# Talk:Archibald Dixon

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archibald Dixon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll be reviewing this article according to the GA Criteria.  If you have any questions or comments, or wish to help, please do so!  --Banime (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


### Initial readthrough
In my initial readthrough, I checked for the basic problems. The article contains reliable sources, the topic is not treated in an obviously non-neutral way, there are no cleanup banners, and it is not about a current event. Every project that it is a part of has rated it B-Class. There are no problems with vandalism and the article is very stable based on its edit history. I see no reason for a quick fail, and I will now go much more in depth in my review. --Banime (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


### In depth review
I'm back with my complete review.  I will use the GA Criteria as a guideline for my review to help with making improvements and focusing on what needs fixing.  I also made a few of the fixes myself, including grammar, spelling, clarity, sentence strucutre, and bad links, which you can see by checking the edit history.


#### Well Written
First thing I noticed throughout the article was a number of links that are pretty useless.  Check Wikipedia:CONTEXT to see when links should or should not be used.  I removed most links to unimportant dates that I came across myself, but if you see any other unimportant links please remove them.  Also, remove any red links that I missed.
Still getting used to not linking dates. Sorry about that. Also, I had included redlinks for articles I thought might possibly be created in the future, but I have no objection to their removal.
Most redlinks usually aren't worth it.  If you do make an article later with those terms, then come back and add them in, that's pretty simple I think. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In the intro, please read through Wikipedia:Lead_section and improve the lead.  The max limit is four paragraphs, which is where it is at right now, however one of the paragraphs is just two sentences.  Perhaps you can combine it into 3 more comprehensive paragraphs?  Intros are some of the hardest things to get right in articles, and if you need any help let me know as it can be very difficult to get an intro "just right."
Yes, the lead has always been problematic for me. I'll try to do some work on it, but any more specific suggestions or edits are welcome and appreciated.
Yeah this is always one of the toughest parts, I'll try to help or give suggestions when I can. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's down to three paragraphs, and I think I managed to eliminate some redundancy. See what you think.
It looks a lot better. --Banime (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
In the Personal life section: is there any additional information that you can expand upon in this section?  Also, the section is written in a very choppy manner as if it is just listing off a bunch of dates and names.  See what you can do to improve or expand this section.  I already see a bit of worthwhile information in the Starling source, such as how his father fought in the Revolutionary War and other things.  Just scanning through I see that his time as a lawyer can also be expanded upon, such as how it was considered a success, the types of jobs he did, and his budding partnerships and friendships with later political opponents.  This section can have a lot more that is beneficial and be expanded.
There isn't a lot of contemporary literature on Dixon that I can find. He was a minor legislator and executive. The Starling source, like many sources from that era, conveys a manifestly positive POV, so I've opted to leave out some of the personal details for fear that they have been embellished. I've been burned on things like that before (see Talk:Horace Holley (1781–1827)). I've also been cautious about adding too much information about Dixon's family for fear of going off-topic. It seems that neither his father nor grandfather's service in the Revolutionary War was particularly notable outside a compliment to the grandfather from a superior. Still, I will try to review the material and see what additional facts might be mentioned.
You're right, but a bit more of background about his family can provide just a bit more context about his life.  The section doesn't have to be big but when I read it last it just seemed like 2 sentences with blurbs about each family member.  I think that his father fought in the revolutionary war is important, and despite the source, I don't think that is POV.  Plus, POV isn't necessarily bad as long as you don't present it as being NPOV. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added some additional information about the family's military record and some more familial connections. It's kind of funny that I started this expansion because I thought I might be related to this person. I haven't found any evidence yet that I am, but he sure is related to a lot of famous people!
Yeah that is funny.  Also, I really think the Personal Life section is up to standard now, its more informative and provides a good amount of information on his family.  --Banime (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In the Political career section: He served three terms. Provide some useful context by explaining how long the terms were and from which dates.
Oh, you mean only people who write biographies of nearly obscure Kentucky politicians know that Kentucky Representatives serve one year terms. :) Sorry about that. Corrected, and also realized I failed to note a second stint in the Kentucky House, which I have now remedied.
Haha, yeah.  When you get caught up in subjects its easy to lose that you're writing this for other people who usually aren't experts or possibly even at all knowledgeable about the subject.   --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In the Later life section: I see a number of one or two sentence paragaphs.  This makes the flow of reading choppy and doesn't fall under GA guidelines for being well written.  These paragraphs should be rewritten, reformatted, and expanded.
I find two. One is regarding his time as president of the Henderson and Nashville Railroad. I have only found one source that even mentions this, and it says nothing of his actions in this capacity. I have said all I can say about it in the article. The fact that he was president of a railroad seems too important to leave out, but I'm afraid I don't know any more about it either. The other short paragraph deals with his death. I can't find a cause of death beyond the obit's mention of "an illness of many weeks", "a complication of disorders", and "softening of the brain". Those didn't seem very encyclopedic. Should I merge this paragraph with the one above it?
I'll look into it more, but just a sentence about his death can probably be merged into the preceding paragraph.  As long as it flows well when reading.  --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've merged it into the preceding paragraph.
In the External Links section, the links seem kind of trivial at best (except for the obituary which I talk about later).  However, this is not a big issue and is not "fail" worthy since I usually think external links are just for some added info for curious readers.  If you do find any other external links which add a bit more than "find a grave" though, feel free to add them.  Again this is a small gripe and will not affect my GA decision, however I think it can improve the article.
Find-A-Grave and Political Graveyard are just standard links I put in every biography. I don't dispute their triviality in terms of additional information, but as you say, I don't see them as being a big deal either way.
Yeah that's fine. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall, go through and improve the readability of this article.  Fix any awkward or choppy sentences and paragraphs and help the flow of the text.  As a GA it does not have to be perfect but it should still hold some of the higher standards of wikipedia articles.


#### Factually accurate and verifiability
In the Personal Life section: In 1834, Dixon married Elizabeth B. Pollit; the couple had six children.[a]  then the reference contradicts that saying Starling said he has 5 children and married on a different date.  That's fine if there are two contradicting sources, but you did not even cite the original source that says what the article states.  Perhaps just use the starling source as a citation and make the article state Starling's claim of information.  If needed you can then add a footnote saying this fact may be disputed.
Oops. Originally, that entire paragraph was cited to The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and the footnote was meant to draw the contrast between that source and Starling's account. I have revised the footnote to make this clearer.
In the Senate section: Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks where it states The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.  There are currently not one but two quotes in this section that are unsourced and need citations.
I was trying to avoid getting "footnote happy", as I have been accused of in the past. The first quote, regarding Douglas' language in the original Nebraska bill, comes from Potter. This citation appears at the end of the paragraph, since the whole paragraph comes from Potter's account. The second quote, Douglas' response to Dixon, also comes from Potter. The citation for the next sentence is meant to serve for both, but if that is insufficient, I can make the connection more explicit.
I think citing all quotes is important, so go ahead and do it directly after.  I don't think that's footnote happy.  --Banime (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Done.
In the External Links section, the obituary of Dixon in the NYTimes has some good information in it.  I think it could be beneficial if used as another source and cited within the article.
I've discussed the "cause of death" info above. Other than that, all I glean is that business was suspended in Henderson on the day of the funeral, and that the funeral took place at the Presbyterian church. Neither seemed particularly noteworthy, but I'm open to adding it if you disagree.
I'll look again, but if you find a place that it fits then add it, you can never have too many sources. --Banime (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless you believe the above-noted facts rise to the level of inclusion in the article, I just don't think I can pull anything new from the obit. If those facts do rise to the level of inclusion, I'll un-merge the sentence about his death and add these facts as well.
I see, you're right.  Keep it as an external link. --Banime (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall the article makes good use of the amount of sources and their availability.


#### Broad in its coverage
This article is broad and focuses appropriate length on the major parts of his life and impact.


#### Neutral
The article appears to be NPOV and all sides were equally weighted.


#### Stable
This article is very stable based on its history, there have been no large edit wars or vandalism.


#### Illustrated, if possible, by images
The article is not illustrated much, but the subject matter does not really require it.  The congressional portrait is enough, and the image itself is public domain.


### Decision
After reading the article and outlining my concerns above, I will place this article On Hold.  I believe there are a lot of things to be fixed, however I also believe it is bordering on what can be accomplished within a week.  The main thing to focus on when improving this article is how it is written.  I outlined most of my suggestions as you can see above, and if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, or additions, please feel free to add to this review or ask me personally. --Banime (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt review of this article. Depending on your responses to my comments above, I may or may not be able to address your concerns in a week. I will give it my best shot. As long as we are making progress, I hope you'll consider keeping it on hold for more than a week rather than failing it and putting me back in the queue for another review. Looking forward to your responses soon. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the article as it progresses through the week.  If a lot of good work is done and I think it can be made to GA status within a reasonable amount of time, then I'll extend the on hold status for a bit.  Otherwise, if I think it'll take too long then I'll have to unfortunately fail it.  Just keep working on it and I'm sure it can get to GA status this time.  I'll be going through and helping out when I see anything that can be fixed, particularly the intro since those are always troublesome.  --Banime (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I haven't addressed yet is the lead. I want to get the body right before I start on that. Let me know if I need to do more to the body, or if I can try and fix the lead and wrap this up. Thanks for your continued help. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Good, I see everything has been addressed except for the lead.  The article has been improved quite a bit.  Take a look at improving the intro and I can do a final readthrough and make my final decision.  Good work so far! --Banime (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
All of my above concerns have been addressed.  I will now do a final review and see if there are any more outstanding issues or make my final decision.  --Banime (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


### GA Pass
After my final readthrough, I have passed this article as a good article based on the GA Criteria.  All issues that I had above have been corrected and improved upon.
To continue improving this article for FA status be sure to check out GA vs FA criteria.  Continue improving the prose of the article, as that is often very difficult and one of the main reasons FAs get failed.  Also, continuing tweaking the introduction as that is often a difficult portion of all articles.  Keep up all the hard work that has been done so far on this article and I'm sure one day it can reach FA.  For some tips and pointers on prose you can also check out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a for example, or a number of other good guides on wikipedia.
Finally, I would like to congratulate all editors on this good article.  I'd like to personally thank Acdixon for his hard work in addressing all of my concerns.  I'd also like to take the time to encourage all involved in this project to check and see if there are other GA nominations that you can review in order to help out. --Banime (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)