Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln/archive1

Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln

 * Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

After several months of deep diving and a couple years of tinkering, I am reasonably sure that this is the most comprehensive account that exists anywhere of Whitman's lectures. I think it's ready for FAC. Happy to hear any feedback. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review. My inputs here may be a bit patchy.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First sentence: how about 'The American poet Walt Whitman gave a series of lectures on ex-US president Abraham Lincoln between 1879 and 1890.'
 * In any event, use 'between ...', not "from ..."
 * "The lectures began as a benefit for Whitman". What does this mean?
 * tweaked the phrasing a bit Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "several poems in the president's memory." Should probably be 'President'.
 * "the 1855 release of Leaves of Grass. The brief volume released in 1855". Do we need telling the year of release twice?
 * "sometimes in close quarters." Does that work in USvar? BritVar would have 'at close quarters'.
 * It doesn't sound *wrong* to me, but "at close quarters" sounds better.
 * "The historian Stephen B. Oates argued that". It is usual to present author's opinions etc in the present tense. (Which I find odd, but no onw pays any attention to me.)
 * I pay attention to you!


 * "Whitman worked his New York Sun article into a readable format." Why was the version printed in the Sun not readable?
 * Suggest linking benefit.
 * "the lectures were usually attended only by those who could afford tickets." Any chance of rephrasing this. Especially in the light of the first part of the sentence.


 * "in Ford's Theatre upon the night of the assassination." "upon"! Really?
 * well, not really
 * "An ad for his Elkton, Maryland, lecture". I think 'advertisement' would be more encyclopedic.
 * Notes: it is not normal to give page numbers in line, that is what citations are for.
 * I agree, but I think it works effectively to provide the link to the book in the note, rather than adding the name and the citation (I try to avoid the citation within the explanatory footnote when possible). I've done it before (for instance, here), but if you don't think it works am happy to change both.
 * Bleh! On one level I am not too fussed, but it definitely is not "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", so I think it needs to go.
 * *fine*. I'll do it. But not because you asked. Because UndercoverClassicist did below.

Welcome back. It is good to see another lovingly researched article on Whitman. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sources contemporary to the lecture are similarly conflicted." I think you mean 'in conflict', or perhaps 'Sources contemporary to the lecture similarly conflicted'.
 * Link pit.
 * "paid Whitman the $350 when he reached New York". If you are going to say "the $350" you need to introduce it.
 * "While Whitman had not seen Lincoln's assassination, he interviewed Peter Doyle". How or why would Doyle's account be useful?
 * Thanks,, I think I've addressed all of these points through edits. Let me know if there's anything else or something not adequately handled. Much appreciated, as always. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "They centered around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln". Maybe 'the assassination of Lincoln', as he has now been introduced in full in the previous sentence.


 * I think removing "in the President's memory" is a retrograde step. A reader is liable to be left wondering why Whitman read out some random poems and what the "such as" alludes to.
 * I'm not sure where you mean.
 * Ok. You have changed "in the president's memory" to "in tribute to the fallen President". Fair enough.


 * Lead: "sometimes included readings of poems"; article: "Whitman brought a "reading book" with him to the lectures that contained fifteen poems he read at their conclusion." Seems contradictory, as the latter implies that poems were read at every lecture, and "sometimes" only at a minority.
 * The contradiction is still there.
 * You are, as always, correct. I am currently knee deep (again) in sourcing and basically, we don't know because we don't have complete accounts of every lecture. Thinking of the best way to phrase it, but leaning towards "usually" with an EFN.
 * Flattery will get you everywhere. I wasn't sure if it was that or contradictory sources. I hesitate to comment without having read the sources, but yeah, something like 'usually' in the lead and article and an efn commenting on an absence of evidence ruling out a categorical 'always' sounds appropriate.
 * Or, you could go with " Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
 * That's actually what I was going for with the several contradictions that have been pointed out here and below :P Whitman would like things not lining up!

A couple of responses to your responses and three new points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Think I've responded to all the above Eddie891 Talk Work 22:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've gone ahead and used "often", which is what the Encyclopedia of Whitman uses as well. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * added alts. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * File:Abraham_Lincoln_by_Von_Schneidau,_1854.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added tag, was definitively published by 1896 ... Eddie891 Talk Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

UC
No promises on timing, but I'll try to get to this one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A cracking article: most of these things are minor and largely matters of taste, and I am perfectly happy if we end up disagreeing on them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Image captions shouldn't have a period/full stop unless they are complete sentences.
 * Seems like most of the images here were in need of full stops rather than having extra ones, unless I'm mistaken. Should be added
 * I still see some extras. For example, the first image has the caption : that's not a full sentence (it doesn't have a verb), so shouldn't have a full stop/period. The second likewise. The programme does need two full stops, because the second sentence is complete (even if the first isn't), but the announcement and the ticket should not have them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, cut them. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I get a sense in the lead that we're really talking about one lecture, that he gave or tweaked multiple times, but I'm not sure it's really clear either way.
 * thinking on
 * Does the revised phrasing work better? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a problem with : I think the issue is that lecture can refer both to the text and to the performance. Perhaps we could generally use the plural ("Whitman's lectures were generally well received"), but also make clear that they were also generally the same as each other? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and replaced most instances of "lectures" with "deliveries [of the lecture]" or something generally similar. How does that work? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : we need at least one comma here; I'd stick one after 1854 and consider another after (right). Mind you, you could also delete right, given that there's only two images.
 * Done the commas, kept 'right' I think the consistency is nice, though not wedded to it.
 * Not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : suggest something like "never spoke" or "were never introduced"; if I'd seen someone at close quarters, I'd feel I was lying if I said I'd never met them.
 * I think never met is the best description, because I want to avoid the implication that Lincoln was particularly aware of Whitman. Cut "at close quarters" because I don't think it's necessary and might confuse more.
 * I think the current framing works.
 * : minor, but we might be channelling Whitman's emotions or WP:PUFFERY a bit with fallen.
 * cut the word
 * : do we know anything more about this lecture or its circumstances – and why he then seems to have done no more for nearly three decades?
 * Not... really. I'd assume Whitman would have struggled to find respectable places that would let him (or want him to) lecture there. He also may have gotten distracted with Leaves of Grass & similar poetry work. Added a date and place to the lecture, but I don't think it's worth going into much more detail, and the secondary sources don't talk a lot about his lecturing efforts in the decades that followed, unfortunately.
 * : something's gone awry here.
 * revised
 * : I'd give Whitman's date of death here, as many readers will otherwise go to look it up and lose their flow.
 * added
 * : the double comparative is awkward: suggest losing the more.
 * cut
 * Can we have the dollar amounts contextualised somehow, if only via the inflation template, perhaps in footnotes?
 *  working on
 * I think the problem might be that inflation doesn't tell the whole story, so I'm not sure if it would be really helpful. For instance, for the dollar ticket,  gives us 33. Still doesn't, I think, make it really clear how innaccesible the lectures were for most people, because it was just so much less common to have spending money as well.
 * I think of the inflation template as a last resort: when I can, I much prefer to put in a more reckonable figure as context. Could we find, for instance, some sense of what an average person's pay was during this period, or a sense of what else you could get for a dollar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just removed it. The available sourcing is super murky on what people *could* have afforded versus *wanted* to spend money on, and I don't think we lose out on much by instead saying that the lectures were generally only attended by members of high society, instead. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We introduce practically everyone outside the table, but then don't introduce new people within it; I'd nail WP:NOTPAPER to the mast and introduce them all, personally.
 * Working on
 * Introduced all, but grouped the authors as just 'authors', if that works?
 * : a bit of a contentious one, but I'd generally expect the past tense for scholarship to cover broadly historic views (in other words, people who knew him); if we mean broadly current views, I'd expect the present. See later with Gregory Eiselein too.
 * Should be all done
 * : Demodocus is only metaphorically divine. If you feel it appropriate, you could add some context here: Demodocus tells the glorious but tragic story of Troy, leading Odysseus - who was there, and is listening in disguise - to give away his identity by being moved to weep.
 * Hm, I cut some stuff to hew a little closer to the sourcing. I think more context would go beyond what the sourcing says.
 * Perhaps fair enough (though of course there's plenty of sources on Demodocus, even if not specifically on Whitman and Demodocus): I think the quote gives a nice idea of what Whitman might have been thinking. MOS:CONFORM and MOS:& would advise replacing the ampersand with "and", though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * done Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : this is a rhetorical commonplace known as (a) captatio benevolentiae: you might wish to get that term in there.
 * I agree, but since the sourcing doesn't use the phrase am not inclined to add
 * That's a reasonable call, though our sources don't have the same audience and editorial considerations as we do (they don't necessarily have to be understandable to a broad audience, for example, or to follow other aspects of the FA criteria): there's plenty of parts of the MoS and other guidelines that draw a distinction between articles being built on sources and articles looking exactly like those sources. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I'll go through the sourcing and see if I can justify to myself making the connection more explicit. But if none of them draw the connection between downplaying and catching goodwill (though that's definitely what it is), I'd say it's too much of a stretch. Will get back to you on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it there. I'd lean against adding a link. But if you feel super strongly I will do it. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * : I think MOS:CONFORM would like us to decapitalise that A, with apologies to Whitman.
 * Done. Whitman would hate the idea of conforming...
 * Suggest introducing briefly who Anacreon was; one of these things in the list of poets is quite unlike the others.
 *  Working on
 * Should be done
 * : I'm not sure revised is quite the right word for "changed someone else's work": "made his own alterations to"?
 * done
 * : the image to the right seems to suggest that they cost fifty cents; could that be put in and contextualised? I imagine many readers will see that picture and be slightly confused, as that doesn't immediately appear a lot of money today.
 * : may wish to wikilink grace notes, hymn and Olympian.
 * Done
 * : appropriately where "O Captain, My Captain" is involved: could very be removed or replaced with something more precise?
 * cut
 * : antecedent doesn't match pronoun.
 * Fixed, hopefully
 * Note C: a long note with lots of citations written out in prose. Suggest moving these to footnotes, as has been done for the NYT: e.g. Loving writes that Carnegie was not in the box that he paid for.[footnote: Loving 1999, p. 450].
 * Done
 * : I don't think we can use emphasizing ("making more apparent or obvious") like this.
 * Agreedm went with represetnign
 * : less ambiguous as regularly delivering the lecture (otherwise, did he deliver it regularly or did it regularly become vital?).
 * Good point, done that
 * What's the being edited out or summarised by in the final quotation?
 * literally, "fame". Blake says something along the lines of "the lecture was a performance of fame and was vital to his permanent achievement of that state." (Not a direct quote, but I just read the relevant passage an hour or so ago and that's exactly what Blake is saying).


 * Thanks for taking a look, I'll respond throughout the week. Currently taking a deep dive into the sourcing... Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded above, a few I'm still working on. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for taking a look. I have responded to most of your queries directly, a few questions. Not sure what to do to make the prices more understandable. I might be able to dig up something like average salaries in NYC in the late 19th c. for comparison? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I've suggested exactly the same thing further up: another good approach is to find something else that you can get for about the same amount, or much less (for example, if a dollar would pay your rent for a month, say as much). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @UndercoverClassicist, I think I've responded to your points above. I think the best way to avoid all the confusion over the ticket price is to say the opposite, which is equally true. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: looks good to me; I'm perfectly happy to disagree on a few issues and you've made a sensible case in every instance where we do. Nice work and a fascinating article. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "Whitman, who had long aspired to be a lecturer, gave his first lecture in New York City's Steck Hall on April 14 the following year. Over the course of the next eleven years, he gave the lecture at least ten more times," To vary the wording, can se say, "gave his first talk" or use another synonym?
 * Done
 * "that the poet Richard Watson Gilder also supported the idea" probably Glider is important to this tale not as a poet, but as an influential editor.
 * Changed description
 * "John Hay". Perhaps the significance of Hay's attendance could be explained in that he was one of Lincoln's secretaries and was in the course of publishing (with John Nicolay) a major Lincoln biography. As Hay knew Lincoln intimately, Hay's presence likely gave Whitman nerves.
 * Yes, I think a source goes into more detail about the importance of that. As long as it isn't Epstein, I will find and incorporate.
 * I think it was. But I added Hay's most relevant connections.
 * Some of the groups of references are out of numerical order. Did you intend that?
 * Should be ordered
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk)
 * Got one point to respond to in more depth, the rest should be done Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , all your points should be addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Is there anything else? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Chris

 * "the physician Silas Weir Mitchell attributed this paralysis was attributed" - can we avoid this repetition?
 * cut the last two words


 * "Silas Weir Mitchell attributed [...] and in May he gave up on plans for delivering the lecture that year" - it wasn't Mitchell who gave up on these plans
 * Clarified


 * "Ad for Whitman's Lincoln lecture" - "ad" is a bit slangy, can we use the proper word?
 * Done


 * "However, he also told" => "However, Whitman also told" (the most recent man mentioned was Carnegie, so "he" is ambiguous
 * Done


 * "Whitman's lecture was intended [...] They were delivered" - subject jumps from singular to plural
 * Fixed


 * That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, All your points should be addressed. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Failed ping of Eddie891 Talk Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review: Pass (no spot checks)
Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography
 * I don't supposer Edward Whitley (environmentalist) is the co-author of Whitman in Context.
 * Unfortunately not, this is a Lehigh University professor.
 * Recommend Wikilinking Philip Callow, Charles Glicksburg, Jerome Loving, James E. Miller, David Nasaw, William Pannapacker, and Horace Traubel.
 * Buinicki book: Iowa is not capitalized.
 * Callow book: Internet Archive link is broken
 * Larson book: Google Books link goes to a particular page. I recommend the shorter link to the overall entry.
 * Same comment for the Pannapacker book. Recomment this link instead.
 * Miller book: the book with that ISBN was published 2006, but there was maybe an audiobook version published in 2007. Which are you citing?
 * Assuming you mean Nasaw. It's the 2006 edition
 * Grier book: The Google Books link goes to volume 3. Is this a source listing for an entire multi-volume work or just volume 3?
 * Some of the ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not. I recomment standardizing their appearance.

Aside from the comments above, the sources are all formatted properly and complete. The sources are all published by academic publishers, written by academic authors, and/or held by academic libraries, so they all seem legit. Given how many of them there are, and how many different authors there are, the source list seems to represent a reasonable breadth of scholarship. Many sources are reasonably new and a few are older as well. Many are focused right on the subject and others are pretty close to being focused right on it.
 * Thanks for having a look, I think I've addressed all of these. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I notice Glicksberg is still not Wikilinked. Is that not the right Charles Glicksberg or did you miss that one? And you were right about Nasaw vs. Miller. Other than the very minor matter of Wikilinking Glicksberg or not, I see all my comments above are addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just linked him, It's because I used  instead of   Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

I'll look at these in-line citations next. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Aside from the comments above, I find the citations listed in the References section to be formatted properly. One of my comments above is about the inconsistency of formatting, which is the largest issue, I think. The sources listed here but not in the Bibliography all seem reliable and so they further broaden the breadth I acknowledged above in the Bibliography section. There are a few primary sources in the References section, but they serve only to complement and reinforce secondary sources, so their use seems aligned with WP:PST. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In footnote C, why use sfn for Krieg and Kaplan, but harvnb for Nasaw? I think the footnote would read more clearly if converted to sfn.
 * Just a mistake, should be standardized
 * Why are some of the cited books and academic articles written out in the Bibliography with short citations in the References section, while others are written out in their entirety in the References section? According to WP:FACR 2C, you need consistency, and I recommend going with the short format for all citations with page numbers.
 * Should have gotten the rest of the journals into the bibliography.
 * Aside from the above, I think the Moyne citation should be more page-specific than the current 10-page range.
 * Citation 6 for "CENSORED": It appears that the page of the online exhibit you are citing is called "Banned, Burned, and Bowlderized". Perhaps that should be the web page title, you should move "CENSORED: Wielding the Red Pen" to the website name, and you should make University of Virginia the publisher.
 * Done
 * Pannapacker 1998: I recommend adding an archive link.
 * I think the Griffin citation should be formatted like the Pannapacker 1998 citation.
 * Same for the Eiselein citation.
 * Added archives and format
 * Citation 57 "Notes": the link brings you to page 219, but you want 211, so I suggest switching to this link. Same for the archive link.
 * Changed the actual link, archive.org tells me that the link 'doesn't exist', so can't changei t.
 * Is there a relevant web page to link for the Moyne article and/or the Walt Whitman Review?
 * No, has not been digitized. It's the old Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, but we have no wikipedia article for it :(
 * Same for the 1887 Washington Post article. Perhaps newspapers.com?
 * Added proquest ID, that's the best I can find
 * Citation 70 for Whitman's speech notes: This should mention the Walt Whitman Papers in the Charles E. Feinberg Collection, of which this document is a part.
 * I'm not sure what change you want here. The blog itself isn't a part of the collection? We have a link to the collection in external links
 * After your last round of edits, the citation in question is now number 71: Whitman, Walt. "'Death of Abraham Lincoln,' notes". Library of Congress. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Because this is a manuscript item in the Feinberg Collection at the Library of Congress, I think the collection name should be included. Otherwise, the citation suggests to me that it is for an article published by a publication called Library of Congress, which is not the case. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Amended the citation. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Golden 1988: the original link isn't working for me. You? The archive link works fine.
 * Works for me?
 * Pannapacker 1998 could use an author-name Wikilink.
 * Done
 * Is Arthur Golden the same one as Golden 1988?
 * I don't think so, no.
 * In note C, there appears to be an extra space between Blake and a comma.
 * Done
 * Thanks for taking a look,, I have responded to all your points above except the one about narrowing down the page range of Moyne, which I will specify as soon as I can get to the library and look at the book. The Walt Whitman Review articles are not, to my knowledge, digitized. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've got one lingering comment above (formerly citation 70, now citation 71). Everything else is addressed, except for adding a page number to Moyne, which I trust you'll do later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dugan Murphy, I've responded to that point and just specified Moyne to two pages. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Splendid. I'd say this nomination passes my source review. I haven't done any spot checks, but otherwise, these sources and citations look great. I have an FAC of my own that is in need of reviewers. If you are willing to chime in, it would be a big help. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance if you make time to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)