Talk:William L. Breckinridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 18:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/William L. Breckinridge; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Hooks are interesting - AGF on the offline sources (also, I noticed that the Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Mississippi link doesn't work; you may want to fix that in the article). Just need a QPQ. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:William L. Breckinridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a review for this posted shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS, the review is posted below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien everything taken care of or responded to below! Thank you for the review. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Passing now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written
  • Early in his adulthood, in the early to mid-1820s – Is there a way to word this that doesn't use "early" twice in a row?
  • Is antislavery the proper term? I usually just see "abolitionism".
    • I usually see that word as well but I decided to use "antislavery" since that's the word used by the source: "...they made a strong trio in the cause of antislavery." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1849, he was among the attendees – It's fairly obvious that we're talking about Breckinridge again, but the last sentence was about James G. Birney, so "he" should be replaced with "Breckinridge".
  • The following year, Breckinridge returned to academia – We've moved to a new section, so it should specify the year.
  • and Oakland never fully recovered – This makes it sound like someone that suffered a physical injury. Could this be reworded or clarified?
    • Reworded to "...Oakland was unable to return to its pre-war state..." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it closed for good – "for good" feels informal and is somewhat redundant since it was closed and sold.
  • There are a few times where Centre is used to refer to Centre College, which seems informal.
    • I added "College" to the first mention in the "College president" section, and the full name is present upon the school's first mention and last mention. I think the rest of the mentions as "Centre" are okay since I also have "Oakland" without its full name earlier in that section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the midst of – How about "during"
  • though that number had dropped – "though" isn't necessary here, since it's adding on to the previous point to confirm the change rather than contradicting it. "and" is fine.
    • Replaced "though" with "and" and removed the comma, then split the sentence since it was quite long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the graduating classes while he was in office... – "ranged from seven to thirteen students" is more readable than a list.
  • He formally left office – Clarify
  • The "personal life and death" section is very short. One option is to get rid of the "career" and "personal life" distinction to just have a chronological biography. But if not, then it won't affect whether it's a GA.
    • Personally I'd prefer to keep it since I don't have any dates for marriages or the death of his first wife, which would make it difficult to integrate into a larger chronology. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable with no original research

I notice that there are a lot of older sources, including some primary sources. Newer sources would be better, but of course sometimes that's just not possible with lesser known subjects

Reliability:

  • Presbyterians of the Past appears to be run by one person, and I'm unable to find evidence that he meets the requirements of WP:EXPERTSPS. This might not be a reliable source.
    • I will admit that I am probably biased in some way because a lot of the article uses his source, but I have found a little that would suggest that Waugh could qualify as a subject-matter expert: he is a church historian at the Second Presbyterian Church (Greenville, SC) and got his MDiv and PhD from Westminster Theological Seminary. He has written and reviewed articles for the journal The Confessional Presbyterian and the Westminster Theological Journal. If you're still wary I'd be happy to hunt down and look through the sources he lists in his article to verify. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • They seem like legitimate journals, so they should satisfy EXPERTSPS. This source should be usable at least for simple facts, though I'd be hesitant to use it for more contestable claims. All current uses look good. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Log College Press a reliable source?
    • From what I've been able to find, Log College Press is a publishing company and online library that digitizes and reprints documents and works from Presbyterians and Presbyterian writers from the 18th and 19th centuries. They describe themselves on the "about" section of their webpage as a "historical archive", and much of their content about Breckinridge are digitized versions of his works, in addition to a picture and label of the whereabouts of his grave, which I used as a source on the article. Here is a short blurb about the company and here is an article about it. It looks to me like they only reprint works as opposed to writing any of their own. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical and Historical Memoirs of Mississippi looks like it was published by a legitimate publisher, but is the authorship anonymous?
    • As far as I can see, no author is listed on the Google Books page or in the book itself - I looked through a couple of different digitized versions and none of them mentioned an author, just the publishing company. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

  • Howard (1975) – Checked all uses. Does the source specifically say that The Louisville Democrat supported abolitionism? My understanding of the source was that they decided to allow him to publish that opinion, not necessarily that they adopted it themselves
  • Klotter (1986) – Checked all uses. Good.
  • Minutes of the General Assembly (1859) – Where does it support Indianapolis? If it's on the webpage, I don't see it. If you're citing the book, then you should just cite the book directly with a page number rather than a webpage about it.
Broad in its coverage

This seems to be a subject with limited sources, but it covers the events of his life.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the article does not praise or criticize the subject.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Both images are public domain, and both have suitable captions.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_L._Breckinridge&oldid=1204116759"