# Talk:Team of Rivals

Seems to me we should have one article on the book and another on the film adaptation.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFF shows Lincoln cannot have an article until filming begins. Alientraveller (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should have a film article ASAP, all this stuff about kushner etc has nothing to do with the book. please keep that stuff to a minimum on this page or keep it hiddenDegenFarang (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It is hidden. Alientraveller (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
i want to play games 41.113.168.180 (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that it is acceptable to have a "Film adaptation" section at this article, since the project is in the context of this topic.  I imagine that there is concern because the adaptation is well-covered than the book itself, so it may be worth expanding coverage about the book itself (the level of research done, what reviews have said, and what kind of sales it's had).  That should assuage some concerns about the unevenness. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

i took out most everything. i believe this method is in keeping with wikipedia rules, hopefully somebody more experienced can cite the actual rules and clarify...or let us know if detailed descriptions of pre-production happenings is acceptable.DegenFarang (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is, that's what WP:NFF is for. What if the film never gets made huh? Would it still be unacceptable to note Neeson would play Lincoln and Logan and Kushner wrote the script? It's not speculation, it is all confirmed facts. Whatever happened to the "thanks for the expansion message" you put on my talk page? Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the expansion, I'm glad this article is growing. However I do not think this article is the proper place to detail the history of writers which have been assigned to work on this script. However, I have little experience in these matters, if anybody else disagree's which me besides you I suppose I don't have a problem with it. I just think it would be silly to have a 6 paragraph section on this page devoted to the possible movieDegenFarang (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it's currently three thanks to your suggestion. :) Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have consulted with several experienced editors and they all say the same thing: pre-production details should be kept to an absolute minimum until it is certain that the film will go ahead. It is a long shot that this thing even gets made at this point. Detailed information about which writers signed and were replaced, what those old writers focused on and what background research potential actors did is not relevant to the book in any way. This is a page about the book, not about the potential movie. DegenFarang (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for wasting my time with a discussion you didn't even link. Now I've restored the info at Lincoln's depictions page and the article in my sandbox. In the meantime, yeah, let people be unaware of who's playing Lincoln. Alientraveller (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The point you don't seem to get is that that movie will probably never get made. You said I was unreasonable because I wouldn't list who would play Lincoln. a) the movie probably wont get made so nobody will play Lincoln...b) that isn't who will play him, that is just who is slated to play him at this time. c) i never said that could not be included...we just don't need multiple paragraphs about the film. if you want to add something saying 'liam neeson has agreed to play lincoln' that is fine  DegenFarang (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit and added something about neeson. Please cite the neeson reference if you can. I think this wording is more than enough and arguably we should even remove the stuff about 'while consulting on...' etc. I'm open to expand it beyond this but please relax and don't spaz out and insert huge chunks just to spite me DegenFarang (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence at the end of the "Comparisons to..." section that read "Also, many feel that Obama will cling to any popular idea that may boost his celebrity status." It was political commentary, not backed with facts, and not entirely relevant to the discussion. (Bizzarechipmonk (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC))
I don't think that the Obama commentary has any place in this article. This article is about the book, and a brief recap; not boostering myths about the similarities between the two men. - L  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.214.239 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 

The second paragraph of the Comparisons to the Obama administration seems pretty anti-Obama, as if it is trying to dismiss all of the claims of the previous paragraph. However, this could be entirely in keeping with the book, for all I know. If it has any basis, it should be cited.
Is Obama even discussed in the book, or is this comparison just made outside of it? It seems like this section of the article is less about the book and more about current political rivalries.
129.59.47.19 (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following--which mistakenly claimed plagiarism by Kearns Goodwin before I copy edited it--because I don't think it merits its own section, and it doesn't really fit anywhere else in the article. It's an interesting literary anecdote, but I'm divided as to whether it transcends trivia, or if corresponding observations have been made by other sources. More thoughts are welcome. 99.149.87.54 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Author Gore Vidal claimed Goodwin's book borrowed its premise from his novel about Lincoln, at the 2009 Key West Literary Seminar during an interview with Jay Parini 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to review this article for GA status. I should be able to start writing the review later today or early tomorrow. PrairieKid (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your thoughts will be much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
First I'll give some initial thoughts, and later I'll pull out the rubric...


### Initial Thoughts
#### Lead
Very well-written. Makes reader more interested.
Thanks!
Could use a slightly longer summary.
Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article this short is generally supposed to max out at two paragraphs; I feel like I may be pushing the upper limits as is. Is there a specific additional fact you'd like to me to add in, though?
?


#### Contents
Again, very well-written
Lists should use semi-colons (; not :) <--Not meant to be a smiley face
My understanding is that you use a colon to set off a list rather than a semicolon, which requires a potentially stand-alone sentence on either side of it (except in the rare instance, as here, of dividing list items that already have commas in them). WP:MOS says: "A colon (:) informs the reader that what comes after it demonstrates, explains, or modifies what has come before, or is a list of items that has just been introduced. The items in such a list may be separated by commas; or, if they are more complex and perhaps themselves contain commas, the items should be separated by semicolons". (More examples here.)
Lincoln was known for his senate debates with Douglass. Slightly different wording would be nice.
 Done added a phrase here.
Very good summary. Included all the important information, with a bit about the structure and the writing style.
(Contradicting the 2nd comment...) There are a lot of ;'s later on. Separate thoughts into sentences and use commas. The abrupt change is nice occasionally, but not as often as it is used.
Thanks for this catch! Semicolons are my greatest vice as a writer. Except for where they're in a quotation, or dividing up list items with commas, I've only left one semicolon, in the sentence "Lincoln also recruits Chase ally Edwin M. Stanton to replace Pennsylvania political boss Simon Cameron as Secretary of War; like Seward, Stanton comes to respect and support Lincoln." You're welcome to remove that one too, if you think it preferable.
N


#### Background
This section should come first, before the summary.
 Done
I am still very happy with the writing style
Y


#### Response
There may be too many quotes. I'm a little iffy with that, because each provides a good point. (It isn't just "NYTimes author said it was fantastic... Historian ___ said it was fantastic...") It is just a little bit of sensory overload.
I liked the Obama-Lincoln comparison. Was insightful, well-cited and surprisingly not biased.
Y


#### Film
Well-written
That section should show the relationship between the book and the movie... Not just Goodwin and the movie or the movie alone, if that makes sense.
I agree, especially since the movie only deals with five pages of the book. Let me dig up a source to that effect--should just take me a minute. Thanks for pointing this out.
Okay, I lucked into a source that not discusses this but also summarizes other critics pointing this out. It's hard to go much beyond this, though, because Goodwin's role is a bit murky. It's clear she was an advisor, not clear how much she really wrote or added. Anyway, good catch, this was something that needed explicit mention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
?
So far, I am very happy with this article and I think it will only take a few minor tweaks to get it to GA level. Good work. Thank you to the nominator for the hard work already put in to the article. PrairieKid (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention, but meant to was the citations. The article is well cited and I had no problems with that. PrairieKid (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions above and your time in reviewing--both are much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your points, but happy to address any further issues you see. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


### Rubric
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
It is VERY well written. My only problem is the film section...
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
As mentioned, the background section should be moved into the front. The lead could provide a slightly longer summary.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
yes sir Y
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
I went through and checked most of the sources that weren't books. They were all good.
C. No original research: 
Well... you didn't cite the specific pages in the book of where you got the summary points... I guess I'll let it go.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Y
B. Focused: 
Y
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Y
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Y
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Y
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
It could use another image of the men involved in the book, Stephen Douglass, or someone else involved. It's fine how it is for GA though.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I'll put the article on hold for one week to make the minor changes. I would be surprised if it took that long, but I'll give the time anyway. Good work.
PrairieKid (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is good now. Thanks for all the hard work! Team of Rivals, welcome to GA.

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Team of Rivals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/no-ordinary-tome/304338/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=4989622
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/no-ordinary-tome/304338/
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/06mcpherson.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110301928.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://seattletimes.com/html/books/2002630063_goodwin20.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1101/p13s02-bogn.html/%28page%29/2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Lincoln-s-rough-roads-to-greatness-Studies-look-2559357.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gettysburg.edu/lincolnprize/index.dot
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gettysburg.edu/lincolnprize/previous-winners.dot
Corrected formatting/usage for https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B12FD3E540C7A8EDDAA0894DE404482&ref=doriskearnsgoodwin
Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-28/national/35509468_1_president-obama-leadership-health-care
Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-11-19/news/36776577_1_16th-president-partisan-politics-president-elect
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518115708/http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20080518-137261/Spielberg-may-co-direct-next-with-Peter-Jackson to http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view/20080518-137261/Spielberg-may-co-direct-next-with-Peter-Jackson
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/movies/awardsseason/steven-spielbergs-team-lincoln-is-in-oscar-forefront.html?pagewanted=all
Corrected formatting/usage for http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/13/spielbergs-lincoln-gets-its-mary-todd-sally-field/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdb.com/news/ni5632136/
Corrected formatting/usage for https://newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111810/tony-kushners-unacknowledged-source-lincoln%23
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/0101/Doris-Kearns-Goodwin-on-her-bestselling-books-and-the-movie-adaptation-of-Lincoln/%28page%29/2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/movie/lincoln
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Goodwin's sixth book, Team of Rivals was well received by critics and won the 2006 Lincoln Prize and the inaugural Book Prize for American History of the New-York Historical Society.

I really hate this device, mainly used by publicists to froth minor details into a breathless onrush. You could get away with this on Wikipedia elsewhere, but it's made even worse in this instance, fronting directly into a list of accolades.  If we really need to know it's her sixth book, the fact could be granted its own sentence. — MaxEnt 02:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC) — edited a minute later