Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hayden English/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, 6 January 2014 (UTC).

William Hayden English

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a significant expansion and passing a GA review, I believe it meets the criteria. English was an Indiana politician of the middle nineteenth century who made two brief appearances in the national scene: in the 1850s, during the Kansas-Nebraska debates, and in 1880, as the Democrats' nominee for Vice President. -- Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "He was elected that October and joined the 33rd Congress when it convened in Washington in March 1853" - source?
 * I cited the election being in October. That the Congress convened in March isn't explicitly stated in the source, but they did convene in March following every presidential election. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948." - source?
 * Added a source for this fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
 * Not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have both "pp. 292–96" and "pp. 155–157" - one omits the first digit of the second part of the range, the other doesn't. Either style is fine, it just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I prefer the latter style. I think I found the one that didn't match and fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes the thesis a high-quality reliable source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question. I've never used a thesis before in an FA, but I've never written an FA about such an obscure figure.  A thesis is, I think, as reliable as a journal article. Both are peer-reviewed -- if anything, a thesis is more highly scrutinized, since the student's degree depends on it.  I don't think the one fact for which the thesis is cited is that incredible or weird that it merits excess scrutiny.  I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was recently an extensive discussion here, which raised concerns about the reliability of even PhD dissertations; a master's thesis would seem to be less scrutinized than a PhD, barring exceptional circumstances. However, you're right that in this case it's not citing anything too remarkable, so...let's see if anyone else wants to comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I used a master's thesis once, but as the guy went on to be a notable historian, when Nikki questioned it, I explained why I felt it was reliable (United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898). I think you just have to take each one as it comes and look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaning to Support Very well done. Some quibbles, of which this is the first group.


 * Lede
 * I"d like to see some statement of this guy's significance high up in the lede. A politician from Indiana?  So?  I would give his highest office and the fact he ran for VP in 1880.
 * Done.
 * "working most notably to achieve a compromise on the admission of Kansas as a state in the 1850s." Admitted 1861. Rephrase?
 * Done
 * "English and the presidential nominee" Given that you use the term "nominee" shortly before, suggest change in this phrase to "running mate".
 * Done
 * Family etc.
 * What did Elisha do for a living?
 * The source says he was a legislator and "prominent ... in business circles". I've added words to that effect, but it's not exactly clear what business he was in.
 * "tutelage" What did he study?
 * I meant more like Bright was his political mentor. I'll change it.
 * I think it needs to be made clearer that these were patronage appointments. It isn't a question of the political involvement giving him a leg up in a competition which he "win"s.  He was a Democratic activist, his party won, he got the job, end of story.
 * That's certainly what I meant, though I can see that might not be clear to the modern reader. I changed it, with a link to spoils system.
 * "attended the Democratic National Convention in 1848" needs a link to 1848 DNC. Also, was he a delegate?  Spectator?  Where was it?
 * Linked, with the city (Baltimore). I haven't been able to discover his exact role there.
 * "With the change in parties following Zachary Taylor's election to the presidency," I know what you are talking about, I'd make this a little clearer to ensure the reader does.
 * I think it should be more explicit now.


 * Congress
 * "of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The Act, " wasn't an act yet, and watch capitalization here. Possibly "of what would become the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  The bill …"
 * Good point. Fixed.
 * I am not sure what is meant by "timing of the bill"
 * The source says "...he did not concur with the majority of the committee in the propriety and expediency of bringing forward the measure at that time, thinking its introduction unfortunate and ill-timed...." I took that to mean he didn't disagree popular sovereignty, but didn't think it necessary to disturb the sectional peace by introducing the bill right then. I think the change I made conveys that better.
 * "The speaker, James Lawrence Orr, " you have earlier capped Speaker, and I would agree with that.
 * Done.
 * "known to history as the English Bill" A little highfaluting given that both English and his bill are obscure today.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True. I made the prose less purple. Thanks for the comments! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The remainder:


 * Congress
 * " including Bright (now a Senator), " lower case on Senator, I think.
 * Done.
 * Since English remained in Congress for the remainder of the Buchanan administration, and things were rather dramatic during both sessions of the Thirty-Sixth Congress, I'm curious to know more. Did he take any positions on the major pieces of legislation, such as the Crittenden Compromise, or the Morrill Tariff?  The major battle to elect a Speaker in 1859 in the House is not mentioned, did English have any role in that? The admission of Kansas, as a free state, while English was still in Congress--goes unmentioned.  I think you have to give the reader more detail here, even if English was deeply involved in none of these things.
 * I found nothing except vague assertions that he discouraged secession. (Comm. Bio. p.12) I suppose I could dive into the Congressional Record, but that seems like it approaches original research.
 * We are limited by the limits of the sources. Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Business etc.
 * "He did, however, support Morton's policies" I think, more to the point, what were his views on Lincoln's policies. The reader will be more interested in the latter I dare say.
 * Fixed.
 * "investment strategy to real estate. By 1875, he had already ordered construction of seventy-five houses along what is now English " Hmm. Maybe "investment capital.
 * Good point. Done.
 * "English later added a hotel to the Opera House; both operated until 1948.[24]" Dad or kid?
 * Dad. Fixed.
 * Wannabe Veep
 * " Democratic campaign coffers having been quite depleted." I don't like the quite. Maybe change to, "as Democratic campaign coffers were low".
 * Fixed.
 * A few words of explanation that national elections then were really fought in the midwest and mid-Atlantic as being the states most in play, and that tickets tended to have a New Yorker and a Ohio/Indianan whenever possible. And one reason why H/E expected to win in the South, were at the African-Americans were being disenfranchised.
 * I added a few lines to this effect.
 * "Hancock and English lost the election by only 39,213 popular votes." Well, perhaps "Hancock and English lost the popular vote by only 39,213 ballots." Can anything be said about what he did during the campaign? Did he make any speeches? Did his speech of acceptance say anything interesting?
 * Fixed the wording. As to his participation in the campaign, it seems minimal.  The Commemorative Biography, maddeningly, hardly mentions 1880.  Jordan's bio of Hancock mentions English only a few times, and I added a bit more to the article based on that.  Clancy's book on the 1880 election doesn't add much, either, about English. He was present at the convention, so gave a brief speech accepting the nomination (one paragraph, nothing interesting.  His letter a month later is longer, mostly about Hancock. I'll see what I can glean from it to add to the story. I added some.  It gives a good look at the Democrats' platform.  Don't know why I didn't do that before.
 * It's why it is good we look at each other's 19th century articles, we have some sense of the politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "English resumed his business career after the election." Did he ever give it up? Hobart stayed at work most of the time, sixteen years later, under similar circumstances.
 * I only phrased it this way because he sources mention him shifting control of the opera house to his son. They don't talk about the real estate ventures which, likely, he continued to manage.  As passive investments, he likely didn't need to do much once things were built.
 * Post etc.
 * Did he have kids? And (looking at infobox fields) is his religion not ascertainable?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two kids, mentioned earlier in the article, and one notable grandson, mentioned at the end. Should the kids go in the infobox, too?  I'll add them.  As to religion, I never saw a word about it.  Don't even know if he was baptized.  I'd guess he was vaguely Protestant, like Lincoln and Grant and other midwesterners, only because any other religious affiliation would've been mentioned and would've likely barred him from the VP nomination.  But I'll double-check the sources.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd do that. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback -- the article benefited from another pair of eyes familiar with Gilded Age politics. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know you already supported, but I wanted to follow up on the religion question. None of the sources mention it.  The college he attended is Presbyterian, but that's not necessarily his faith.  He was buried in a non-sectarian cemetery.  His funeral was officiated by a Baptist minister, his cousin, but held in a Masonic Lodge.  I'm going to guess he wasn't a member of any church.  Certainly there isn't enough evidence to add anything to the article about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from Curly Turkey
I'm going to give the article some general feedback—some of it is just my preferences or comments, and not necessarily required for FA, so feel free to disagree with anything.


 * Alt text would be nice for the images
 * Done.
 * "They would have two children": or just "had", if it's now an established fact
 * I like the "would have" language because it indicates that, at that point in the narrative, it's still a future event.
 * "believing that "each organized community ought to be allowed to decide for itself." ": I realize the period is likely in the original quote, but I believe the logic of the sentence demands it be placed outside the quotation marks
 * "promised a "sound currency, of honest money," the restriction": ditto
 * "and a "rigid economy in public expenditure." ": ditto
 * "platform endorsing "a tariff for revenue only." ": ditto
 * I actually thought the MoS dictated the opposite (i.e., periods inside quotes.)
 * No, you have to look at the logic of the sentence. If you were quoting: "The economist said, 'The economy's revving like a well-oiled engine.'", then the period would be inside the quote.  If you wrote: "The economist stated the booming economy was performing 'like a well-oiled engine'.", it would be outside.  If you want to take the "logical quotes" thing to an inelegant extreme, there are those who believe the first sentence should have a period both inside and outside the quote, one terminating the quote and another terminating the sentence in which it's contained, but that sort of thing hasn't gained any traction here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "by a 6:1 vote": is this a ratio of six to one?
 * Yes. I clarified it.
 * "interested in the theater": in American English I thought it was "theatre" when it referred to live drama (or are the buildings exempted?)
 * I thought -re was always BrEng and -er was AmEng, and that people just use the British ending here because they think it's fancier, for some reason. I'll look into it, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In AmEng, "theatre" is used as in "I am a thespian who performs in the theatre", and "theater" is used for pretty much everything else, such as "movie theater". I'm not sure if the thespian's workplace is a "theatre" or a "theater" ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Our own theatre article says -re in AmEng is a less-common variant. Merriam-Webster agrees at m-w.com. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The first link that Google turned up sez that some Americans make the distinction, but those Americans don't always make the same distinction, and plenty of people doN't make the distinction at all. I guess it's not a big deal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

 * "was an American congressman from Indiana": worth linking "congressman" and "Indiana"? I don't think they'd fall under WP:OVERLINK the way "American" would
 * Done.
 * anything good to link "consitutional convention" to?
 * I linked to the Indiana Constitution already. Do you mean a link to the idea of constitutional conventions generally?
 * Yeah. I'm Canadian, and I have no idea what a "constitutional convention" is—from the context I assume that it's not a convention to decide on what constitution to adopt, which leaves my head scratching ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you've got it right. The state was writing a new constitution. I'll look for a link to make it clearer. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:, you Canucks use different terminology, and they're rather low-key affairs, but you have had them. – Quadell (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "to achieve a compromise on the admission of Kansas as a state.": sounds like something there might be an article about—no?
 * Good point. I linked it to Bleeding Kansas.
 * "the simmering disagreement between the free and slave states heated up": link to Slave and free states?
 * Done.
 * Lexington, Indiana definitely needs a link
 * Done.
 * link "minority report" to "Dissenting opinion"?
 * The Minority Report disambiguation page suggests that, but the Dissenting opinion is all about court cases, not legislatures.
 * "to his son, William Eastin English,": already linked at his birth
 * Done.
 * you link certain states and cities, but not others (Cincinnati, Delaware)
 * I think I got them all. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly: thank you for the nbsp edits. I didn't know you could use that inside a link like that. I'll take a look at your comments and address them throughout the day as I have time (working this weekend!) --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose. I'd still like to see something done about "constituitional convention", but I do think this article reads well and meets the FA criteria. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell
This is a very strong candidate. It is well organized, and the prose is excellent. (Thanks, previous reviewers!) I made a few copyedits; if you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss. I've identified issues below. – Quadell (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is a little short, isn't it? I feel like its expansion by a couple sentences would be appropriate. (It does cover each section of the body, though sometimes with only a portion of a sentence.) Perhaps his Civil War actions, or more info on the English Bill, or the opera house, or his presidency of a bank?
 * I added some about his business deals and his support for the Union during the Civil War. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite excellent. – Quadell (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * United States House of Representatives is linked twice in the lead, though neither time by that name. Indiana is as well; why not link the entire phrase Indiana Democratic Party in one instance? And Indiana Historical Society is linked twice in the "Post-election career" section.
 * Fixed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider this list: "increasing the number of elective offices, guaranteeing a homestead exemption, and restricting voting rights to white men." These aren't actually "views". Should it say "their proposals were included in the new law"?
 * Good point. Fixed.


 * H and R are appropriately capitalized in Indiana House of Representatives, but I don't think they should be capitalized when referring to a "state house of representatives". (By the same token, we refer to the Governor of Indiana, big-G, who is a governor, little-g.) Wikipedia articles seem to apply this inconsistently, however, and I'd be obliged if someone were to let me know if I'm wrong about this.
 * I think you're right. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The parenthetic "(many in Congress did not agree they were so bound)" interrupts the flow and makes the following "their" less certain. Consider making it a footnote, while perhaps expanding it slightly with further information from Russel, which in my opinion is quite interesting.
 * I moved it to a note. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I improved this slightly. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would reword "shrunken land grant", since it's language used by the source, and is not as encyclopedic as "smaller land grant".
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * His wife died in 1877. I think it would be appropriate to mention it in "Business career", along with all the other things going on in his life at that time.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how you'd work it in there. You did so excellently. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the grammar of "a much larger spread: Garfield-Arthur 214 and Hancock-English 155." Should those be en-dashes? Are commas needed? I would reword as "a much larger spread: 214 for Garfield and Arthur, compared to 155 for Hancock and English." (A better wording may be possible.)
 * Your language is fine with me. I'll keep fiddling with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would rename "Post-election career" as "Post-election career and legacy", since the larger second paragraph isn't really about his career.
 * True. Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Source check: ...But...
 * Clancy's book has an ISBN of 978-1258191900.
 * Footnote 11 in this article (Russel p. 201) references footnote 38 in the source, and should say so.
 * Fixed these two. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Image check: Three of the four images are fine, but File:Bust of William H. English.jpg has problems. This photo of a sculpture was uploaded in 2010 by, and she did not provide a license for the photograph. (She hasn't edited since 2010, though she did leave an e-mail address.) It was moved to commons with a PD-US license added by a different user, but that doesn't apply to the photograph. In addition, William H. English (bust) indicates that the arist and date of the creation of the sculpture are not known; if it was created after 1978, it could be copyrighted, and the photo could be a derivative work. We can only keep the image if the photographer provides a license, and if we can determine that the sculpture itself is PD.
 * Thus is an interesting problem. Even the state website has no idea who carved the bust, or when. I think it's safe to assume it's pre-1978, but that's not really good enough for Wikipedia's rules. I think we have no choice but to remove it.  I'll see if another suitable image can be found to replace it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with a picture of the English Bill's co-author, Alexander Stephens. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. There are no problems with this new image. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "English Bill" section should at least link to English Bill. Perhaps the lead could as well (at "a compromise"), though that may not be necessary. (The English Bill stub, by the way, is biased and misleading, though that's not an issue for this FAC.)
 * I didn't know that article existed. I could certainly link it, but I'm more inclined to turn it into a redirect to this article. What do you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the best solution would be to improve that article, I'd think, but that's certainly not a requirement for this FAC. Your solution is fine, I'd say. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't decide, so I linked it for now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider the first two sentences of paragraph two in the "Kansas–Nebraska Act" section. They are quite strong statements, and should be clearly sourced. "Commemorative Biography" mentions only "the storm raised by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill", which isn't nearly as strong, and I can't find it in Freehling (though I can't see the whole page).
 * I have Freehling around here somewhere, I'll look it up in there. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They're rather general statements about the Kansas–Nebraska Act and its effects. There are probably a wide range of sources that could support them. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I cited to the pages in Freehling volume 1 that cover the K-N Act's effects. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there was a misunderstanding. I was referring to the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the section: "The Kansas–Nebraska Act was grossly unpopular across the North. The reaction ultimately killed the Whig Party, weakened northern Democrats, and brought about a new party, the Republicans." That part is effectively unsourced, unless it's in Freehling 1990, p. 559. – Quadell (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That I've sourced to volume 2 of Freehling.  The end of v.1 and beginning of v.2 overlap a lot, and I think the latter explains things better on this point. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a few concerns regarding the first paragraph of the "Vice-presidential candidate" section. First "It was in that spirit" is unclear; what spirit? (Son in state house, being consulted on politics, not seeking office, or what?) It sounds at first like he's there to vote, not to run, but then you mention "one delegate voting for English". For President? Was that expected? Did English go hoping to be nominated for President, or for veep, or neither? You say he was "selected" for veep... by whom? Hancock? It might be best to explain some of this in a footnote. (Also, it would be nice to split this long paragraph up, if possible.)
 * "In that spirit": that is, as a Bayard supporter.
 * That really isn't clear in the text. I'd suggest some sort of rewording, so "in that spirit" isn't hanging there undefined. – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be clearer now. I may tinker with the prose a bit more throughout the day. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the sources suggests he expected any nomination. There's one short paragraph in Clancy about it that just says the delegates unanimously chose him to help in Indiana (pp. 140-141).  Clancy mentions the one vote for president, and the Proceedings show it was from Rhode Island, but don't show which delegate cast it.  An old congressional colleague?  It's not very clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't be clearer than the sources allow. I've added a few words to help the reader keep track of who supported whom for what, but I don't think there's much more to be done. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. This article is very thorough and well-written, appropriately organized and meticulously sourced. – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the thorough review. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Source check: The references are impeccably formatted; the "Sources" section is too, now that I sicced Citation bot on it.


 * Spot checks: I checked the sources for references 10 (a and b), 11, 15 (a and b), 16 (c and d), and 33. In each case, all statements were fully supported by the sources without plagiarism or close paraphrasing.


 * Image check: All of the images are legitimately in the public domain, and all required information is present. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Acdixon

 * Lead
 * "English entered politics at a young age, becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party. After a few years in the federal bureaucracy in Washington" I'm sure the body clarifies, but I'm left wondering at this point in what capacity he entered politics. We know he was a member of a state party faction, which he could have been without holding any official office, but the next sentence implies that he held some kind of federal position and was totally out of the state. It's all very confusing.
 * The sources are kind of vague. Some sort of party hack, I'm sure. I'll take a closer look over the next few days and see if I can sort it out. I did link to "spoils system" in the body.--Coemgenus (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of specifics about his partisan activities, it might suffice to date the beginning of his political career to his 1843 selection as House clerk. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "becoming a part of Jesse D. Bright's faction of the Indiana Democratic Party" What were the characteristics of this faction? Were they conservative or liberal? Were they focused primarily on one or a few key issues? Telling the reader that he was allied with Bright really means nothing unless that reader knows something about Bright. At this point, we don't even know what office(s) Bright held, much less what his positions were on the issues.
 * In this period, factions seem to me to be more about patronage networks than ideology. That said, Bright was among the most conservative Democrats in the North. He turned out to be way more conservative than English, in a sense, if you consider pro- Southern sympathies to be conservative (he was expelled from the Senate in 1862 because he was too pro-CSA, the only Senator to be expelled.) Long story short, I added the word "conservative".--Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "He was elected to the state house of representatives and served as its speaker at the age of twenty-nine." Was he elected speaker during his first term or during a subsequent term? In fact, were there any subsequent terms? How long were terms in the Indiana House back then? Since he served four, two-year terms in the federal House in the 1850s, I'm thinking one two-year term or a couple of one-year terms early in the decade is probably all he had time for.
 * They were two-year terms, of which he served one. I tried to clarify that in the lede without getting to bogged down in dates. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can work it in neatly, some reference to his service in the constitutional convention affecting his selection as speaker might be helpful. Otherwise, the reader wonders how a first-term legislator with meager experience came to be speaker in his first and only term in that body. How about something like, "In 1851, at the age of twenty-nine, English was elected to the state house of representatives and, because of his familiarity with the new constitution, was elected Speaker of the House."?Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole first paragraph could benefit from some more dates. We know he got into politics in some capacity in early life, so we can look back at his birth date and surmise this was sometime in the 1840s. Then, we find out he served "a few years" in some federal bureaucracy before coming back to the state in time to participate in a constitutional convention in 1850. Then he served a term or more in the state legislature, but apparently spent most of the 1850s in the federal House. The timeline is a bit hard to follow.
 * Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think one more date in his early career would help. Either the date of his selection as House clerk or the date he began his service in the federal bureaucracy would be good choices, I think. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the 1845 date.
 * What was English up to between the end of the war and his vice-presidential run? That's a good 25 years. I assume his business ventures were undertaken during this time. If so, might I suggest moving that information between the second and third sentences of the paragraph for chronology's sake?
 * I made some changes that should clear things up. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That helps some. Still not sure why you wouldn't just put his private sector activities in chronological order in the lead instead of tacking them on at the end, unless you just feel compelled to keep all his political doings together at the expense of chronology. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I switched it around so it's more chronological. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds much better. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Family and early career
 * "He left college after three years and began to read law." Can you give the years he was at Hanover? Without at least a starting year, the bit about being there three years isn't that helpful. Any idea why he left before graduating? We know he was admitted to the bar in 1840, but without knowing when he left Hanover, we don't know how long he was engaged in reading law prior to his admission.
 * The source is not clear about the dates, and doesn't mention his reason for leaving school. If I had to guess, it seems like he was at Hanover from 1837 to 1840, but I can't say for sure. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a bummer, but it would be far from the first time I've seen the sources silent on such things. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "By the end of 1842, young English came under the mentorship of Lieutenant Governor Jesse D. Bright, who helped him win appointments to a variety of local offices." Suggest dropping the adjective "young". Any idea how English became acquainted with Bright or why Bright took an interest in him?
 * Consider it dropped. My sources don't say why Bright noticed English. Maybe he knew English's father,  himself a minor politico?  But that's just my guess, nothing strong enough to put in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A good guess, I suspect, but as you say, not solid enough to add without sourcing. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The following year," Again, I find the chronology a little unclear. Did Bright begin mentoring English at the end of 1842, or had he been under his mentorship for a while by the end of 1842? "The following year" seems to imply 1843, but if the mentorship started at the end of 1842, it must have been a short mentorship prior to English's attaining office.
 * That's fairly vague in the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "English was chosen as clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives." Who did the choosing? Is that an elected position by the people or the legislators, or is it a gubernatorial appointment?
 * Kennedy says he was "elected," but it seems like the House elected him, not the populace. I changed the wording to reflect this. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I had assumed this was included in the "local offices" Bright helped him win appointment to. Since it apparently is not, do we know anything about the nature of those offices? The text seems to indicate that he held multiple such offices between 1840 and 1843. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed that language to "who helped him rise within Bright's faction of the party". It's not explicit which jobs Bright got for English, just that Bright moved him along and was interested in his success, etc.  --Coemgenus (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "As a reward, English was given a patronage appointment as a clerk in the federal Treasury Department in Washington, D.C." Again, it isn't clear who did the appointing. I'm sure it was Polk, but the non-U.S. reader might not even realize that Polk won the election.
 * Added a date, mentioned that Polk was indeed elected. Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "English attended the 1848 Democratic National Convention in Baltimore, where he supported the eventual nominee, Lewis Cass." Perhaps clarify that Cass was the party's presidential nominee.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "he found a job as clerk to the United States Senate's Claims Committee, serving until 1850." This sounds like he found an ad in the paper looking for a clerk, which he may well have done. I'm not sure how Senate committee clerks are employed. A little research shows that Bright was apparently on that committee at the time. Perhaps English's connection to Bright was helpful in securing the position?
 * Probably. The sources don't say, but it's a reasonable assumption.  I tweaked the language and added a note that Bright was a member of the committee. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Later that year, he returned to Indiana to work as secretary to the Indiana Constitutional Convention." Again, I wonder how he got this position. Did he have to be elected as a delegate to qualify? If not, did a majority of the elected delegates choose him? Do we know? Was his resignation from his clerk's position motivated by his selection as convention secretary, or were those independent events?
 * Again, the sources aren't specific. It seems reasonable that he left Washington because of the opportunity in Indiana, but I've not found anything with that level of detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, no idea if he was also a delegate? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this list, he was not. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "[Democrats'] proposals were included in the new law" Is "new law" being used here to refer to the draft constitution? If so, I think that's a bit clumsy. Also, I assume the minority party dissented on these proposals, which is why they merit mention.
 * Changed it from "basic law" to "constitution". --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "At Bright's direction, English worked for the election of Graham N. Fitch to the federal Senate, but was unsuccessful as the legislature chose John Pettit instead." You should at least mention that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats. This shows tangible evidence of the factionalism alluded to in the lead, but still doesn't really elaborate on what the issues were between the two factions. There is also the presumption of a clear majority by Democrats, but did the minority party (Whigs?) even nominate a candidate? Some sense of the relative strength of the parties and factions would be helpful, if available. What happened to the incumbent senator? Did he just not run again? Did he fall out of favor with the legislature? Did he take another office, leaving a vacancy?
 * I have no idea what the relative strength of the Whigs was. Van Bolt says the won only one of the federal House seats, but doesn't give the breakdown in the state house. I did clarify that both Fitch and Pettit were Democrats.
 * What about the incumbent? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The office of Speaker allowed English's reputation to grow around the state" Awkward construction. Suggest something on the order of "Holding the office of Speaker increased English's influence throughout the state".
 * Yes, that is better. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "in 1852, the Democrats chose him as their nominee for the federal House of Representatives from the 2nd district" Again, I wonder if we know what happened to the incumbent.
 * It's hard to say. The 1852 elections were the first after the 1850 census, and Indiana both added a seat and shifted numbers around.  The previous holder of the 2nd district was elected in 1852 to the 3rd district.  The 2nd may have overlapped partly with the old 1st, and that district's rep, James Lockhart retired in 1852.
 * Should have thought of that. Maybe reference the "redistricted 2nd district". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "He was elected that October" Do we know anything of the election? Who was his opponent? Did he have an opponent? If so, what were the major issues of the campaign? Do we have a vote total/percentage?
 * I have nothing on numbers, but I did add that the Democrats were successful state-wide. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Kansas-Nebraska Act
 * "The House of Representatives convened for the 33rd Congress in December 1853" Since the previous sentence said the 33rd Congress convened in March 1853, you might specify that the second session of that Congress convened in December.
 * As I understand it, and this has been surprisingly hard to sort out, the Senate convened for a couple weeks in March to confirm Pierce's nominees. Then they went home and the whole Congress got together for the December session.  I haven't seen any evidence that the House also convened in March, but they may have.  I dleeted "March" in the previous paragraph, but I hope to find a better answer at some point. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you combine the second and third sentences of the first paragraph?
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English was among those who voted for it." I'm assuming, then, that his earlier opposition was based mostly or wholly on the timing and necessity of the bill, not its content. If so, maybe say, "Northern Democrats divided almost evenly on the bill, but English, despite his stated reservations, was among those who voted for it." Otherwise, it could be a little jarring to see him writing a minority report opposed to the bill, then voting for it two sentences later.
 * Good point. I've used your language. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * English Bill
 * I think total House vote on the admission of Kansas should precede English's feelings and his vote. Also, don't the "yeas" still come first in reporting a lost vote?
 * Fixed these. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "There was a twist to the choice, too, as the Bill..." This seems too editorial to me. Maybe just "The Bill also required Kansas to..."
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "to be reelected in 1858 with his largest-ever majority" This brings me back to the lack of detail about English's election and re-election to Congress. Do we have no details of his opponents (primary or general election), the issues, or the vote counts? Without at least some idea of the vote counts, this bit about "largest-ever majority" is not nearly as meaningful as it might be.
 * There's no detail I can find except on this page, which I'm not sure is a reliable source. Now that site claims to cite to "United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997 The Official Results" by Michael J. Dubin, a real book, but I don't have access to it just now.  I may be able to get it in a couple days -- one of the libraries that hold it is near my office.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I went to the library and made copies. I added details about the percentages of English's victories with a new citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Business career
 * "In 1880, English constructed English's Opera House, which was quickly considered Indianapolis's finest." Do we know who considered it the finest in Indianapolis?
 * That's just what the source says. "...the city's finest"
 * Maybe qualify with "which, according to the 1994 Encyclopedia of Indianapolis, quickly became known as the city's finest", then. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good -- changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Vice-presidential candidate
 * "In the end, English was proved wrong" Should this be "was proven wrong"?
 * Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that's a lot of commentary, and I know how difficult it can be to dig up the details on minor political figures. A lot of these are just "hey, see if you can find"-type things. A good article about an interesting character. I'll try to keep track of your responses and strike resolved issues in a timely manner. Feel free to ping me if I don't. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Great responses. Struck many; added some comments on others. Thanks for your work. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Note --We seem to be close to consensus to promote; Coemgenus and Acdixon if you're able to finalise things shortly that'd be great -- pls ping me when done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Following this note, and looking again at the discussion above, I think we can promote this shortly. The fact that Acdixon was very happy with the responses and edits following his first round of comments indicates that he and Coemgenus are on the same wavelength. The only outstanding comments I can see are re. the "1843 selection as House clerk" and "the incumbent" -- if you're able to just acknowledge or action those then I think we can safely wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All done, guys. Sorry for the long delay. Holiday stuff. Feel free to promote. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the work on this was in 2013, so I won't be claiming points for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.