Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isaac Shelby


 * 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 14:29, 24 January 2009.

Isaac Shelby

 * Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 

Over the last couple of weeks, I have substantially expanded this article and believe it is now ready for an FA review. I hope to respond to all comments quickly and see the article promoted. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*Query "until July 1755 when Lord Dunmore ordered the garrison destroyed, fearing it might become useful to colonial rebels." Looks like the wrong decade to me, 1775?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, a disconnect between brain and fingers. Especially unlikely that Shelby would have been second in command of a garrison at five years old! Thanks for the catch. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * A bit of over linking going on here, do we need to link "fur trade", surveyor, garrison, reconnaissance, peaches, orchard, hanged, theft, murder, arson, treaty, etc?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, couldn't check links as the tool server is still down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've de-linked the terms you mentioned. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Went back and checked links and they are fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It would probably be best if you split the "References" section into two distinctive sections; the citations under the header "Notes" and bibliography under "References". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Different editors like it different ways; I have no real preference and have changed it to match your suggestion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - what sources the "Places named for Isaac Shelby" section? It's obvious that they share Shelby's name, but I would like to see a citation that proves the cities and counties were named after Isaac himself. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you like to see the sources done? A separate cite for each county, city, and military base? I considered doing this before nominating, but thought it might grow the References section excessively and clutter the list with superscripts. Still, if that's what it takes, I'll get on it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If possible, an all-encompassing source would be great, but if not, it might be necessary to cite each item individually. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A book like American place-names by George Stewart should cover most of this with a single citation. I can consult it in my local library if Acdixon doesn't already have this or another source. —Kevin Myers 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good info, Kevin. I can get access to sources regarding Kentucky place names pretty easily, but I don't know about the others. If one source could cover it all, that'd be great. Would you mind to see how many you can knock out with the source you mentioned, and I'll try to pick off any that aren't covered there. Thanks so much. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave the wrong book title above, but with a different book I added a cite for all of the counties and several of the towns. It seems highly probable that the remaining towns and military posts were also named for Isaac Shelby, but they were not specifically mentioned by my source. —Kevin Myers 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I would bet that most if not all of the Shelby Townships are named for him, in case you come across a more detailed source for place names. —Kevin Myers 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, Kevin. I've found sources for the remaining cities and military posts except Shelbyville, Michigan. If someone can find that one, it'd be great; if not, it can just be removed. I think for now I'll skip out on adding the Shelby Townships. I don't think they'll add that much to the article. Maybe I'll eventually split this list off into a separate article (List of places named for Isaac Shelby). I might consider researchign the Shelby Townships then. Thoughts on that? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, apparently Shelbyville, Michigan is named for some other guy. I wouldn't worry about the townships now, either. An eventual list is a good idea for when you run out of better things to do! —Kevin Myers 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tracking that one down for me; I've removed it from the list per the source you provided. The Christmas break has given me enough time to bite off more than I can chew, so I've probably got too many irons in the fire (and cliches in this sentence!) to do this list now, but perhaps eventually. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - I've added some information to the images, but we should still add the names of the museums which hold the three following paintings: Thanks! Otherwise, the licensing and descriptions all look good now. Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:William H. Harrison.jpg
 * File:Shelby Isaac.jpg
 * File:John Sevier.jpg (please add the information to the Commons file)
 * Regarding the portrait of Shelby, everything I've found on it says "Courtesy of the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives". I've only seen that building from the outside, but it's certainly large enough to potentially hold a gallery that includes this portrait. As for the others, I just grabbed them from the articles on their respective subjects; I have no idea how to find out where they are housed. Is this a requirement for FA? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons that it is a good idea to include this information is that copyright laws for art works are different in different countries (and constantly changing). Just last year, for example, we went through several permutations of the PD-Art tag over at Commons (could it be used for every country or not, etc.) Having as much information as possible makes it easier to stay on top of the ever-evolving copyright situation. Besides, it is pretty standard to list where paintings are located in the art history field. When I took final exams in art history, I always had to list "artist, title, year, location, type of work, etc." If you can't find the information, we'll have to live with it. I tried to look around a bit on the web, but nothing came up in about 15 minutes of searching. I was hoping the books you had mentioned where the paintings were. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is happening with images here ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not opposing based on this, as you can see. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's a good thing, because I might be able to find a little bit of info on the Shelby image since I know it comes from the Kentucky Historical Society, but I'm clueless on the other two. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It says no dabs found. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 Leaning towards support This article is clearly written and outlines the essentials of this man's life. A couple of questions and suggestions before I support:
 * Is no more known about his domestic life? His wife and children seemed to get short shrift in the article.
 * Generally, I try to avoid going into much detail about a person's family because it's easy to get off-topic, which would especially bad in an article this long. There is a mention that Shelby's son Thomas was known for taking detailed notes about the breeding of cattle and advancing the science of breeding cattle, though it doesn't specify what advances he was personally responsible for. Other than that, there is mention that the Shelbys were known for producing excellent whiskey and a great amount of beef. There are a couple of pages of marriages, births, etc. without much mention of any of those mentioned becoming particularly notable.
 * I'm satisfied here. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the section on his first term as governor, the article states "Much of his term was devoted to establishing basic laws, military divisions, and a tax structure" - I was wondering if any more could be said about this. The bulk of the article seems to be about Shelby's military exploits, but perhaps that is what he is most known for?
 * In Shelby's own opinion, his military service was much more what he was known for. One of the sources listed in the bibliography (I forget which one at the moment) mentioned that in Shelby's autobiography, he devoted only a page to his two terms as governor, while most of the book was devoted to his military service.
 * What do historians think is important about Shelby? Have historians said a bit more about the non-military aspects of his career? Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At least in terms of his second term, more than one source says domestic issues were virtually ignored in favor of considerations related to the War of 1812. In Wrobel's discussion of Shelby's first term, the establishment of basic government structures is covered in three paragraphs; the issues of navigation of the Mississippi, conflict with the Indians, and the Citizen Genet affair occupy the next 5 1/2 pages. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied here. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shelby used both indentured servants and slaves as laborers on his expansive farm at Traveler's Rest. Despite having bought and sold slaves as property, he was, by all accounts, a kind master. In his first gubernatorial address to the state legislature, he had called for laws ensuring the proper treatment of slaves. According to a family report, the good master from Kentucky in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin bore the surname Shelby in honor of Isaac Shelby. - I found this paragraph strange. What is "a kind master"? By whose "accounts" was he a good master? White Kentuckians? When the article says "by all accounts", does that include his slaves? What are these laws "ensuring the proper treatment of slaves"?
 * The only source that mentions this is Wrobel's biography. Regarding his treatment of slaves, she simply says "Isaac Shelby was considered as being kind to the slaves at Traveler's Rest." The end of this paragraph says "He [Shelby] seemed to have hard-working slaves, who looked after the interests of Traveler's Rest. Many of the women showed their admiration of 'the Colonel' by naming children Isaac or Shelby or both, in the case of twins." Though it seems a little ambiguous to me, it sounds like "the women" might be the slave women, who apparently admired Shelby enough to name their children after him.
 * Regarding the laws, the source lists five things that Shelby called for in his address to the state senate; number five (and they are literally numbered in the text) is "laws compelling the proper treatment of slaves." There is no elaboration.
 * I almost left this paragraph out because it is based on so little information, but the connection to such a well-known novel seemed too notable not to include. Based on what I have provided here, I'm open to suggestions for rewording, and I would even reluctantly agree to remove the paragraph if you think it would be best.
 * I would lean towards removing this paragraph since the information is, in my opinion, so controversial and the source information is itself so thin. I think that controversial claims such as this should be sourced to extremely detailed and solid material. It also concerns me that there isn't more than one source that contains this material. If you want, we can see what other reviewers think. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The part of the paragraph that strikes me as particularly problematic is the "by all accounts, a kind master" sentence. While this may be true, it sounds old-fashioned. The Wrobel biography was published in 1974; much has changed about the writing of slavery since then. (Now, we must ask: if so many slave children were named after Shelby, does that mean he fathered some of them?) I would drop the "by all accounts" sentence right away, and then look for an additional source and information about his calling for "proper treatment" laws, which if true, should be possible to verify. Otherwise, drop that sentence too. —Kevin Myers 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the entire paragraph because of weak sourcing. If I eventually find more support, I'll try to re-add it in an appropriate manner. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article uses the word "patriot" to refer to colonists in the Revolutionary War. I think this is slightly POV. Could we come up with a less "pro-American" word?
 * I understand your concern, but what would you suggest instead? I hoped by linking the term on its first use, perhaps it would counter the POV concerns.
 * I would suggest "colonists" or "revolutionaries". Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "patriot" with "colonist". Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an enjoyable article to read - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you enjoyed the article, and I hope I'll be able to address your concerns sufficiently for you to support its promotion. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to full support. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. A well-written and informative article, which appears to be comprehensive and accurate. The bit about the Kentucky motto is perhaps too trivial for the lead section, but that's just my opinion. I'd instead add some sort of summing up statement, like this quote from the American National Biography: "In many respects Isaac Shelby was Kentucky's George Washington." Can't beat that! —Kevin Myers 05:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I can definitely agree with the sentiment behind ANB's statement, but it strikes me as being arguably POV. I thought the line about the motto helped show, not tell, Shelby's importance to Kentucky. Regardless, support from someone so well-versed in this time period means a lot. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments Good work, and an interesting read. I think it is almost ready, but a few items emerged:
 * "... and became involved in the effort to separate Kentucky from Virginia" Can we provide any context here? Or is there an article about this we can link to?
 * There is no article, although there probably could be. What kind of context seems appropriate? The lead is already pretty long, and I want to guard against straying off-topic. That said, I'm not opposed to adding something that makes this clearer if we can decide what that is, exactly.
 * I'm just concerned about the reader reaction, "Huh? Kentucky and Virginia were combined?" -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you now. See if my latest change addresses your concern.


 * "He organized the state's first government and secured it from Indian attack." Reads as if he secured the government from Indian attack. I'm assuming you mean the whole state.
 * Yes. Clarified.


 * "Shelby retired from public life..." When?
 * Clarified.


 * "... and at the request of William Henry Harrison ..." Who was Harrison at the time? I know, but the readers don't know. Don't make them click the link or read on to find out.. just say "at the request of General William Henry Harrison" or similar.
 * Done.


 * "The next year, he returned to claim ..." Returned from where?
 * Clarified.


 * Can you wikilink first mentions of historical military ranks so people can read further?
 * I had these linked, but they were removed as "overlinking" by reviewer Awadewit. I'm fine with doing whatever consensus dictates. The only one that may be problematic is "captain", which has no disambiguation for U.S. militia captains.
 * It's not a big deal. I'm just a reader who's interested in clicking through and reading about the ranks. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The prose of going "back" to places needs revisiting. Almost every time you've mentioned him going somewhere, he is going "back" there. If the meaning is not diminished, you can remove any "back".
 * OK, I think I addressed all of these.


 * "Partisans" is no longer in use the way you've used it - please wikilink or explain.
 * Linked, although most of that article seems to talk about WWII. Hope it will be improved at some point.


 * "The combined force pursued Ferguson to King's Mountain, where the latter had fortified himself" I think "where he had fortified himself" would suffice.
 * Done.


 * I don't care for the use of the term "Indians" in your prose, even if they were known as such during that period. In quotations, yes, but can you call them by tribe based on your sources?
 * Generally, I use the tribe name if I have it, because I realize the term "Indian" is problematic. Based on that, I assume the sources didn't specify which tribe, though it's been three weeks since I've looked at the sources in any depth. I'll try to look a little closer this weekend, but I'd say we'll need to find a general acceptable term.
 * Comment: Your use of "Indian" is perfectly okay and scholarly. The New York Times style guide from the '90s is still the best approach: "American Indian" on first usage (to make clear you're not talking about people from India), and "Indian" thereafter (most American Indians still proudly call themselves Indians). "Native American" is okay too, though most specialists in this era seem to avoid it as wordy and anachronistic. Equating Shelby's military opponents as "tribes" here is problematic, because "tribes" of the Old Northwest were not necessarily political units, and the Indians fought in multi-tribal ad hoc coalitions. Tecumseh was Shawnee, for example, but most of his followers were not, and most Shawnees didn't follow him. —Kevin Myers 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Kevin. I agree with what you've said. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me as well, Kevin. I was hoping you would jump in here. This info will be useful in several other articles I am interested in. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore, he was limited by federal regulations that limited ..." Needs reworking.
 * Done.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get these ASAP, but I'm out of town at a training today and tomorrow. (I'm on break right now.) I might catch a long enough break to fix it from here, but if not, it could be as late as Friday afternoon or Saturday morning before I get to it. Just wanted to explain the delay. Thanks for your patience. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had some time this morning to fix some of these. It will probably be Saturday morning before I get any more done. If you have additional comments, please leave them between now and then. Thanks for your continued patience. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with your changes. The outstanding items (the rank linking and Indian name) are not issues. Thanks for all your hard work. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Glad I was able to get to most of them this morning, and the remaining ones during this quick break! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - with a few niggles.
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to give his highest governmental office in the first sentence of the lead? Something like "Isaac Shelby (dates) was the first and fifth governor of Kentucky as well as a member of the state legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina. He also was a soldier ..." With the current order, it's kinda confusing to the reader, who wonders why being a soldier in three wars is so important. My general rule is to make the first sentence of the lead the "One sentence summary" of someone's life so it's all there.
 * It may be arguable which he was more notable for (probably more so during his life than now) but I've changed it anyway.


 * I'd say what war the Battle of Point Pleasant is from, jsut so you don't lose readers who are forced to click through the link to figure it out. It's not a well known battle like Pearl Harbor or even Lexington, so either giving the war it was part of or a date would help ground the reader in a timeframe.
 * It's in the paragraph dealing with Lord Dunmore's War, and the date of the battle is in the same sentence.
 * No, this one is from the lead. That's where I noticed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Fixed now.


 * Are we linking state names now? I can't ever remember the consensus.
 * I didn't even know there was a discussion! If you find out what consensus is, let me know.


 * One thing I'm noticing is that sometimes context is mising in the body of the article. You link to articles, but sometimes it's best to give a quick phrase explaining what the linked term is. I noticed it especially with the Transylvania Company, but there are other places where context might be helpful and keep your readers from leaving the page to find out more about an obscure subject. (Another example.. stands of arms? What does that mean?)
 * Honestly, I don't know what a "stand of arms" is either; that was the term the source used, so I used it. I'd have to do a bit of reading myself to provide context on Transylvania Company, but I can do that if necessary. Just not at the moment.
 * I've added a bit of context on Transylvania. A "stand of arms" is the complete musket setup for one soldier. It's a term known only to military history buffs, so I think we can eliminate it here and just relate the number of prisoners taken. —Kevin Myers 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These are mainly quibbles, and I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, with comments - Here are some comments regarding the prose, but I think these are mostly minor:
 * Overlinking in the lead section - I don't think "militia" needs to be linked; "he declined President James Monroe's offer" - I don't think "President" needs to be linked.
 * Done.


 * "He secured the state from Indian attacks" - would "Native American" be more appropriate than "Indian", or "American Indians"?
 * See Kevin's comment above. I'm taking his word on this one.


 * "led troops from Kentucky into battle at the Battle of the Thames" - can you word this without saying "battle" twice?
 * Yes, fixed.


 * "Shelby died at his estate, Traveller's Rest, on July 18, 1826." - I think naming the estate is overly detailed for the lead section. Instead, could you say "Shelby died at his estate in ("___, Kentucky" or just "Kentucky") on July 18, 1826.
 * Done.


 * "establish a boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina.[9] Shortly after his arrival in the state, Governor Richard Caswell" - this is confusing - what is "the state"? I assume North Carolina?  The sentence should probably be explicit and say that.  Only by putting my mouseover the "Governor" link, do I see the link is "Governor of North Carolina" and thus figured it out.  I would reword it to either say "Shortly after his arrival in North Carolina, Governor Richard Caswell" or "Shortly after his arrival in the state, North Carolina Governor Richard Caswell..."
 * Fixed.


 * It's somewhat confusing again when I mouseover the Sullivan County link, which comes up as Sullivan County, Tennessee. I assume that Tennessee was part of North Carolina then?  I would clarify that in the paragraph, by saying something like "to establish a boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina in the western frontier region" or something like that.
 * You are correct regarding Sullivan County (there was no Tennessee). I have added the word "frontier" to the sentence.


 * "dubbed him "Old King's Mountain."" - I think the period is supposed to go outside the quote, in this case.
 * Yes, I still haven't gotten the hang of this logical quotation thing.


 * The "I shall upon all occasions be averse to..." quote formats on my computer in a way, partially wrapping around the image on the left, and is not set apart enough to make it obvious this is a quote. Perhaps, try using Quotation?  or right-aligning the image?  Though the portrait would then be facing away from the page, which I think is undesirable.
 * Yes, I have this formatting issue too, but if I change it to Quotation, it leaves I big white space under the picture of Citizen Genet. And you are right about the portrait facing away from the prose; I originally had it aligned on the right, for just this reason as I recall, but SandyGeorgia changed it based on the MOS. Doesn't look like there is a good solution on this one.


 * In the "Second term as governor" section, I think "major general" needs to be capitalized as "Major General".
 * Judging from the capitalization in the article on this rank, you appear to be right. Fixed.


 * There should be no hyphen in "Vice President".
 * Fixed.


 * In the "Later life and death" section, "Upon Shelby's leaving office in 1816, U.S. President James Monroe offered " - Monroe is already mentioned several times, and it's clear he is "U.S." President. I suggest saying "in 1816, President Monroe offered" or "in 1816, President James Monroe offered".
 * Fixed. This is what happens when you build articles up one source at a time, as I do.

--Aude (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources all look good and reliable.
 * Thanks for the helpful comments and the support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support A good read. I found nothing wrong with the prose or the sources. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - very interesting and, on the whole, well-written, and excellently referenced. I made a couple of very minor edits. Graham Colm Talk 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.