Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive2


 * 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 23:51, 31 October 2009.

Overman Committee

 * Nominator(s): Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed all problems since the first nomination, considering the first nomination only failed because of a lack of input; there was one support and no opposes. I would recommend reading the nomination at the first for a more comprehensive nomination. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alt text, dabs, sources, and images reviewed in the earlier FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)


 * Support - I thought you said this article was boring! It's quite engaging once you get into it.
 * Nitpick alert: Per my own writing style, I'd write the lead as this (you don't have to change it if you're already satisfied with your own version: The Overman Committee was a special subcommittee under the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the United States Senate chaired by North Carolina Democratic Senator Lee Slater Overman. Operating from September 1918 to June 1919, the subcommittee investigated German as well as Bolshevik elements in the United States.
 * Initial investigation: Many criticized the BOI's actions some even labeling the actions "criminal". - redundancy
 * (same as above) The Bureau's investigation methods were often extremely faulty.[15] - faulty? How so?

The prose is definitely at an FA level and since I cannot judge through the sources (I know practically nothing about government subcommittees) of the topic I have to trust it is comprehensive. Hope this FAC goes better than the last one,  ceran  thor 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said on your talk page, I really appreciate the review. I've changed the intro to your suggestion. As for the last two points, I have changed the two sentences to this:
 * "Many attacked the BOI's actions. The Bureau's investigation methods were often extremely faulty. The Committee heard testimony that the Bureau had not conducted basic background checks of the accused and had not read source material they presented to the Committee.[ref]"
 * I hope that improves them (hopefully it's not too choppy). Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. 1c grounds. Clark (1920) and NAM (US) (1913) should be moved to Primary sources. As a matter of preference, I generally prefer to see Newspapers cited in the bibliography if articles from them are used, and heavily cited newspaper items (not relevant here except for some of the page spreads) cited specifically. Occasional error in citations "^ .United States Congress, Bolshevik Propaganda, p. 475" leading dot on author. See also: capitalisation divergence with other uses "Volume 1 and volume 2". Citation lacks spacing, "June 15, 1919.Accessed October 9, 2008.". Images are crowded. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have made the copyedit suggestions (extra period, capitalization, access date problems, moved one image). However, I am confused by your two referencing comments. I've moved the NAM reference, but why is the Clark reference a primary source? Also, I apologize, but I don't understand your suggestion regarding the newspaper sources. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clark (1920) lacks historical distance from the incidents he is cataloguing. (His work's portion on the Overman committee is in the polemical mode).  This lack of historical distance means that he is an involved contributor, much like a journalist reporting a historical event is a primary source within the meaning of history.  Regarding the newspaper articles, "^ a b c d e "Senators Tell What Bolshevism in America Means". The New York Times. June 15, 1919. Retrieved October 9, 2008." should probably be cited as a primary source due to the extensive use made of that particular article. The two newspapers should be added to the bibliography as sources, without referencing particular articles, unless they're heavily used (according to my style recommendation), as in (newline)The New York Times (newline)Casa Grande Valley Dispatch  for bonus points you could add place of publication, and years used.  Also your citation, ""Senators Denounce Lawlessness". Casa Grande Valley Dispatch. July 18, 1919. Retrieved October 9, 2008." should italicise Casa Grande Valley Dispatch if you're italicising The New York Times. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved Clark, and I think I did what you meant for all the newspaper references (I just did it for all of them for the sake of consistency). Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — It is a complete and well-written article. It surveys the scope of its subject and fairly presents the information required.—Markles 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Oppose for now, Pending a thorough review of the prose, I may be ready to support.  1a and 1b.  There might be an FA here, but it's not ready yet.  Some issues:
 * The article does not currently do a good job of placing its statements in context. I provide some examples of this below, but in general I'd suggest going through the article and imagining that you have no familiarity with this period of U.S. history, and providing such background information—either in prose or using wikilinks—as might be necessary to make the article useful to you.
 * To follow up on the last point, there are quite a few redlinked names in the article. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but as long as there's no article for the reader to click on in order to learn more, it would be helpful to provide a brief mention in this article about who those people are.
 * Removed links from Edwin Lowry Humes, Poli Theater, and Bureau of Propaganda. However I kept the links for Daniel R. Fitzpatrick, a Pulitzer-prize winning notable cartoonist, Albert Rhys Williams, a notable American leftist referenced in other articles and across the web (enough info for a DYK on that one ;), I'd bet), Archibald E. Stevenson because he was notable for his actions in this context, his actions during the Lusk Committee hearings, as well as for his tenure as a director in the Military Intelligence Division.
 * It's less the redlinks to which I object than it is the lack of context around some of the names. There's a lot of information given on Stevenson in the article, so he's not a problem.  Fitzpatrick is pretty incidental to the article, so he's not really a problem.  But we're told nothing about Humes other than that he wrote the report, and nothing about Williams other than that he gave a speech.  I touch on these points more later on, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that many of the names lack context. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose is quite bloated and sometimes a little stiled; with due respect to the supporters, I'm not sure how they concluded that it was at an FA level. Besides the excess verbiage, there were a number of typos and outright grammatical errors in the version that I reviewed.  I've performed a copyedit; ideally, I think there'd be another thorough one by somebody previously uninvolved.
 * I just read through the article three times and did a copyedit. Besides you and I, Malleus Fatuorum, Dabomb87, and SnowFire have been gracious enough to copyedit as well. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is Humes linked? We're not really given any indication of who he is, beyond the guy who compiled the report.  Was he a subcommittee staff member?  Does he likely clear WP:N?
 * Delinked.
 * If he's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why is he mentioned in the lead? If he's going to be mentioned in the lead, I'd expect to see some indication of why his authorship of the report is noteworthy. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article (he'd fall under WP:ONEVENT), but shouldn't the Overman Committee article give as much information as possible? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to including it in the article; it's the lead that I doubt needs it. Steve Smith (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, and I agree now. I've removed it from the lead, but it is still down somewhere in the report section. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some very short sections. Have you considered merging some of them?  I think it would be possible to merge, for example, "The Committee" and "Background" to create a new (still very short) section called something like "Creation".
 * I've merged "The Committee" section into the "Background" section. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "One meeting in particular, held at the Poli Theater in Washington, DC, created much because of a speech given by Albert Rhys Williams." This needs to either be placed in some context or removed, as right now it adds nothing.
 * I do not understand. It was a reason for the Senate's decision to expand the Committee's powers. I can still remove it though, if you, as a third party, find it unnecessary/confusing. It is mentioned in multiple sources.
 * I'd rather see elaboration than removal, especially if multiple sources mention it. The trouble is that all we know is some guy gave a speech at some theater; we know nothing about the person who gave the speech, what was said in the speech, or how it influenced the Senate to expand the committee's powers.  Without that detail, the sentence does not provide the reader with any useful information. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to "One meeting in particular, held at the Poli Theater in Washington, DC, became controversial and widely publicized because of a radical speech given by Albert Rhys Williams. At this meeting he allegedly said, "America sooner or later is going to accept the Soviet Government."
 * Much better. Is there anything that you can use to describe Williams?  Something like "...because of a radical speech given by union leader Alfred Rhys Williams..."?  Steve Smith (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a popular Congregationalist minister..." Bsimmons 666  (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...removing another original impetus for the continuation of the Overman Committee." What was the first original impetus to be removed?
 * See next comment
 * "Secondly, during the previous month, Nebraska had ratified the Eighteenth Amendment, which established Prohibition." What's so special about Nebraska?
 * I tried to clarify by editing it to explain that Nebraska was the last state necessary and by editing the last sentence of the paragraph to clarify.
 * "...has been described by some historians..." Does the source cited really support that several historians said this? If not, don't be afraid to reword to "...has been described by University of Armpitville historian Bob Weathermucker..."
 * Changed to note specific historian.
 * "This confluence of events convinced the members of Congress that there was a strong German-Bolshevist link." I'm not clear on how the confluence of events convinced Congress of this; the only one of the events that seems to provide evidence of such a link is Stevenson's testimony. Could you expand on how the other events convinced Congress of this link?
 * At first your comment here confused me, but after rereading the entire section I completely understand your point. I've changed it to "This confluence of events led the members of Congress to believe that there was a German-Bolshevist link and that the Bolshevist threat to the United States was real."
 * The second boxquote lacks context, both in terms of who the "Mr. Williams" speaking is and in terms of the significance of the testimony, which doesn't seem to be addressed elsewhere in the article.
 * It was quoted in Lowenthal; it was typical of what how the hearings went and what those were testifying said.
 * "...and the registration of private organizations." What does this mean?
 * I couldn't figure it out either, I had pretty much quoted that phrase word for word from the source. So I just deleted it and added another recommendation mentioned in a different source that I hadn't put in there before for some (?) reason.
 * "The Overman Committee was unwilling to take any concrete steps to combat extremism..." The Committee itself appears not to have taken any concrete steps because it was not charged with doing so. It does, if the previous section is to be believed, seem to have recommended a number of concrete steps, which makes this quote appear misleading.
 * Changed to "The Overman Committee did not achieve any lasting reforms".
 * I'd suggest moving "Criticism" to before "Aftermath", as the latter seems to provide a better conclusion to the article.
 * Done.
 * I think there's an FA here, but I'm not sure it will emerge over the course of this nomination. Keep at it, though - this is an excellent start. Steve Smith (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll get to the rest of the points tomorrow (I hope). Bsimmons 666  (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you like to see regarding additional context? I tried to add context in weak areas that I could see during my copypedit, but is there anywhere else the article could be improved? Bsimmons 666  (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I think we're there, though I also think it could still benefit from one more solid copyedit from somebody hitherto uninvolved. Steve Smith (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, someone else added that link since the FAC started. (fixed) Bsimmons 666  (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is a comprehensive and well-written article on an interesting period of American history. I have only one minor niggle. I'd prefer it if the Background section started with the more accurate "World War I, in which Great Britain and its allies fought the German Empire ...", but I suppose I can live with the current version. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or how about "In the last years of World War I, in which the United States fought..."? Steve Smith (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't serious. Just my idea of a joke. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't serious either; mine was intended to take a shot at the Yanks for sitting most of the thing out (though, it being World War I, that might make them the smart ones). Steve Smith (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.