Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3


 * 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 not promoted by Karanacs 20:50, 17 November 2009.

Brooks–Baxter War

 * Nominator(s): The_stuart (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Third times a charm! I've made all the changes that other editors suggested in the previous round of FAC, if there are any other suggestions I will make those corrections as well. Please be specific. --The_stuart (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1d (following PMAnderson, below) 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC), 1c, 2c Jargon reduced at 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) the first comment and translation are in relation to the original terse language Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2c A large number of 2c issues resolved, with one outstanding, at Talk: from 02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Resolved and checked 01:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1c
 * No article indicated, no indication if article written as by an expert, unsigned tertiary. Encyclopedias are not reliable sources unless they meet a stringent criteria.  It must be written by academics, for an academic public, and the article in question must have the "by line" or be "signed" by an academic specialist.  You don't give us enough to go on here.  Name the article, and the author of the specific article.: ^ a b c d e f g h Zuczek, Richard (2006). Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era. Westport: Greenwood Press. p. 103-104. ISBN 0313330735.
 * You have failed to acknowledge Michael B. Dougan's work here. Please read p.105 of the cited source which indicates:
 * Dougan, Michael B. Arkansas Odyssey Little Rock, AR, USA: Rose Publishing, 1994.
 * Moneyhon, Carl. The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR, USA: University of Arkansas Press, 2002.
 * Woodward, Earl F. "The Brooks and Baxter War in Arkansas, 1872-1874" Arkansas Historical Quarterly 30 (1972):315-36.
 * Your failure to use these modern sources indicates the reason why I am declining this on 1c and 1d issues. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OR from Primaries and speculation. You have conducted Original Research by synthesising Primary Sources here.  This is the correct work of a historian; not Wikipedia.  Find this in a secondary source.  Your text also contains speculation, "On November 6, 1872, the day after the general election, the Gazette reported: "The election was one of the most quiet in Little Rock we ever witnessed.[14] The returns on that day were too small to report with any certainty who had won, and the newspaper reported fraud. Rumors flew about claims that registration had been cut short or extended in many counties to suit the needs of whoever controlled the polling places. The following Monday, the Gazette published incomplete tallies from the various counties showing a small majority for Baxter. They also reported more forms of attempted fraud. Some unofficial polling places had apparently been set up, but only those votes cast at the regular polls had been certified.[15]"
 * Use of an unsigned tertiary from the 19th century to support (Again, you've used a non reliable source encyclopedia. Its more questionable because its from the 19th century and is not academically titled (unlike your one above): On the May 19, General Newton and his troops reoccupied the State House grounds, which had just been evacuated by Brooks; forces, and on the 20th he reinstated Governor Baxter.[26]  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas. actually This Masters thesis from 1947? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Brooks–Baxter War/archive3. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a mostly good article that'll probably eventually make it to FA, but the prose is, I am afraid, not of very high quality. I tried to improve it a little, but it would be best if someone else also had a good look at it.
 * Ucucha comments

Other specific issues I encountered:
 * The lead does not adequately summarize the article now, I think. It devotes only a few sentences to the actual war, and does not note the back-and-forth governorships of Brooks and Baxter.
 * Actually it does in the 3rd paragraph, but I have added a little more. The "war" so to speak involves most of the Arkansas reconstruction history. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually added much of that myself. :-) But your further expansion makes it even better.


 * "and two thirds were in favor of the constitution" (rephrased by me) - I think an actual percentage would be preferable. Is that possible?
 * Not with available sources. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, we can't do much about that. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "brief but long-remembered "Militia War"" - Is this a notable topic? If so, a wikilink should be in order.
 * Perhaps another article should be written on it some day but for now there isn't much more to say that isn't already in the article. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but remember that red links are not prohibited in FAs. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "paper script" - What?
 * Fiat currency, basically Arkansas dollars backed by nothing. This is before the federal reserve greenbacks that are common now, and the Gold Standard was still in effect, so money typically could be traded for an equivalent amount of gold. They were basically issuing worthless money that had no gold backing, which made the states credit even worse. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be in the article, or in a linked article on paper script. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have wikilinked it to the article on scrip.--The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The impeachment of Johnson - When he had done nothing wrong, in what way did the Minstrels argue for his impeachment (i.e., what arguments did they use to say that his actions were worthy of impeachment)?
 * I've studied the court documents and they had no argument, in my opinion it was tactic meant to waste time. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "contested Louisiana gubernatorial election" - Link?
 * There isn't much about it on Wikipedia other than "President Grant ensured that William P. Kellogg", he ensured it with federal troops, and didn't want to have to do that again in Arkansas. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Red links are not forbidden. I believe that elections are automatically considered notable, and when the Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1872, was contentious enough that federal troops needed to intervene, the topic surely deserved to be linked. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have linked per your suggestion. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You mention two Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Bennett and Earle, but these are not on the List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Are they, in fact, SCOTUS justices, or something else?
 * They were not supreme court justices, just federal justices. I've made the correction. --130.184.211.7 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Ucucha 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on writing this article and good luck on further improving it! Ucucha 03:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 130.184.211.7 is me, sorry forgot to log in. --The_stuart (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; all my original issues have been resolved now. I think the issue PMAnderson brought up, is an important one, however (and one I should have paid more attention to earlier--though I did find the article somewhat friendly to Confederates, I didn't pursue that further), and I will not support until you have either added more recent sources to address PMAnderson's concerns, such as the ones Fifelfoo suggested, or made a convincing argument that these sources can't be used. Ucucha 01:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. No secondary sources since 1943, and one since 1922 (I exclude one tertiary source, and one source on a governor in a different century); no wonder it reads as if it were a production of the Dunning School. The historiography of Reconstruction has changed markedly in the last eighty years; our articles should reflect that. Go and read modern printed books; and do remember that neo-Confederatism is not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have sources newer that 1943, they aren't great, but I have them. I think I was little more fair than your assessment. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have the encyclopedia, and a source on the Republican governor from the 1960s; I also see some effort to pull against the bias of your sources. But your account of Reconstruction as a whole, and your interpretation of events, is (inevitably) drawn from your sources; you cannot be expected to reflect the modern account of Reconstruction unless you have seen it - and the article, as it stands, doesn't. This is not a moral weakness, but it is less than our best work - and is not the face we would present to the public. Read modern histories (does David Donald anywhere write on these events?) and tell us about it.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Tell your ignorant Australian reader what country this Arkansas place is in! In the first sentence. I'm from the Illawarra. Do you know where that is? I get sick of writing this comment. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is easy enough to fix. --The_stuart (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Images were reviewed at the last FAC - have any new ones been added? Awadewit (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The last one is new, but I took it myself. --72.204.48.64 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.