Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

 * Nominator(s): --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a political office in the state of New Jersey that was created in 2005 and filled for the first time in the modern era in 2009. It discusses the quirks of the state's early history that caused New Jersey to be one of the few American states without a lieutenant governor, the circumstances that forced New Jersey to create the post, and the qualifications and powers of the office in its current form.

After a very comprehensive GA assessment that was more intense than most FACs, I think this article is ready for FA consideration.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Image check by Nikkimaria
Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink
Support, looks good! As a New Jerseyan and a political lover, I had to stumble here from my FAC and comment :)
 * "It is the second highest-ranking official in the state government. The lieutenant governor is elected on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term." - I feel like these two could be merged, and at the same time clarify who is the highest ranking. It sounds obvious, but not everyone on Wikipedia has a western style of governance. Something like "it is the second highest-ranking official in the state government, behind the governor, with whom the lieutenant governor is elected for a four-year term." Just throwing it out there for a jazzy sentence. Or, if that's too jazzy, merge these - "The lieutenant governor is elected on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term. The lieutenant governor's term is concurrent to the governor's four-year term. "
 * Reply: These sentences were originally one longer, combined sentence and were copyedited into three sentences for greater clarity. I am averse to merging these sentences because of that. I think the three sentences together are sufficient to establish the subordinate role of the lieutenant governor to the governor and adding a clause is not necessary. Further, one of the comments in the GA review was that the lede was too large, so adding more explanatory material to the lede isn't a course I would take lightly--especially when the rest of the article establishes those points at length sufficiently.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just think that those two sentences started with "The lieutenant governor" and end with "governor for a four-year term" and "governor's four-year term". Seems like those two could be combined easily without losing anything. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: I think merging the sentences will reduce clarity (as it apparently did in earlier versions where these three sentences were united) and create a nasty confusing run-on (something you point to as needing clarification in another example below). So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "What's wrong with "The lieutenant governor is elected concurrently on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term."? It removes an entire sentence and is still quite clear. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply/Done: Because a few months ago someone else thought that something similar to that wasn't clear enough, and I'm loathe to get into a tug-of-war over it if it's just a matter of "I would have written this differently" because everyone would write something differently. But I'll defer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "He furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders by retaliating against them for refusing to support raising troops for a military effort to invade French colonies in Canada" - I'm not exactly sure what happened here, but I think it could be clearer.
 * Reply: How is the sentence "not clear"? If you could tell me something more than "not exactly sure" I'd consider addressing it, but just saying "it could be clearer" doesn't really tell me much. Further, that's about as clear a synopsis as can be managed. If I go into an explanation of the dispute, it would take up too much space to explain and end up worthy of its own article (not a bad idea). So is this a question of what I think is a rather clear sentence not getting the point across (which you could tell me how it doesn't) or just a matter of you thinking you'd write it differently (which is unactionable, IMHO)? We often forget that an article is a summary (WP:SUMMARY) where we're advised to avoid excessive detail (WP:DETAIL). If anyone wants more detail on the dispute, they can read the source that supports the statement which spends a few dozen pages setting up the action. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just a bit of a run-on. Could you add a comma? The sentence structure is messy IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply/Done: Unlike most run-ons, this one is rather straightforward and no longer than average sentence in an average academic history text--so I unless there's something specific in its messiness, and since there's no use using commas if one isn't needed, I don't know what else you're getting at. I revised it to: "Ingoldesby furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders after he retaliated against them for their opposition to raising troops from New Jersey to support a planned invasion of French colonies in Canada." I am hopeful that this suffices.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just being picky, but "New Jersey had two recent periods during which several politicians assumed the governorship within the span of a few years.' - this isn't backed up by ref 24.
 * Reply: No, it is not backed up by fn.24--the following sentence is, where the footnote appears. The sentence you complain of is the first sentence (thesis) of the section. The rest of the section adequately backs up its thesis with sourced information. Not every sentence need to be tagged with a source...especially if it's just an introductory sentence and the rest of the section it prefaces adequately is sourced (as this one is with about two dozen footnotes).--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As an LGBT New Jerseyan, I think it's kinda unfair to brush off McGreevey's resigning as "a sex scandal". 2004 was a very different time than 2013 as far as gay Americans go. I'm not saying much more is needed, but I think a bit more might be in order here. Him resigning is quite different from Whitman leaving after being appointed to another position.
 * Reply: Again, we're advised not to go into too much detail especially on tangents--especially when that detail is discussed at other articles there's no need to regurgitate it. I will link it to the relevant section at the McGreevey article, but since it's unnecessary detail I'll avoid regurgitating the scandal details here. To your main point: McGreevey was accused of sexual improprieties and harassment by Golan Cipel, and the media criticized that the governor appointed a love interest into a "homeland security" post that he wasn't qualified for except for having been the governor's love interest, other damaging sexual allegations came to light, it wasn't just his admission of being a "gay American". Simply put, he resigned amid a sex scandal. I'd prefer not to dance around the obvious with euphemisms or sugarcoating--and I'd use the phrase "sex scandal" whether the participants were gay or straight and the circumstances warranted it. Here, this incident had all the hallmarks of a scandal and it was compared by the media with other scandals (especially after Spitzer resigned). Newspaper coverage described it as a scandal, and even McGreevey discusses the nature of the events (and others) as a "scandal" in his memoir (his former wife in her memoir uses the word "scandal" more frequently, but she might have had reason to be  bitter.) Nevertheless, the details are found elsewhere and at length discussion of them wouldn't be germane here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's fine adding the link. Better than before. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it worth mentioning that Codey and DiFrancesco were considered official governors retroactively, or is that trivial? Really not suggesting anything here, it was something that came to mind.
 * Reply: good point, I'll consider a way to incorporate that weighing whether it's appropriate vis-à-vis that being covered at the Codey and DiFrancesco articles, or at List of Governors of New Jersey, etc., and reviewing some sources. Standby--might take a day or so.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "On November 3, 2009, Christie defeated Corzine by a margin of 48.5% (1,174,445 votes) to 44.9% (1,087,731 votes), with 5.8% (139,579 votes) of the vote going to independent candidate Chris Daggett." - is there a reason you spell out Chris Daggett's name here, when you just refer to Christie and Corzine by their last names?
 * Done revised to "of the vote going to Daggett".--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The current lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, serves as New Jersey's 33rd Secretary of State." - ref?
 * Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

All in all, it's a really good article on a fairly new subject. Hope it keeps up to date when there is a change in 2017 (or 2016 - it'd be funny to see the very first lieutenant governor actually become governor due to another resignation). --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 06:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to see what constitutional crisis emerges if Christie does move on in 2016. The state's constitution doesn't provide a Lt. Gov. who assumes the acting governorship to appoint or fill a vacant Lt. Governorship, which places a Republican governor at a disadvantage with a Democratic legislature--so that raises an interesting question of succession and political wrangling. The article is on my watchlist and I'll be sure to update it if I'm around in 2016/2017. If I don't, someone else will--I'm sure of that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth
My knowledge of US politics is approximately nil. Here are a few comments on the text of the article: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is the second highest-ranking official in the state government." - It doesn't seem correct to me to refer to an official person as "it".
 * Done - revised to "The person elected to this position is" --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * " Ingoldesby first served under the colony's first royal governor ..." - too many "first"s.
 * Done - removed the first "first" --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Ingoldesby furthered angered the colony's Quaker leaders after he retaliated ..." - Typo.
 * Done - minus -ed --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "-an offer retracted by his demands for wide-ranging powers-" - This doesn't sound quite right.
 * Done - revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "... it empowers the governor to appoint "principal department heads" that serve as his (or her) pleasure." - Nor does this.
 * Done - revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The President ... would assume the role of acting governor while retaining their powerful role in the State Senate." - This is a misuse of the word "their".
 * Done - revised.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The legislation proposed before the general assembly was titled ..." - This sentence seems awkwardly phrased.
 * Done - rephrased. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "After the primary election in June 2009, Governor Corzine sign into law A.3902, ..." - "signed"?
 * Done - added "-ed" --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "... the date that the vote count of that election were confirmed as final and certified by the state's Secretary of State." - "was confirmed"?
 * Done - to "was" --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "The governor and lieutenant governor must be members of the same political party, campaign on the same ticket, are elected conjointly, and serve the same four-year term concurrently." - "be elected conjointly"?
 * Done - split into two sentences. In the new arrangement, "are" was kept.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * -- Many thanks for your comments, I think I've adequately addressed your concerns. Do you see any additional issues to be fixed? --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your changes address my concerns and I now Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Taylor Trescott
This looks really good and I think it meets the FA criteria. I Support its promotion. Just a few concerns. (I'm not in the know about American politics, so feel free to laugh at these...)
 * "The person elected to this position is the second highest-ranking official in the state government. The lieutenant governor is elected concurrently on a ticket with the governor for a four-year term." These two can be merged, since (I think) they refer to the same person.
 * Done - merged and revised accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In the "2009 gubernatorial election" section, you refer to both "running-mate" and "running mate" - be consistent. (Since the article is at running mate, that's what I would use, but it's up to you)
 * Done - rendered consistently as "running mate" for all 9 mentions.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's really it. Congratulations on a high quality article.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, and for your support. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell
It's surprising to me that there are no portraits of Richard Ingoldesby. I suspect that one exists, but we have yet to find it. Similarly, the photo of Kim Guadagno is not very good, but none of the other options is any better. That should be a challenge to New Jersey Wikipedians: get a decent photo of this person! But none of this is necessary for this FAC.
 * Reply - I was surprised as well that there was no Ingoldesby portrait when I was preparing List of colonial governors of New Jersey--even asked a friend at the National Portrait Gallery if they knew of one. We could not find one. We had previously used Guadagno's official state portrait on the article. NJ's official website states that state government images could be used freely and without obligation--and commons used to have a PD-NJ tag, but since there was no explicit permission on the NJ website to alter (even though it was considered implied), that tag was deleted and so with all the images/files it supported. I emailed the Christie-Guadagno campaign in October/November organization for one, they never replied. If a better image does come up for Guadagno or one is uncovered for Ingoldesby, as long as I'm alive, I'll find a way to get it up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it not. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "During the proprietary period (1664–1702), the colony was often administered"... But it was two colonies, not a single colony. You should explain that it was divided, move the mention of East and West Jersey up, and then say accurately that the colonies were often administered in such-and-such a way.
 * Done - revised. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, but that turned it into quite a long sentence, which I took the liberty of splitting. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When text says "In its previous creation...", it sounds like you mean previous to the merging of the crown colony. Also, it would be simpler and clearer to use a comma instead of an em-dash in that sentence.
 * Done - revised the passage (per this and the above suggestion). --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When the text says "Ingoldesby became acting governor of both provinces briefly", the rest of the paragraph describes specifically when his term began and ended, including the different dates for the end. I don't think it clarifies anything to say "(1709–1710)", and in some ways in confuses the issue.
 * Done - (1709–1710) removed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think "(1681/2–1757)" is a correct date format.
 * Reply/Addressed: - The usage of 1681/2 conforms with Annunciation Style--which was in use in Britain and her colonies before 1752 when they used the Julian Calendar when Europe had been using the Gregorian for 170 years previous. WP:OSNS requires an explanatory footnote--added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what you meant! Okay, that footnote is quite useful. – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect "1st Duke of Newcastle" is a parenthetic, requiring a comma after it when it doesn't end a sentence.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this means: "Pownall did not assume the governorship of New Jersey as his expertise shared in England led to his commission as Royal Governor of Massachusetts".
 * Done - Revised the passage to clarify.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent rewording. (I added a comma.) – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems odd to refer to Montgomerie, Cosby, etc., by their last names only, when they have not been previously introduced.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You link "proprietary period" to Colonial history of New Jersey. Would it be better to link to Colonial_history_of_New_Jersey, or perhaps Province of New Jersey?
 * Done - went with the first option. Since the East and West Jersey proprietary colonies were before its incarnation as "PofNJ"--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Prior to creation of the lieutenant governor position" seems ambiguous, because you're referring to a period after there already been two of them. Prior to the modern creation? Prior to the creation of the permanent lieutenant governor position?
 * Done - I went with "modern" in leaving open the odd-chance that the post gets scrapped in a few years.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You usually capitalize "Lieutenant Governor" and "Governor" when it precedes a name (e.g. "Governor Thomas Kean") or when part of the full title ("Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey"), but not in any other cases (e.g. "grants the governor the power", "did not have a lieutenant governor", etc.). I approve. But there are a few seeming inconsistencies: the top of the "Gubernatorial succession" section refers to "the governor of New Jersey"; the "Resignations and succession controversies" section refers to "a permanent solution such as a Lieutenant Governor" and "establishing a Lieutenant Governor"; the "Referendum on a constitutional amendment" section refers to "acting governor Richard Codey" and "Incumbent governor Jon Corzine"; and there is a section called "List of Lieutenant Governors" (capitalized) with table headings "Lieutenant Governor" and "Royal Governor". I'm not 100% sure when Lieutenant and Governor should be capitalized, but I'm sure the article should be consistent.
 * Reply/Addressed - In the GA review I tried to get it consistent, but concede there were probably a few strays. I erred on keeping the column labels capitalized for the table. I couldn't find anything MOS wise regarding it in a quick check, but they are titles as a proper noun in this context, and aesthetically I didn't care for the alternative version in lowercase, I kept them capitalized. I rephrased the "Incumbent governor" sentence. "Acting Governor" done., and addressed the others above. I think that should make the usage generally consistent. shout if you see any additional strays.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, it looks fine to me now. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Related: I think "President of the New Jersey State Senate" is appropriately capitalized as the name of the position, but I don't think "state senate" should be capitalized in "his or her powerful role in the State Senate", nor do I think the capital letters are warranted in "filled by the State Senate President"
 * Addressed. I think I got them all. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says "Prior to creation of the lieutenant governor position, the governor of New Jersey was the only state-wide, non-federal, elected office." In New Jersey, you mean. I think adding "in the state" would maximize precision while minimizing redundancy.
 * Question: Would it not be a jarring tautology to say "only state-wide...elected office in the state"?--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes... I can only think of suboptimal wordings. Adding "in the state" would create an awkward duplication of "state", and adding "in New Jersey" would create a different awkward duplication. But leaving it as is could give the false impression that it was the only such office in the country, especially since the very next sentence compares New Jersey to other states. Perhaps a major rewording of the whole paragraph could fix the problem, but I can't think of a way. You may be forced to pick the best of the available not-so-great options. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, I may have solved it by rephrasing it as Prior to modern creation of the lieutenant governor position, the only state-wide, non-federal, elected office was the Governor of New Jersey. The next sentence starts with "New Jersey" but because it avoids the tautology I can accept that under the "best available" option. Let me know if you think that's o.k. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, great choice, I think that works. – Quadell (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider "This order of succession would be included in the first state constitution in 1776, and the subsequent 1844 constitution, and kept in the 1947 Constitution until the 2006 amendment." The simple past tense is more appropriate, and the commas are problematic. Might I recommend the following? "This order of succession was included in the first state constitution in 1776, reinstated in the subsequent 1844 constitution, and kept in the 1947 Constitution until the 2006 amendment."
 * Done with suggested text. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * MOS:CAPTION says "Captions should be succinct". I think the clause "a former funeral director from Orange, New Jersey" is not relevant to the article and should be omitted. (Readers can always click on the link to learn more about him if they're curious.)
 * Done--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:COMMA, when a date is formatted like "January 8, 2002", the year is acting as a parenthetic, and needs a comma after it (unless it's at the end of a sentence). There's only one such problem in this article.
 * Done--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the wording "a fluke of political circumstance". In an electoral fluke? In an unusual political circumstance?
 * Done - Went with "unusual" --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that "in accordance with Article IX, paragraph 1 of the state constitution" gives unnecessary detail about how New Jersey's constitution is amended. What would you think of simply saying "in accordance with the state constitution"?
 * Done rephrased sentence--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't strictly necessary, but since you already have a "notes" section, I think the additional information about members not voting or abstaining would be better as footnotes. What do you think?
 * Done. Good idea. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think "Governor" (in the second table heading) needs to link to Governor of New Jersey.
 * Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider splitting citation 1 into a note (for the explanatory information) and a citation (for the source).
 * Done - Good idea. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review: there are no problems with any of the images.

I will continue this review over the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your further anticipated remarks. Thank you for your keen attention to this article and for jumping in to review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a fascinating article. I have not done a thorough source check, but the sources look great at a quick perusal. The quotes are relevant and helpful. In my spotchecks, I always found the article's statements fully supported by the sources without plagiarism. Once my nitpicks are dealt with, I expect to support. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed your suggestions and comments. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns. Thank you for your meticulous attention in reviewing this article and for your (anticipated) support. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. This article passes all our FA criteria, and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.