electoral College" would be clearer.
 * I'm not sure how. "Electoral" is a fairly common word. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Was the enormous expansion in the electorate a factor in Jackson's 1828 victory?
 * Yes. The role of "universal white male suffrage" is briefly mentioned in the fifth paragraph of "Rise and Jackson," and I added a little bit about its impact on Jackson's candidacy in the 1824 election in that part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Slavery. Your comments are unclear. Were supporters of the Bank opponents of slavery and Jacksonians supporters? What was Jackson's view?
 * This goes too far off topic. The point is that some supporters of slavery, fearing that the government would try to abolish slavery if it grew too powerful, saw the Bank as an agent increasing the power of the government. By expanding federal power, the Bank posed an indirect threat to slavery. However, the argument was not widely used and slavery ultimately played no real role in the Bank War. Perhaps it would be best to remove the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "capitalizing on the fears building since the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise" Fears of what?
 * Changed to "fears of national discord." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Banks have to lend more money than they take in. When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called "credit". This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy. Banks making too many loans would print an excess of paper money and deflate the currency. This would lead to lenders demanding that the banks take back their devalued paper in exchange for specie, as well as debtors trying to pay off loans with the same deflated currency, seriously disrupting the economy." This is one view of economics which is POV and beyond the scope of the article.
 * Pardon me, but I don't see how. It's a basic explanation of how banks work, and within the purview of this article because a particular reader might lack the information. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "He also signed a certificate with recommendations for president and cashier of the branch in Nashville." I am not sure what this means.
 * It seems fairly clear to me. Jackson signed recommendations for who would become president and cashier of the BUS branch in Nashville. What is confusing about this? Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "state-charted banks" state-chartered?
 * Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "B.U.S. branch offices in Louisville, Lexington, Portsmouth, Boston, and New Orleans, according to anti-Bank Jacksonians, had loaned more readily to customers who favored Adams, appointed a disproportionate share of Adams men to the Bank's board of directors, and contributed Bank funds directly to the Adams campaign." You imply here that branches appointed bank directors, and each branch could make its own political donations. Is this correct?
 * Yes. I tried to find another source that explicitly said this so that I could add it to the background information on the Bank, but as yet have been unable to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The statement was politically potent" Which statement?
 * Adjusted to "Jackson's statements against the Bank were..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * " it went back up after the Senate report." What report?
 * The report is mentioned later, and I moved the part that you singled out back to after the Senate report is discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "Because of the Eaton affair, in 1831 Jackson replaced all of the original cabinet members but one.[" You say this above.
 * Changed to "After replacing most of his original cabinet members..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

, your latest comments have been addressed. I know that it is a long article and I am grateful for your assistance here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * More to follow. This is a very long article to review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Sorry but this has been open more than six weeks and I see no prospect of it gaining consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'm going to archive it. It would be useful if Dudley could continue to work with the nominator on his remaining concerns before any future nomination. I'd also strongly recommend reconsidering the response to Maury's comments; if Maury still expresses concerns about the language in the article then I'd say the thing to do is, rather than take umbrage, request further examples and see if you can't work together on those items. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)