Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William O'Connell Bradley/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 18:39, 7 October 2010 [1].

William O'Connell Bradley

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive biography of the man known as "The Father of the Republican Party in Kentucky". Bradley was the state's first Republican governor and second Republican U.S. senator. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first closed with no consensus (no !votes either way). Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no dabs
no dead links
All ISBNs are valid

CrowzRSA 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support; looking good. Ucucha 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

I also mentioned this at the previous FAC and struck it after your explanation, but I noticed it again now: I really don't think his politically active relatives should be in the first paragraph of the lead. The first paragraph should establish the subject's notability and his main accomplishments; I don't see how his relatives can be part of that.

I've removed this per your repeated comment. That leaves the first paragraph of the lead a little short, but if you're OK with that I can be too.

~~Do we know what his actual rank was while he was serving in the Union Army?~~

No. I don't think his service consisted of more than a few months all together, so I doubt he ever actually rose above private. I can't document that for sure, though.

~~Who was the U.S. Attorney General he disagreed with?~~

According to this contemporary NYT editoral, it appears that it was Benjamin H. Brewster. I've added the name to the article.

~~You call Goebel the "President Pro Tem" once and "President pro tem" another time.~~

I'm not sure which is technically the correct rendering, but I've made them consistent now, anyway.

File:WilliamO'ConnellBradley.jpg could use some cropping.

Probably. I'm not too up on how to create and license derivative works and such, though.

Download, crop as appropriate, upload to Commons as something like WilliamO'ConnellBradleyCrop.jpg, just copy and paste the current description, licensing and cats, adding something like "Cropped by Acdixon" to the author or source section. That's how I do it. You can then add the original to the "other versions" and add this to the "other versions" of the original. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Committee on Revolutionary Claims"—out of curiosity, what did that committee do?

According to this, it dealt with claims related to service in the Revolutionary War. Seems pretty remarkable that such a committee was still active in the 1910s, but there ya go.

Perhaps add this to the article? I guess it suggests they gave him a sinecure assignment for his first term... Ucucha 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In notes but not refs: Kleber, "Goebel Election Law". Also, refs that have multiple authors are listed in the notes under only the first author's name. That may be OK by MOS and WIAFA etc., but is still a bit confusing. I would sorta suggest doing it the more traditional way and list all authors). • Ling.Nut 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Kleber reference. Regarding the notes, when is it preferable to list all authors vs. listing the first with "et al."? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright review: All images are pre-1923 and therefore PD. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I found this a very interesting article, and although it was a bit dense, the writing was good. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to have your support, Karanacs! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Commebnts:
~~"Later that year, he received 105 votes for the Vice-Presidential nomination at the 1888 Republican National Convention". I have no idea whether that is a little or a lot. Can we get some context?~~

Not sure why I never thought of this. Fortunately, the proceedings of the convention are on Google Books. The original source gave no context. Corrected.

~~"citing Tate's defalcation as evidence" - is defalcation a word? I've never seen it before. Perhaps a more common term could be offered?~~

I only know it's a word because that was the word the sources used most often. I found out this morning that we have an article on it. I've provided a wiki-link.

Do we know of Bradley held any views about William Joseph Deboe? If so, they would be worth noting, given the drama that preceded Deboe's selection, the fact that his name came somewhat out of the blue, and given Bradley was so involved in the whole process.

I've not run across anything, though doubtless he did. He seems to have been a pretty outspoken, opinionated guy.

OK, I've added a couple of words of context. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:39, 6 October 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.