Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Hawes


 * 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 18:13, 25 August 2007.

Richard Hawes
Article passed GA review with no suggestions for improvement on July 11, 2007. The reviewer recommended an FA nomination. The article underwent a peer review by WikiProject Biography that garnered little feedback and closed on August 13, 2007. I hope to eventually include this article as a supporting article for a featured topic on the Confederate government of Kentucky. User: (talk • contribs • count) 16:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe this article to be well done, as comprehensive as possible on the subject, and well referenced. The article is the epitome of meeting the featured article criteria. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓  18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am never one to critize a well-referenced article, but this one seems to go nuts on the footnotes in places. Almost EVERY SENTANCE has a footnote.  In places where 3-4 references are used in a single paragraph, is it possible that some of these facts exist in multiple references, and the redundant ones could be condensed and/or eliminated?  For example, consider:
 * "Hawes began his political career in 1828 when he was elected as a Whig to represent Clark County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives.[3] As a member of the state militia, Hawes saw limited service in the Black Hawk War in 1832, and returned to his position in the Kentucky House in 1834.[7][3] He was an unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Representative in 1834, but was elected to represent Henry Clay's "Ashland District" three years later, serving from March 4, 1837 to March 3, 1841.[1][3] He then moved to Paris, Kentucky in 1843 and continued the practice of law.[8]"  All sentances BUT the last one are referenced to note 3; couldn't we just put notes 1, 3, 7, and 8 at the END of the paragraph? In general, it makes for a more pleasant, and nothing in this paragraph is controversial.  Every paragraph is like this.  In MOST cases, except where a specific sentance is likely to be challenged, or where a direct quote is offered, its OK to reference at the end of the paragraph; it will condense the number of references and improve readability.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good question, and one I'm not sure I can answer in terms of Wikipedia policy. I know for sure that if every sentence in the paragraph comes from a single source, you can cite the source at the end of the paragraph. I've never seen multiple sources done, as you suggest above. The GA reviewer that passed Happy Chandler made the following comment: "Presumably you'll be taking this article to FAC in the near future. If so, then building up your citations to the 'almost every sentence' point certainly won't hurt anything." I've kinda let that be my guiding principle. FWIW, I agree that your solution improves readability, but I think it's just as likely that if I condense the references, I'll have someone complaining that I don't have this-or-that cited properly. If other reviewers agree with you, or if you can reference other FAs that have used this style of citation, I'd be happy to condense the references. If we get some closure on this issue one way or another, could you support the nomination? User: (talk • contribs • count) 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen articles done multiple ways in regards to citations. I personally believe that the way the references in this article are cited should be the standard. If a reader wants to check the veracity of one point, they should be able to check the reference for that particular statement.  If the reader has to check multiple sources to figure out which one is the source for a particular statement, it becomes difficult to check an article for accuracy. I have personally ran into this problem when reading statements made in articles that I just didn't believe to be true. According to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources, there is nothing wrong with inline citations.  Check the example on the page. If multiple sources are referenced for one particular statement, that's not a bad thing, it allows readers to check multiple sources if there is a statement the reader finds particularly questionable. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk  ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓  14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the current climate on WP, this style of citation is probably the safest bet. People who do not like it have to just look at the culture here and realize that eventually every article will have to do this, otherwise every sentence or paragraph is subject to summary deletion by assorted POV-pushers and general trouble makers.--Filll 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the tone of that statement. I will fill this page, if you would like, of diffs where I personally request a better job be done of referencing an article.  I don't have to prove myself or my motives to you or anyone else.  The fact remains that there is a happy balance to be made between readibility and verfiability.  I have never, not once ever, in any situation ever even once seen someone request a level of referencing that this particular article displays.  Not one editor has ever said that every sentance in an article should have a footnote after it.  To do as you imply is simply being obnoxious about making a WP:POINT.  So I don't appreciate that you put me into a category with "POV-pushers and general trouble makers".  Should an article with NO inline cites be featured?  No.  But neither should an article that overuses footnotes simply to make a WP:POINT.  It is possible to unambiguously use footnotes and still use them in a better way than this article does.  I personally think this article is one of the best I have ever read.  It is well written, and verifiable, and comprehensive.  However, I still have reservations because I feel that the referencing can be better organized... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  00:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize in advance for getting snippy up there. I still feel that requireing references and inline cites is not inconsistant with also requireing them to be organized well and not littered willy-nilly everywhere in the text.  Please read When to cite especially the section titled Text-source relationship.  Citing after every sentance should only be required where material is "Particularly contentious".  I see nothing here that is "particularly contentious" and so I really don't see the need to overcite.  Oh and I know, so please read Per with regard to my refering to the above document. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with citing every sentence. In fact, if article is tightly written, it is the perfect way to cite. I would urge you Acdixon to discount these comments; I don't see how they will help your article. Having said that, this is nothing more than my personal opinion. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems we've hit on a hot topic here. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:VPP if anyone else is interested. I'd like to monitor that discussion until it dies down a bit before I attempt to make significant changes regarding this issue. That OK with you Jayron32? User: (talk • contribs • count) 12:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a consensus might get reached shortly on the village pump, so I'm hoping that we can soon move on with the FA nom. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓  17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support A tightly worded, well-done, well referenced article.--Filll 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I still think it is overcited; however given the option between an overcited article and an undercited one, I suppose this is preferable. The best case would be a correctly cited one, however this is really a small issue to continue to hold up over.  You now have my full support. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  01:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jayron32. This is an issue I will try to continue to clarify in my own mind so that I can do a better job of citing things in the future. User: (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Not really knowledgeable to comment on its accuracy or factual balance, but from where I stand it's well referenced, reads nicely and is comprehensive. Would normally expect something on a modern figure like this to be a good deal longer, but I suppose its current size is more likely to be read. Good work. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.