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 Karanacs 18:44, 23 February 2010 [1].

Wendell H. Ford

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I believe this article is comprehensive and well-sourced. I look forward to addressing any concerns that might prevent its promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it is missing for the lead image; please add that. Also, the alt text that is present conveys little information about the appearance of the persons pictured: other than age and sex almost nothing is said about what these people looked like. Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for guidance about useful alt text for portraits. Also, please omit phrases like "A black and white photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. Eubulides (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - This is pretty good, which is no surprise. I'm a little leery of the length, but knowing Acdixon's extensive work on Kentucky political history, I figure if there was more information to be found, he'd have found it. Some generally minor issues:
  • I've done some copyediting; feel free to revert what you don't like.
  • "He purged most of the Republicans from state office, including helping Walter "Dee" Huddleston win the Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Republican stalwart John Sherman Cooper." I gather we're talking about the U.S. Senate; is that really "state office"?
  • Seems like one of the sources called this a "state office" but the source eludes me at the moment. It is a state office inasmuch as it's voted on by people statewide. That's what I'm really trying to convey here. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it.
  • I'd suggest replacing by "statewide office"; I assume that the quote doesn't refer to things like state legislators (which are the opposite of U.S. senators, since they're state office but not statewide office).
  • Do we know what he studied at U of K?
  • Not having much luck on this one. I'll add it if I find it, but I haven't so far.
  • Do we know his children's names?
  • Found them in Newsbank.
  • Do we know anything about where he served in WWII?
  • Found a good source on his service in the Army and the National Guard. This has been beefed up.
  • Do we know what issues Ford won on in 1965? I gather that his opponent was something of a heavy hitter.
  • I'm coming up empty here. My Newsbank archives don't go back that far, and Google News only turns up a couple of references to Ford being the choice of Governor Breathitt while Gardner was allied with Harry Lee Waterfield. Reading into this with my local knowledge, I'd say Democratic factionalism was the major issue. Ford was part of the ascendant Bert Combs-Ned Breathitt faction, while Gardner was a member of the waning Happy Chandler-Harry Lee Waterfield faction. It'd be original research for me to make that assertion in the article, though. I also vaguely remember reading something about Ford's association with the Jaycees being helpful in one race, but I thought it was the lieutenant governor's race. I'll try to go back and check, and if it was the state senate race instead, I'll add that.
  • Is there a wikilink or elaboration available on the Supreme Court ruling about residency requirements for voting?
  • I have found one article that would allow me to elaborate some, but I'm really trying to find the name of the case. More later on this.
  • Found it. Dunn v. Blumstein. I've added some elaboration now. Is this enough?
  • Looks great.
  • "He also increased funding to human resources..." This seems very vague. Did he hire more people? In what capacities and to what end?
  • Had to go back and look this one up. Landis Jones says: "Human resources expenditures were also increased with better benefits for dependent children, services for the aged, and increases in the food stamp program." I don't really think of some of these things as "human resources expenditures", so I assumed they were just various facts juxtaposed in a compound sentence. What do you think?
  • That's a weird sentence; I really don't know what to make of it. Grammatically, I can see no way of interpreting it other than that "better benefits ... food stamp program" are examples of increased human resources expenditures, but that really doesn't make sense. Maybe the author is using "human resources" to mean all spending on people? Anyway, I guess there's not much you can do here, and the current wording does reflect the source. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did he save millions in printing costs?
  • Found one reference for this. It isn't much, but it helps a little.
  • The U.S. Senate section in particular seems a little thin for a guy who was in there for twenty-five years. Do we know anything about his relationship with successive presidents, or the extent to which he toed party lines? The stuff about NAFTA and the Panama Canal treaty is good, but is there nothing about the assorted other major issues to come before the Senate during that time? One that occur immediately to me are the Bork nomination and the Clinton impeachment, but there must be many more.
  • Landis Jones says of Ford that he "was astute at working behind the scenes" and Cross says "Unlike senators who specialize in one or more national or international issues, Ford was content to be an insider and back-room operator in the Senate." Further, he quotes Ford as saying "I wasn't interested in national issues. I was interested in Kentucky issues." Nevertheless, I'll search Newsbank and see if I can turn up anything about the issues you mention.
  • Those are actually really illuminating quotes, especially the last one. Could that be worked in somehow? If nothing else, it would convey to the reader why we're not told about any significant stances on national issues. Steve Smith (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the last one in there; not sure about the other two. The source about government printing did have a few more national issues in it, though.
  • Do we know why Ford was inducted into the transportation hall of fame? It doesn't seem immediately obvious.
  • I have broken out some of his transportation-related accomplishments into their own paragraph. I'll add more if I can find them.
I expect that I will, as usual, eventually support this. Steve Smith (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your confidence. I've addressed a couple of these above. More later. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More responses above. I may be off-wiki this weekend, but I'll see what I can find today and get on the rest on Monday. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still finding a thing or two here and there. Please go ahead and strike things you're satisfied with, and I'll keep trying to address the others. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One new question: "Opponents of the bill cited ... concerns about the erosion of copyright protection." As I understand it, the bill would have dealt only with federal government printing. Since works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, what were these concerns about the erosion of copyright?
  • I found this odd as well. Quoting the source: "Another [critic] viewed the legislation as having a potential for eroding copyright protection." That's all it says, and understandably, there isn't a whole lot of published material on a subject like government printing, especially on a bill that didn't pass.
Support. Anyway, remaining issues are minor, so I now support this nomination. Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much. It's always nice to have your support, and the additional searching I did as a result of your review significantly contributed to the quality of the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated, but the last three sentences in the United States Senate section all begin with "He". Any way you can vary this?
  • Done.
  • Also, "He was as youth chairman" should be "a youth chairman"
  • Fixed.
  • Nothing on the 1998 Government Publications Reform Act named for Ford (according to this)
  • I found one source for this and provided some details. Does this suffice?
  • Christopher J., Deering (Winter 1986). "Leadership in the Slow Lane". PS. 19 (1). American Political Science Association: 40. says: "During the 98th Congress Sen. [Dan] Quayle and Sen. Wendell Ford (D-Ken.) chaired a committee that reviewed, for the third or fourth time during the last decade, the rules and procedures on the Senate." No more is said about this in PS, but could you explore?
  • Haven't turned up anything here. Most of the articles from this period focus on both men's election campaigns.
  • Clinton, W. (1997). Statement on Senator Wendell H. Ford's decision not to seek reelection. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 33(11), 330 has Clinton's reaction to Ford's retirement: "Senator Wendell Ford has served his home State of Kentucky with pride and distinction for four terms as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He has been a leader in the Democratic Party and a personal friend for many years. Senator Ford's tireless efforts as a veteran, businessman, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor before coming to Washington, have earned him the admiration of all who know him. I will miss his leadership and advice on Capitol Hill but know that he will continue to find ways to improve the lives of the constituents he has served so well for so long. Kentucky and the Nation are better for his dedication and service. Hillary and I wish him, his wife, Jean, and their family well in the years to come." Mm40 (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to regard statements like this as political platitudes. They don't really seem that encyclopedic to me.
Thanks for the review. I hope I have addressed your concerns or can do so in the near future. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is well researched, and nicely written. It's even interesting and I'm inherently not particularly interested in politicians. Coming in to the review process after most concerns are addressed, I found few problems remaining. Nice job! I made a couple of tweaks on commas (one too many, one not enough), and which/who problems, and one sentence toward the end that used a form of the word election in two ways, which was, or could have been, confusing. I've been happy to support this editor's work in the past, and once again, AC has produced a sturdy and informative piece of writing on Kentucky governors. Thanks, AC, nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary


  • Oppose (slight) - maybe I have stricter views on copyright than JC, but I think there is still work to be done here on the image front. I shall attempt to do some myself (EDIT: have improved File:Happy Chandler.jpg). The main point being, it is, at the moment, very difficult to verify that these are indeed official photographs.
    • File:Wendell_Ford.jpg and File:WHuddleston.jpg: both are sourced to the Biographical Dictionary of the US Congress. They certainly look like official shots and it's quite believable they are PD, but how do we know? [2] notes, "Not all images are in the public domain; some images may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). Do not duplicate without permission from copyright holder. Copyright information is provided whenever possible, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the user to determine and satisfy the copyright and other restrictions." Maybe we can find an alternative source for the images, perhaps one which makes it clear that this are indeed works of the Federal government (or even one with a better resolution).
    • File:Kit_Bond_official_portrait.jpg: Ho hum. Again, it's very plausible that this is an official photograph, but that statement is very difficult to back up. It gets credited to his office here, for example, and I can't find it in any official documents (maybe you can).
So as you can see, these things could be better for a featured article, but then again, I think the result of research will not be the invalidation of their PD claims. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really frustrating issue. (I've run into it before.) I suspect it will be almost impossible to show that these are, in fact, the official Senate portraits of these men, since there apparently is no easily-accessible directory of Senate portraits. I have noticed that many of the portraits in the Biographical Directory are credited, while many others are not. This has led me to surmise that those which are credited (to the Library of Congress, for example) are governed by the copyright of the credited owner, while those that are uncredited are assumed to be official congressional portraits. I can't prove that, though.
Unless I or someone else happens to stumble onto a credited copy of these images, complete with copyright info, I suppose I'll just have to drop all the images from the article (except the Chandler one). IMO, this issue should be handled by listing the image(s) in question for deletion instead of being grounds for an FA oppose. If the image survives, great. If not, remove it from the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know what you mean. I kinda feel bad opposing an FA over it as well. Maybe their is a limit to the proof one requires. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just discovered the Congressional Pictoral Directory! This has allowed me to use images of Ford and Bond that are guaranteed to be PD. Huddelston was already out of the Senate before the online editions began, though. Anyway, I've made this situation a little less critical. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is apparently standard notation for court cases. Another editor showed it to me on another article. It tells where you can find the case in court records. I asked him if there was a standard expanded citation that could be put in the refs, and he said there wasn't really, but that most editors should understand it. I'm going by that. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (leaning to support) -- this article looks essentially very good. 'Fraid I can't do a full review at this time, but I've made a couple of tweaks to prose and will try to complete things this weekend. For now:
    • Over the course of his service, he earned the Expert Infantryman Badge, American Campaign Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal. -- relatively minor point but the second and fourth of these look like service or campaign medals, as opposed to the first and third which appear to be merit badges or decorations. I don't know that you really "earn" the service/campaign medals, rather you'd get them for being where you're supposed to be at the right time, in which case "received" is a more appropriate term. Merit badges and decorations on the other hand do have to be "earned" by special effort.
  • I've happily re-worded based on your comments. For all my experience with politician articles, I have practically none with military articles, so I'll take your word on this one.
    • In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion. -- immediately preceding this sentence you've mentioned two exact dates in the same year, can we assign at least a month to this conversion?
  • I wish. So far, the National Guard e-History Museum link is the only one I can find with significant details about Ford's military service. It doesn't provide anything more specific than the year.
    • You seem to cite every sentence even when consecutive ones have exactly the same reference. These should be combined, e.g.

On June 7, 1949, he enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard and was assigned to Company I of the 149th Infantry Regimental Combat Team in Owensboro.[1] On August 7, 1949, he was promoted to Second Lieutenant of Infantry.[1] In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion.[1] Promoted to First Lieutenant of Armor, he transferred to the inactive Guard in 1956, before being discharged in 1962.[1]

could safely become:

On June 7, 1949, he enlisted in the Kentucky Army National Guard and was assigned to Company I of the 149th Infantry Regimental Combat Team in Owensboro. On August 7, 1949, he was promoted to Second Lieutenant of Infantry. In 1949, Ford's company was converted from infantry to tanks, and Ford served as a Company Commander in the 240th Tank Battalion.Promoted to First Lieutenant of Armor, he transferred to the inactive Guard in 1956, before being discharged in 1962.[1]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re citing every sentence, I've done that before in Brazilian cruiser Bahia. I think it's okay if you don't want to change it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be against the rules to repeat identical citations in consecutive sentences, and I wouldn't oppose because of it, but we can always do without needless clutter... ;-) Anyway, I've completed reviewing and am now leaning towards support, but would like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually only consolidate references when the whole paragraph is cited to the same source. Otherwise, I find that someone will come along and ask for a source on a sentence where I just consolidated the reference. If it's OK with you, I'd like to keep the refs as they are. Thanks for the review. I've addressed your other comments above. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Good read, layout, image copyright status and alt text. The Kentucky Encyclopedia currently has a connection refused. All other external links look good. No dabs. Referencing looks good. However, there is almost nothing on senate campaigns. Certainly there must be something to write about how he got into the senate and reelected. The article currently just declares he became a senator and was reelected. Some sentence diversity concerning use of "He" to start sentences is needed. Seeing "He" used so often was a bit distracting as I read. Replacing "He" with "Ford" will just shift the issue; some sentence restructuring is needed to mix things up a bit. But my oppose is primarily concerned with the missing senate campaign info. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me do some checking to see what I can turn up. My best source would be Newsbank, but it only goes back to 1990. Other than that, I'll probably be looking to Google News. If I recall correctly, none of the other sources used even mention his re-election campaigns, so I assume they weren't very hotly contested. Based on personal experience, I'll bet any Democrat who defended coal and tobacco and brought pork barrel projects to Kentucky during the 80s was a tough out. I'll also look at restructuring some sentences today if I can at all. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 12:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Have researched the 1980 race. The most detailed account I found is here. Ford was opposed by a little-known lawyer named Flora Stuart in the primary, but the article cited called her opposition "symbolic" and indicated that she might be trying to gain name recognition for a later run at a judgeship. As far as I know, that has not materialized, as I still see her ads on local TV. The article cited mentions Mary Louise Foust as the likely Republican opponent from a field of primary unknowns. The article calls challenging Ford a "dubious honor", and further research indeed shows that Ms. Foust, a septignearian former state auditor, got trounced by Ford in a race that was never close nor expected to be close. All of the sources about the race seem to say the same thing – that she was one of an increasing number of women seeking a Senate seat that year, and that nobody expected her to win. I suspect information on subsequent races will produce the same result, as early research into the 1986 race produced this gem from the Lexington Herald-Leader: "[T]he race for the United States Senate promises to be about as exciting as a televised bridge tournament since the Republicans failed to field a real challenger to incumbent Democrat Wendell Ford." BTW, I was mistaken; Newsbank goes back to 1983 for the Herald-Leader, so I should be able to find details if there are any. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update 2: I've done enough research to put in a little electoral history. Basically, it just goes to show that Ford was wildly popular and never seriously challenged during his senate career. Is this sufficient? I'll look into the sentence structure thing as well, but I hope this will be enough for you to strike your oppose. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference emuseum was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wendell_H._Ford/archive1
No tags for this post.