Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Borah/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2016.

William Borah

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... William Borah, a senator whose tenure might be dismissed as more eccentric than effective, were it not for the gripping hand he had on U.S. foreign policy for most of the crucial interwar period. He may still have influence today, a commenter on a comments page elsewhere mentioned his foreign policy as what he would like to see. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- Browsing new nomination statements as I do, and never having heard of Borah, I was intrigued by the bit about foreign policy someone would like to see. Spotting a couple of things in the lead I wanted to change, I decided to recuse from coord duties and copyedit/review, at least in part. For now I've just gone through the beginning and end, and obviously won't declare a position until/unless I get through the rest. In the meantime:
 * In the lead, I altered "one of the greats" as it seems a bit strong for WP but there may be a better way still of getting his importance across while keeping the language neutral.
 * Moving forward to the Assessment/Legacy section, these can be quite a challenge to get right but it seemed balanced and thoughtfully organised to me. One thing though: "cited as evidence of naiveté in those who believe in the power of pure diplomacy" -- can I confirm we mean the naiveté "of" those, implying that Borah is of that mindset? If so I think the word change might make it clearer.
 * I've found that a difficult passage. The implication is that Borah, in seeking to talk with Hitler, was of that mindset, but I'm reluctant to imply that Borah really felt that way.  We have this comment, second-hand, contained in what is a laudatory tribute to Borah. That doesn't mean he actually felt the way Rumsfeld portrays him as feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's it first up, I look forward to others' comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Following up, I doubt that I'll have the time to complete a full review but I'm satisfied with the responses to my initial comments and wouldn't wish closure of the nom to be held up on my account if consensus is achieved among the other reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment The "final years" section raised some questions for me. I guess there is a sense that it has been blown out of proposrtion in certain quarters, so maybe, understandably, you did not want to dwell on it too much.
 * "Borah was unwilling to back large-scale immigration by Jews from Germany, feeling that was impractical with millions of Americans unemployed." "unwilling to back" - Could you not just say that he "opposed" Jewish immigration, or is it more nuanced than that? How much significance did his opposition have (I think this is important, for example in relation to the spectacular failure of the Evian Conference, with its resulting boost to Nazi propaganda)?
 * None at Evian, Borah never went to Europe. As the Republicans were a minority in the Senate, his formal influence was not high.  He reflected a feeling in the country that Roosevelt had to reckon with.  He opposed large scale immigration at a time of unemployment.  That it was Jewish immigration was incidental.  I'll make that change.


 * "By 1938, Borah was speaking out against Hitler's failure to end persecutions." (same paragraph). "failure to end" - This could be taken to imply that he had expected Hitler to strive to end persecutions(?!) (If so, this seems bizarre enough that it should be spelled out.) However... could you just say "continuing persecutions" (or something stronger than that) instead?
 * That change as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't finished it yet, but I think this is one of the best articles I've read so, cheers! zzz (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "McKenna noted, "It was fortuitous that the march of events prevented Borah from joining those pacifists and liberals ... who trudged up the hill to Berchtesgaden to lay before the Fuehrer their plans for world peace"." (end of same paragraph). Revealing the depths of my ignorance, I am surprised to discover that "pacifists and liberals" went to meet with Hitler. Could you provide an article link, or a footnote perhaps, to elaborate on that? [Adding... immediately after posting this, I just realised, he probably is just referring to Chamberlain.]
 * I cut out the actual names to focus on Borah. One was George Lansbury. Chamberlain never went to Berchtesgaden.  Thank you for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am indeed trying to put the whole German thing in context. Remember that Borah died in 1940, and for him the name "Hitler" conveyed something rather different than it does to us.  If someone said today, if only Borah could have talked to Hitler, the whole war could have been avoided, we'd think he was mad. And that is the light in which Borah's comment is being presented. So I'm trying to be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, and a few more minor/trivial points:
 * Haywood trial: "The first was a trial for conspiracy in the murder of ex-governor Steunenberg" - perhaps call it a joint trial; if it was not, is it singular?
 * "Borah urged the jury to convict" - unnecessary, since we know he worked for the prosecution
 * Progressive insurgent: "Borah stated that their alleged actions compared to the murder of Steunenberg" - perhaps specify the purported similarity and/or how the comparison was taken.
 * "Republican leaders had heard that Borah was an attorney for corporations, who had prosecuted labor leaders; ... In fact, Borah supported unions" - possibly this is a bit vaguely worded. zzz (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Got all these. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments
 * I was really happy to see this article on the FAC list. Borah's a fascinating figure and I've enjoyed reading your article about him. I have only a few nitpicks:
 * "...he studied alongside students who would become prominent, like William Allen White and Fred Funston." I think "like" here has too many possible meanings. "including" might be better.
 * Link tuberculosis?
 * "blew up with dynamite" could maybe just be "dynamited"?
 * Maybe link United States presidential election, 1916?
 * "...an invalid Wilson refused any compromise." "Invalid" here, although I know what you mean, is confusing (could be read as "very ill" or "not valid".) Maybe "ailing" or "bedridden" (if the latter is accurate).
 * "Borah did agree with Hoover on one issue..." This sentence is confusing, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
 * That's all. Great article, good luck with the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was wandering the stacks of GMU's library, and wondered why there were so many books on Borah. I've made those changes, sometimes using my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That all looks great, Wehwalt, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Borah.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've swapped that for another image and cleaned up the form on that one. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
I confess I'd not heard of Borah. I missed the peer review, so my comments are a bit more detailed than I normally provide at FAC, but they are for the most part fairly trivial:
 * Lead


 * It seems almost too rivial to mention, but he was 71, not 70, in 1936
 * Childhood and early career


 * "not a good student" and "eager learner" in consecutive lines is a trifle puzzling.
 * Add "to train for the ministry" after: "... academy at Enfield"?
 * Date (year) of expulsion/running away?
 * "In his teenage years, he became interested in the law..." – I'd say "In his later teens..." He was 16 when he went to the academy, and presumably older when he ran away.
 * "finally accepting his son's ambition" suggests a degree of reluctance that you haven't previously indicated
 * "The bar examination was rudimentary and Borah passed it in September 1887, going into partnership with his brother-in-law." Two distinct events, therefore needing something between "1887" and "going", e.g. "before".
 * You might mention somewhere that Lyons was a pretty small place. References to "the mayor" and "city attorney" give the impression of a metropolis, but I see from our article that its population in 1880 was around 500. Little wonder Borah wanted to get away.
 * Idaho lawyer


 * I'm not sure that, in the circumstances you describe, Borah can be said to have "gained" the dismissal of the case agaist his client. Rather, he benefitted from a quirky judge.
 * Senate contender


 * "Borah also involved himself in politics". In the previous section you said that he "prospered in law and politics", so you don't need this here.
 * "an unapologetic return to the Republican Party" – did being a "silver Republican" mean he had been outside the party?
 * Yes, I think so. They walked out of the 1896 convention, ran candidates against the Republican one, and did not heed the party platform. I'm closely paraphrasing the source at this point in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "In 1902, Idaho Republicans elected a governor, the state's only House member, and a large majority in the legislature." Can you explain what this means? Does it mean that Republican candidates were elected to the state's governership, to the state's House seat, and formed a large majorityu in the state legislature? If so, this needs clearer wording.
 * but then the other candidates backed Heyburn" → "but the other two candidates withdrew and backed Heyburn"
 * "acclimation" → "acclamation" (unless it's some peculiar mid-west method of signifying approval)
 * Haywood trial, lumber accusations


 * "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time to participate in two major trials, one of which boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution, and the other, with Borah as the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison." Too much info for one sentence, and some awkwardness in the phrasing. Suggested split: "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time before taking his seat to participate in two major trials. One of these boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution;   the other, in which he was the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison."
 * I'm slightly concerned about a 200-word verbatim extract from the trial transcript, which seems unnecessarily long. Suggest paraphrasing the mushy stuff at the beginning into a few words and beginning thje quote at: "I saw murder...".

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've dealt with the above, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for the delay in competing this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll resume today and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

...and here's the rest:
 * Progressive insurgent


 * "the fiery Ohio senator..." possibly POV/non-neutral?
 * No, Roosevelt was after someone who could outflame Foraker.


 * "in 1972, after the death of Roosevelt, Borah, and most of the soldiers..." That should be "deaths", and given the intervals (53 years for Teddy, 32 for Borah, perhaps make it "long after"
 * "progressive": in view of the different understandings of this word when used in its political sense, a pipe-link here would be helpful. In the lead, too.
 * pipelink "primary" → Primary election, and perhaps "convention" to Political convention
 * "sent 80 Republican legislators out of 86 to Boise" – not entirely clear to less-aware readers, so perhaps: "sent 80 Republicans to the state legislature out of 86..."
 * Wilson years


 * First sentence: the "both" is awkwardly placed. As this is a new section you might begin: "After the 1913 elections, the Republicans  lost the presidency with Wilson's inauguration, and went into the minority in the Senate".
 * Link Panama Canal, and maybe say "completion" rather than construction, as this had been going on for decades
 * I've adjusted the text to make things clearer.


 * "completely out of it" – "completely" is unnecessary
 * I think it emphasizes the strength of Borah's feeling.


 * "infringements against Americans by British forces." "Infringements", eh? What did our boys get up to?
 * I thought you would raise that. Regrettably the source does  not say.


 * "Reunion was not achieved": My understanding is that the 1916 Progressive convention nominated Roosevelt again, but he declined to run and pledged support to Hughes. if that is so, then reunion was largely achieved.
 * Yes, but in between those broad facts is much. See 1916 Progressive National Convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the text to explain more.
 * World War and Versailles treaty


 * "Gooding narrowly won Brady's seat, with Idaho's two senators giving the Republicans a 49–47 majority". Not really: any two Republicans could claim the same, and the Idaho seats were defended rather than won, so I would severely prune this sentence.
 * "the principle of a league": You've not mentioned the League of Nations previously, only an allusion to "a postwar organization to assure peace" so I think you neeed to expand a bit here.
 * Harding and Coolidge years


 * "eventually strongly" – adjacent adverbs always a problem
 * Perhaps a line to explain B's objection to Taft as chief justice?
 * "remained" → "were still in office", otherwise the sentence is unclear
 * (Sidebar: I'll add that Coolidge comment to my slim collection of Mr Taciturn's witticisms)
 * "Salmon Levinson, who had formulated the plan..." – what plan?
 * Hoover and FDR


 * Pipe-link "lame duck" → Lame-duck session
 * I think I'd omit "looms" from the caption
 * 1936 presidential campaign and final years


 * "utterly disgusted" – just "disgusted" will do (the neutral voice)
 * I think it helps with the near occasion of Hitler later in the section, to balance that.


 * "Borah issued a statement far more critical of Britain and France than of Germany." Briefly, on what grounds?
 * Death


 * The first sentence seems a mite unpunctuated
 * Was the Idaho ceremony truly a "state" funeral? I thought that "state" in that expression meant the whole nation, the United States
 * Will all readers know that T.R. means Roosevelt?
 * Marriage and family


 * "According to one family friend, "everybody called her 'Aurora Borah Alice.' " Clarify that "her" refers to Longworth, and also mention that she was TR's daughter.
 * I suggest you remove the "clear" template, which creates a large white space much more distracting than allowing the image to leak into the next section.
 * Sites and memorials


 * "At the University of Idaho in Moscow..." That, without explanation, will raise many eyebrows. (Not that Moscow, surely?)
 * Appraisal and legacy


 * V. minor quibble: the first three paragraphs all begin "Borah's..."
 * "Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has referred to the quote in at least three of his columns..." Can you specify which "quote"? Does this refer to Borah's "comment", which is not presented as a quote?

Superb job, needs a little final attention and I look forward to supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Support, per comments/responses above. Fascinating career, but I doubt I'd have voted for him. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support. He was certainly a unique character.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Another quality article, on a personality I never heard of, riding the top of a train, and jumping from it to the platform, - thank you. Minor points only:

Infobox: do we have to mention "Bill" as a nickname for any William?
 * Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Headers and structure:
 * Can we (less American) have FDR spelt out?
 * It is only in the heading, where I sought brevity.
 * Brevity is fine, but what if a reader not familiar with US abbreviations gets no idea what the section is about? I'd prefer "Roosevelt".


 * Any way to have marriage before death?
 * It is mentioned in the text, I think that is the best I can do. I don't like jumping around in time.


 * How about legacy first, then sites and memorials?
 * I think the legacy has to end it because of the blockquote.

Idaho lawyer
 * "a union that produced no children" is probably fine, but makes a child just a product, no?
 * Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

So much for now, will return later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Later is now: All fine, lovely reading. Please give an alt to all images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt text is not a FA requirement and I do not feel I do those well, so I leave the matter alone. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, with thanks for the changes and explanations. For the alts for images, I try to win RexxS ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review
 * The link in fn 2 is dead.
 * You're not consistent with "pp.204–15" v. "pp.204–215". I think either is OK, as long as they all match.
 * Everything else checks out. Quality sources, sufficiently cited, well-formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source review, I've fixed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment
 * Is it possible to replace the dead link in ref #90 as well? (I searched, but couldn't find a replacement) Or just remove the link, if the ressource is unlikely to be restored - a credible offline source is perfectly fine. Aside from that minor oversight, (fixed) I completely agree with the source review. GermanJoe (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems adequately sourced to the first article, so I've removed the deadlink and the third one as well. I dislike cite strings, but sometimes they happen.  Doesn't seem necessary here.  Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  02:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.