Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edwin P. Morrow/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 SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009.

Edwin P. Morrow

 * Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article recently passed a GA review with only a few minor comments. It is well-sourced, and I believe it meets the FA requirements. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I will be out of town from December 3 through December 6. Please be patient, and I will attempt to respond to comments when I return. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name
 * No dab links, but the second External link is dead.
 * Fixed.


 * Only Morrow's signature lacks alt text. I'm not sure how signature alts should be dealt with; the guideline says nothing about them, but clearly says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative, that is, it has no function and is used only for visual formatting or decoration."
 * Fixed.


 * Article dates are all Month Day, Year. Ref dates are all ISO style.
 * Hm. I thought the cite templates required ISO for some reason. Fixed.
 * Oh sorry, I didn't mean the dates were a problem. See MOS:DATE.  You can use ISO if you like for the ref dates, as long as it is for all ref dates, and then use Month Day, Year for the text  dates, as long as it is for all text dates. Of course, if you want to use the same format for every single date or if you don't want ISO style, that's cool too.  Consistency and standing consensus are usually more important.  --an odd name 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

--an odd name 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Support 2c (See Talk: 2c checked 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review ( Oppose Support on criterion 3)
 * File:William Bradley.jpg needs a source
 * Oops. I didn't upload that one and need to check on it. Since it's a photograph of Bradley, and since he died in 1914, it should be PD, but I don't know the details.


 * The other two images, ought to be categorized as well.
 * Is it bad that I've never categorized an image? Don't know the category structure or anything.
 * Done by the category bot. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be easy to fix, so could you give me a note on my talk page when you do? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ping you when I get a chance to address these. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All issues resolved. Thanks for your good work! NW ( Talk ) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support based on prose and overall quality. I'm not certain if it's comprehensive, but it's written very well. Nice work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article should explain that he was not able to run again. Overall, the article is well-written, but I didn't feel that it provided enough historical context. How is this man considered, generally? We get a long list of accomplishments but no idea of whether they were or are considered significant or successful; we don't have a summary of how he is considered by history. Overall I don't feel this is quite ready for FA status. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the fact that he couldn't run again. Regarding his legacy, he's a fairly minor politician, despite making some national waves with the Lockett affair and having his name batted about for VP. The most complete summary of his gubernatorial legacy is on page 275 of Portraits in Paradox. Here, Klotter summarizes by saying "In short, Morrow left behind a solid, and rather typical, record for a Kentucky governor." It isn't surprising to me, then, that there isn't a lot more historical analysis of his record. Unfortunately, the only true biography of Morrow is the Jillson work, which was published in 1921, the second year of his governorship. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's not mentioned in the article. If the general assessment of history is that he was a minor figure who had a pretty average track record as governor, that should be evident from the article. For instance, the article describes him as passing much of his agenda in his first term, but Klotter seems to take the position that his first term was disappointing and didn't represent a particularly significant change from the previous Democratic administrations. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've incorporated some of Klotter's assessment in the article. Does this address your concerns? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)  Comments Support - Strong as always. Specifics:
 * "...a large mob waited outside the jail to take him by force." What is meant by this? I think the normal meaning of "to take by force" is to capture against physical resistance, but I gather by this point he had already been captured. Was the alleged mob expected to kill him?
 * Yes. I've changed "large" to "lynch". Does that clarify?
 * Yeah, though I think you could lose "take him by force" all together now. We know what lynch mobs are about, and I still find the wording "take him by force" to be a little confusing.  Your call.
 * See how it reads now.
 * Looks great.
 * "Morrow served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1916, 1920, and 1928." Do we know anything about who he supported at any of these?
 * I think the NGA is the only source that mentions his attendance at these conventions, and it does not say who he supported. The exception is the 1920 convention, where Kentucky's Governors says he supported Frank O. Lowden for president. This is mentioned in the latter part of the Governor of Kentucky section of the article.
 * Is there more that could be said about Morrow's relationship with Stanley? It seems like it could be an interesting side plot.
 * There are a few passing anecdotes about them often staying in the same inns, sharing drinks after their speeches, etc. but unfortunately, I've found no back story on how they came to be such close friends or what the effects their campaign might have had on their friendship.
 * "Black's refusal to remove the members of the board following this revelation probably sealed his defeat." This seems POV. Could you attribute this point of view, rather than adopting it as the article's own?
 * Sure; done.
 * "...were only a two-vote minority in the state Senate." I assume this means that they were in the minority by two votes and not that they were a minority of two votes, but this should probably be clarified.
 * Quite so. Fixed, I hope.
 * "Morrow convinced C. W. Burton, a legislator from Grant County, to defect and support Republican proposals." Context suggests that he was a Democratic senator, but if that's the case why not say so (instead of just "legislator")? Also, did he join the Republicans are remain as a Democrat but often support Republican legislation?
 * Nothing in the sources suggests he changed party affiliation, but yes, he was a Democrat. I've tried to clarify per your comments.
 * It still doesn't clarify that he was a senator, which I assume that he was (or it would be much less relevant that he voted with the Republicans).
 * Sorry I was a little thick on that one. I didn't notice that I hadn't mentioned he was a senator or that you were trying to point that out to me. :) Fixed now.
 * "Morrow was rigid in his call for strict law enforcement. He urged enforcement of state laws..." "Law" and "enforcement" are both repeated in close proximity. No reword seemed immediately apparent to me, but I'm wondering if losing the first sentence entirely might be the best approach.
 * Done.
 * "Morrow dispatched the National Guard again in 1922 to quell a violent mill strike in Newport." Is this related to the rest of the paragraph in which it's found?
 * Only inasmuch as it represents another instance where Morrow employed force against violent uprisings in the state. There are no details in the sources that would allow me to expand this sentence into its own paragraph, but I thought it was important to show his consistent track record of quelling violence, which had been a major issue in the state for decades.
 * Um, the rest of that paragraph doesn't deal with the use of force against a violent uprising, though. Might it make more sense up with the Lockett stuff?
 * Another instance where I didn't read closely enough. I was trying to preserve chronology, and I thought the quelling of violence by force and the removal of local officials who refused to do the same were closely related enough to do so. However, I think I can treat them as separate issues without jarring the reader with an event from 1922 being followed by one from 1921. I've reworded to give a little context to that effect. Let me know what you think.
 * "On July 27, 1920, he made a speech in Northampton, Massachusetts, informing Calvin Coolidge of his nomination for that office." Morrow knew that Coolidge had been nominated before Coolidge did?
 * After re-reading the sources, the term most used is "officially notified". Maybe this is some sort of political formality. I've changed the wording to match the sources.
 * Have historians assessed his legacy at all? The article ends rather abruptly with no attempt to establish Morrow's historical significance.
 * See my comment to Christopher Parham above.
 * Looking at the paragraph in which the "solid, and rather typical" sentence appears, it looks to me that there is some additional evaluation that could be worked into a short paragraph at the end of the article. If nothing else, it would make it end a little less abruptly.  I'm not sure where Christopher's getting the bit about the first session being a disappointment (I've only scanned the relevant chapter, so it could be in there without my having found it), but if he's right about that I think it should be addressed to.
 * See my follow up to Christopher above.

Generally excellent, though, and I fully expect to support as usual. Steve Smith (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for another great review. Always happy to address your concerns. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some questions and thoughts:
 * Do the sources really say Wilson "removed" him from his position as US Attorney? Since they're political appointees, current practice is that they just leave at the end of their President's Administration. While you're checking that, was he called a "US District Attorney" in those sources? I presume this was before they switched names.
 * I've already returned the Powell source to the library, but I'm almost sure it did say "removed", as does Jillson (p. 35). Your observations about it being a political appointment are correct, however. Taft (his appointer) being a fellow Republican and Wilson (who removed him) being a Democrat. A quick glance back over the sources show they all say "U.S. district attorney"; I'm not familiar with the history of that office, so I'm not sure what it might have been called before.
 * Regarding Moseby's confession, "coerced" seems like a better adjective than "extorted". Was "extorted" in the sources.
 * Hay does use the word "extorted" (p. 152).
 * The family paragraph in the "Legal Career" section seems odd. Could we move that up to "Early Life" and perhaps retitle that?
 * This sometimes presents a challenge for me. I want to preserve the chronology of his life, but I want the section titles to be accurate as well. I guess I could drop the "Legal career" title altogether, making the "Early life" section quite a bit longer and moving the last paragraph (regarding his service as city attorney, etc. to "Political career". Would that remedy the issue?
 * Yes, but let's give other folks here a few days to chime in.--Chaser (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With no further input, I've made this change.
 * " His decision was aided by the fact that a challenge..." Aided is an odd word here. "Encouraged"? If the sources support it, "influenced"?
 * I think the sources would support "influenced". I've changed it.
 * The "Governor" section dragged for me when I got to Jack Eaton, but the only solution I see (sub-subsections) may be too radical at this stage of the FAC.
 * I tried to break it up with a picture, but yeah, I don't know about adding sub-subsections at this point, although I'm open to suggestions.

Excellent job.--Chaser (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've done my best to address these issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - per Julian. Connormah (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1a. Badly overlinked; I've fixed most of it. Please note what I've unlinked.
 * g or G for governor? See infobox vs. opening sentence.
 * If it were used as a proper title (i.e. "Governor Morrow") I think it is capitalized, but as it appears in the opening sentence, I think it is lower case. I capitalized it in the infobox as a section heading.


 * "He championed the typical Republican causes of his day, namely equal rights for African-Americans"—are you sure this is correct? And women's rights? Yet he campaigned for the use of force to quell violence ... seems contradictory nowadays. Ah, do you mean violence by whites against blacks? It needs to be made clear on first mention in the lead. Second mention implies this, but we shouldn't be left hanging with jaws dropped.
 * Yeah, I think this is correct. Kentucky's first Republican governor (and Morrow's uncle), William O. Bradley, had a stellar reputation among African-Americans. His Republican successor, William S. Taylor, not as much, but he did appoint some African-Americans to his cabinet and reluctantly opposed the Separate Coach Bill. Augustus E. Willson was the only other Republican elected governor before Morrow, but most of his term was taken up with the Black Patch Tobacco Wars. In fact, there weren't many Republican governors of Kentucky because they were generally supportive of equal rights for African-Americans. (My native state doesn't exactly have a sparkling past in the area of civil rights.) Remember, Republicans are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and those ideals were still shaping the party at this time, only about half-a-century later.
 * Regarding violence, I really mean violence in general. Taylor called out the militia to protect him from violent protesters during the William Goebel assassination fiasco. Willson, as already mentioned, called them out to put down violence linked to the Black Patch War. Also, there were numerous violent feuds and labor strikes in the eastern part of the state for much of the late 19th and early 20th century. Democrats made a campaign issue out of Republican use of force during Willson's campaign and that of the next Republican nominee, Edward C. O'Rear. So yes, the use of force to quell violence in general, not just racial violence, was a typical Republican issue at the time. It just so happens that Morrow mainly used it against racial violence, although there is mention of him putting down a violent labor strike in 1922.


 * Overlinking: English-speakers are meant to know what a heart attack is (and it's linked for a second time, just in case we missed it the first time ... no thanks). Extortion and perjory likewise (it's not a dictionary, and there are plenty of high-value links we don't want to dilute). "Black", "murder", etc—please unlink. "acclamation". etc. items are better piped to just the town—save the blue for what matters. I've fixed the large number of them with a script. "Reading law"—odd link, and odd expression out of mid-20th-century UK. "studied law" nowadays. Tony   (talk)  13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have a problem overlinking things in general, but I don't generally try to make that call. There are folks much better at making that distinction than I; that's the beauty of a wiki. I do like the link to "reading law", since that is the term my sources use and many folks (myself included) are not all that familiar with it. I like it better than "studied law" because I tend to think of "studying law" as more formal, but I won't quibble about it here. Thanks for your review. Let me know if any of this is not satisfactory. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.