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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 [1].

James K. Polk[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a president who greatly expanded the United States, but who is controversial for a number of reasons, for example he was a slaveowner. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

White House caption shouldn't end in a period

Done.

Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use a fixed pixel size - use upright to scale instead

Done.

File:James_Polk_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:White_House_1846.jpg

Done.

File:James_K_Polk_and_Sarah_C_Polk.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:State-dining-room-polk-cabinet.jpg

One cut, the remainder I've added on the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oregoncountry2.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Mapa_de_Mexico_1845.PNG, File:Mexican–American_War_(without_Scott's_Campaign)-en.svg, File:Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo.png, File:United_States_1845-03-1845-12.png, File:United_States_1849-1850.png

I'm not quite sure how to respond. Presumably the creator of the map obtained the data. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding sources to the image description page to confirm the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added supporting information with links. I can't swear to every jot on the map but these seem to contain the same information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:James_Polk_Grave.jpg should include an explicit tag reflecting the copyright status of the monument. Same with File:James_Knox_Polk_Statue.JPG

Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polk_Place.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?

Swapped for a better image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:JamesKnoxPolk.png: given the dates, the author could not have released it under the claimed license

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Standard_of_the_Governor_of_Tennessee.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my problems were addressed in the Peer Review. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for that, and for your thorough review there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

IB

This is a monster of an IB and on my screen the log cabin picture actually breaks the line into the Early political career section, which is something to avoid. There is flexibility to remove the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields from the appointments, which may be worth considering, although I leave the decision to you (the Preceded by/Succeeded fields tell us absolutely nothing about Polk himself, and are of extremely limited benefit).

Instead, I've shortened by merging the two congressional districts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"Samuel Polk died in 1827; his widow lived until 1852, surviving her oldest son by three years.[6]" This slightly jarred when in the next sentence we drop back to Samuel in 1812. Would it be better in a footnote?
"Polk opened an office in Maury County and[3] was successful": odd place for a footnote – I would have thought it would follow "County" or the end of the sentence.

Tennessee legislator

"time for campaigning,[16] Already" full stop or lower case A?
"Her grace, intelligence and charming conversation": as this is opinion in Wiki's voice, I'd be more comfortable with "according to xxx" as part of the sentence.
"Polk, though much of his political career": through?

Done to the end of "Jackson disciple", and will continue soonest. Enjoying this – well written and engaging, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the kind words. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways and Means chair and Speaker of the House

"Polk, with Jackson's backing, became the chairman of Ways and Means". Is that the Ways and Means Committee? If so, it should be the full name and the link moved up from later in the section

It is linked in the previous section. I've removed the duplicate link and rewritten it slightly.

"June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson": link speaker of the house?
"assuring his disciple in a letter he meant Polk to burn that New England would support Polk for Speaker": its been a long day and I'm quite tired, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here

Governor of Tennessee

"a Tennessee afire for White and Whiggism" poetically put, but perhaps a word or two in explanation: my first thought was 'who's White?'

Third paragraph of previous section. Do you think the reader needs more of a reminder? Your reaction suggests "yes".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No change needed - my error. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Election Day": do we normally capitalise like this?

Yes, in AmEng

Done to the end of the '44 election, and it's riveting stuff – reminds me of the politics I studied at school and university. More to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you are enjoying it ... if I haven't addressed it above, it's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch...

Transition

Bancroft "became U.S. minister to Britain": is it minister or ambassador (I've not re-read the previous text, but is this the first mention of the post, in which case formal title and link would be better).

It was then minister to Britain, ambassador came in in 1893.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

"Polk offered Major General Winfield Scott, the position of top commander" is the comma needed after Scott in AmEng?
"Americans at the gates of Mexico City. Trist negotiated" comma rather than full stop?

Development of the country

"draft a sufficient veto message, so Polk signed the bill": you could get away with "he" here

'48 election

"He did remove some Van Buren supporters from federal office." Maybe it's the 'did remove', but this reads oddly to me and lacks flow from the previous sentence. Semi colon it into the previous sentence, or perhaps redraw as "canvass for votes, although he removed.." (unless you think we're in comma splice territory)?

I've clarified it a bit, and feel it stands better on its own. I've made it clearer he was playing politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. All very nit-picky as it's up to the usual high standard – and no deal breakers in any of my observations. I look forward to supporting this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all happy with me, and this meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

A few minor formatting points:

Ref 16: space required after p.
Ref 17: why "Page" not "p."?
Ref 114: requires pp. not p.

Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your spending your time on it. Thank you. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99[edit]

I've made 47 edits to this article, but I don't think it's quite enough to call me one of the major contributors. As another side note, looking at the way this article was in 2005, it's amazing to see what counted as a featured article back then, and helps us to appreciate how much we're progressed.

Early life

"His mother Jane Polk named her firstborn after her father James Knox." I would add a comma after the word "father." Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any idea what the political views were of Polk's mother? In the John C. Calhoun article, for example, we noted that Calhoun's father was a devoted advocate of states' rights, and that this probably influenced his son. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siegenthaler concentrates more on the father and grandfather, who were pro-Jefferson and anti-Federalist Party. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

". While there Polk joined the Dialectic Society where he took part in debates, became its president and learned the art of oratory." What subjects were debated and what was his position? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee legislator

For the first caption, does "in 1849" really need to be in parenthesis? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some more details on the courtship between Polk and his wife? Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are, but they really aren't confirmed. For example, that Jackson urged Polk to marry, and stated who he should marry in such terms that it was very clear Sarah Childress was meant, and Polk picked up on it and said he would propose to her. I'll see if I can find something beyond doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it. All the stories, of Jackson as matchmaker and of her not marrying him until he ran for the legislature, I don't feel are solid or illuminating enough to be worth including in an overlong article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson dispute

Link to 1832 presidential election. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did this. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the Nullification Crisis, it may be helpful to briefly present Polk's view not only on secession but on the right of a state to nullify federal law. That was, after all, what the crisis was originally about. It was not until Jackson resisted that the agitators began to talk of secession. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a little better now. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for more info.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, well done. More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Tennessee

"...Johnson was disliked by many Southern whites for fathering two daughters by a biracial mistress." That's not why he was disliked. Many other southern statesmen-Jefferson, for instance-had children with slave mistresses. The difference was that Johnson made the female slave his "common law wife" and gave the daughters his surname. There's a difference, and that should be clearly stated. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnson would make for an interesting project...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we could mention something about why Tennessee switched to being a Whig stronghold? It's something I've never really understood. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for information on this. One of the biographers speaks of an anti-Jackson backlash, but doesn't get down to cases. I suspect it has something to do with internal improvements, but haven't found anything yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits adding content. Please feel free to look them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partition of Oregon Country

In the second paragraph, the article links and defines Manifest Destiny, even though it has done so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep the second link for the convenience of the reader, as it is the definition of Manifest Destiny.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation of Texas

The annexation resolution-do you mean the one signed by Tyler on March 1? I'm not completely clear. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clarified.

Road to war

From my understand, the U.S. claimed the border as the Rio Grande, while Mexico claimed it as the Nueces. I don't think that's ever explicitly stated or elaborated upon. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Annexation of Texas section, I've now emphasized it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to link to the Mexican-American War at the end. You do so already. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delinked.

Course of the war

If Scott really had that much baggage, do we have any idea why Polk decided to appoint him at the beginning anyway? If we know anything of what led Polk to choose Scott-other than, say, Taylor-I think the article should say so. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Polk explicitly order Taylor not to march any further, only to have Taylor go to Buena Vista? Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

"Mexican casualties were five times American" Rephrase. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've read through "Development of the country." It's excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm up to date with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To finish out:

The "States admitted to the Union" section should be cited. This is especially true if these states and dates aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. I could be wrong, but I think Texas is the only one that is. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was his wife Methodist? That might explain why he decided to join the Methodist denomination. We should mention it if so. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the states. His wife was not Methodist, but he had long considered himself a Wesleyan Methodist, though he often accompanied her to her church.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support A comprehensive and well-written article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged both for the most thorough review and for the support. It is always good to hear from people who know the material.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Support, with a few minor suggestions. For anyone interested in American political history this is a fascinating, indeed a gripping read. Particularly arresting is the two sides of Polk: the serious, determined statesman in successful pursuit of his stated goals, and the venal slaveholder, casually trading in lives for his personal profit. A man of his times – no doubt the same dichotomy occurs in many of the "great men" of the day. My one reservation concerning the article is that its length may deter potential readers from tackling it, which would be a shame.

"People liked Polk's oratory, earning him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump." It was the oratory, not the people, that earned him the nickname. I suggest "People liked Polk's oratory, which earned him the nickname "Napoleon of the Stump."

Done.

"Polk won re-election [to Congress] in 1827" – wouldn't the election have been in 1826?

Unless there was a special session, the congressmen wouldn't be needed until December, and Tennessee held congressional elections in August. This was not uncommon at the time. Presumably they had a procedure for an early election in case there was a special session.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "but" in "Polk has been described as the first "dark horse" presidential nominee, but..." is misused, since what follows does not qualify or counteract the initial statement. Perhaps "although"?

Fixed.

"Perhaps the most important event of Polk's presidency was the Mexican-American War." This reads as an editorial opinion, and could be deleted without effect.

Cut.

"Similarly, other than the Gadsden Purchase and that of Alaska (1867) there was no major U.S. expansion until the 1890s." Those are pretty big "other thans", especially that of Alaska. A possible rewording: "The Gadsden Purchase, and that of Alaska (1867), were the only major U.S. expansion until the 1890s."

Done.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding length, most of the trouble is in the war-related sections and I think it would be dificult, given Polk's close management of the war, to cut very much. Other than reviewers, I've come to believe people rarely read articles in full ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
"Ezekiel Polk, the future president's grandfather"..... we've already established Ezekiel's relationship to him in the previous paragraph, so the "future president's" bit is repetitive Done. "James learned from the political talk around the dinner table; both Samuel and Ezekiel were strong supporters of President Thomas Jefferson and opponents of the Federalist Party"..... did this perhaps influence his own views? If so, I would make note of that. That is what I meant to imply. "though the operation was successful, it may have left James sterile, as he had no children" sounds rather speculative; can you find anything more concrete on sterility? There's no way of knowing for certain, as this would be a private thing. The sources speculate on sterility or even impotence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] May as well just scrap when there's not enough known for certain Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] It's widespread among historians and biographers. I think it should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] In that case, maybe say something along the lines of "it is believed to have left James sterile" if biographers suspect this Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Used your words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "enrolled at a Presbyterian academy in 1813"..... a name would help if known I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "where he may have met his future wife, Sarah Childress"..... again, definitive answers are preferable We don't know. Her older brother was Polk's classmate there. Just get rid of it altogether then Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Having "the late" in "singling out the late Alexander Hamilton" is a bit wordy Not everyone has dates of death in their memory, and I'd like to stress that Hamilton was dead by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "On September 20, 1819 Polk, with Grundy's endorsement, was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate" is clunky; try "With Grundy's endorsement, Polk was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate on September 20, 1819" The issue with that is that there's the rest of the sentence, that the Senate sat in Murfreesboro, and that Grundy had been elected. I can't pin that information easily on to the sentence as you have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Polk courted Sarah Childress—they married on January 1, 1824 in Murfreesboro"..... she should only be linked in her first mention within article body, and is it known when they started courting or were engaged? I linked for a second time as the first is in a place the reader may not notice. I think a second link is justified. I've added some dates--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Link discussion mooted by the above deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Thus began an alliance" reads awkwardly, maybe "It began an alliance" or "It established an alliance" would be better I like what we have better than your suggestions, though I am not wedded to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Changed "thus" to "this" "Important" from "most important and loyal supporters in the House" seems like a personal opinion Prominent. "may have been written by Polk"..... aside from being a Jacksonian, what evidence is there suggesting this? According to Siegenthaler, Polk was accused of it by Jackson's opponents, but he denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] In that case, I would make such a note. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Although the Polks remained childless, they were rearing the children of James' three deceased brothers"..... how many of his nieces and/or nephews did they look after? I've cut it. There seem to have been at least three, but they weren't all at the same time. J. Knox Walker, later the presidential secretary, seems to have been one of them. Two others were Marshall and Eunice Polk, children of Polk's brother Marshall, though Eunice died while at school. Marshall doesn't seem to have come to the White House with Polk. Even if "In any event" from "In any event, the Whig presidential candidate, General William Henry Harrison" is appropriate tone, it just overfills the sentence, so scratch that bit Cut. It's not grammatically correct to begin a sentence with "but" as you did with "But due to the opposition to Van Buren" as it makes a sentence fragment. You can make this into a complete sentence by turning it into a "however" or merging it with the previous sentence. Done. More to come later. Currently up to the "General election" subsection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] While I can tell that the "myself" in "I intend to be myself President of the U.S." is intended to be emphasis, we're only supposed to use those for titles of works like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. The sources have it italicized. I gather it was underlined in the original. Isn't that almost altering the original?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Not when you use the same words and punctuation as it does Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] This is the nearest to the original that I can find and it has italics.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Even so, it's not truly altering the text unless you use different words and/or punctuation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] SNUGGUMS, just so we're clear, because I'm not as fluent in every detail of the MOS as you, are you asking me to remove the italics? Can you point me to where it says that? Not doubting you, just for information. I'd really like to keep the emphasis here in some way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Looking through MOS:ITAL, it turns out this is better for emphasis than bold or all capital letters, but should only be used sparingly and with <em>word</em> or ((em\|word)) rather than ''word''. Just be sure you're not using the two apostrophes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] OK, used the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "The lack of trust Polk had in Taylor was returned by the Whig general"..... why not just say "Polk and Taylor did not trust each other"? Because that treats the subject as fresh, and the issue of Polk not trusting his Whig generals has been discussed before.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] The second and third paragraphs under "Fiscal policy" could probably be merged when the third is quite short in order to avoid choppy-looking text Done. Having a really long paragraph followed right by a super short paragraph within "Judicial appointments" seems imbalanced; I'd even them out somewhat I've split the long paragraph. Even if "likely because he deemed it unpresidential to canvass for votes" wasn't just a guess, it seems unnecessary when you've already noted how Polk didn't run for another term to begin with Campaigning for one's successor is a bit different from campaigning for oneself. The reader may recollect that the recent Democratic president had a different view on whether to campaign for another president of their own party.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] What I'm getting at is that "Polk did not campaign, remaining at his desk at the White House" by itself is sufficient, though you could add Taylor into that sentence if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I've cut the text objected to and played with things there a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "March 4, the presidential inauguration day until 1937, fell on a Sunday"..... seems superfluous Enough people know, I think, that March 4 used to be the inauguration day to justify an explanation. What I mean is that the day of the week doesn't really seem to be a significant detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] But it is the reason for the postponement of the swearing-in. I'm not sure I can explain the postponement without mentioning the day of the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Then you should more directly say so in the text Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I've tweaked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "in early June, he fell ill again, likely with cholera"..... if you don't know for sure what this was, then just "fell ill again" is sufficient Does "his infectious disease death" refer to cholera? While the section on his death seems to suggest that was what killed him, we should opt to be explicit on the matter. On the above two: that we cannot know with 100 percent certainty what killed him, most sources say either "cholera" or "most likely cholera". I don't know how the reader is well served by saying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you could then say he was believed to have died from it Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I fail to see how "Polk had a post-presidency of 103 days, the shortest of the presidents who did not die in office" is worth including Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "The 17 year old and one of the 12 year olds were purchased together at an estate sale, and may have been brothers"..... whether they were related or not doesn't seem to be the focus of the slave purchase, so let's delete the "and may have been brothers" bit Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "and it is unlikely that her new partner, having paid $28,500 for a half-interest in the plantation and its slaves, would have allowed the laborers to go free had she died while slavery was legal" seems more appropriate for Sarah's article (if anywhere)\\ It deals with how the provisions of Polk's will were carried out, or in this case, not. He could have left his wife a life estate in the slaves, with them manumitted on her death. Like Washington did.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Detail on deaths and tombstones of slaves doesn't seem relevant here I think, especially in the present day, it is useful to know that the issue of Polk and slavery is still being examined, and that the slaves are not forgotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] "in Arthur M. Schlesinger's poll"..... do you mean Arthur Sr. or Arthur Jr.? That should do it. Thankfully there are no major issues with this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] I think I've responded or changed all those things. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"Ezekiel Polk, the future president's grandfather"..... we've already established Ezekiel's relationship to him in the previous paragraph, so the "future president's" bit is repetitive

Done.

"James learned from the political talk around the dinner table; both Samuel and Ezekiel were strong supporters of President Thomas Jefferson and opponents of the Federalist Party"..... did this perhaps influence his own views? If so, I would make note of that.

That is what I meant to imply.

"though the operation was successful, it may have left James sterile, as he had no children" sounds rather speculative; can you find anything more concrete on sterility?

There's no way of knowing for certain, as this would be a private thing. The sources speculate on sterility or even impotence.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May as well just scrap when there's not enough known for certain Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's widespread among historians and biographers. I think it should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe say something along the lines of "it is believed to have left James sterile" if biographers suspect this Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used your words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"enrolled at a Presbyterian academy in 1813"..... a name would help if known

I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"where he may have met his future wife, Sarah Childress"..... again, definitive answers are preferable

We don't know. Her older brother was Polk's classmate there.

Just get rid of it altogether then Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having "the late" in "singling out the late Alexander Hamilton" is a bit wordy

Not everyone has dates of death in their memory, and I'd like to stress that Hamilton was dead by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"On September 20, 1819 Polk, with Grundy's endorsement, was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate" is clunky; try "With Grundy's endorsement, Polk was elected clerk of the Tennessee State Senate on September 20, 1819"

The issue with that is that there's the rest of the sentence, that the Senate sat in Murfreesboro, and that Grundy had been elected. I can't pin that information easily on to the sentence as you have it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Polk courted Sarah Childress—they married on January 1, 1824 in Murfreesboro"..... she should only be linked in her first mention within article body, and is it known when they started courting or were engaged?

I linked for a second time as the first is in a place the reader may not notice. I think a second link is justified. I've added some dates--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link discussion mooted by the above deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus began an alliance" reads awkwardly, maybe "It began an alliance" or "It established an alliance" would be better

I like what we have better than your suggestions, though I am not wedded to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "thus" to "this"

"Important" from "most important and loyal supporters in the House" seems like a personal opinion

Prominent.

"may have been written by Polk"..... aside from being a Jacksonian, what evidence is there suggesting this?

According to Siegenthaler, Polk was accused of it by Jackson's opponents, but he denied it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would make such a note. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the Polks remained childless, they were rearing the children of James' three deceased brothers"..... how many of his nieces and/or nephews did they look after?

I've cut it. There seem to have been at least three, but they weren't all at the same time. J. Knox Walker, later the presidential secretary, seems to have been one of them. Two others were Marshall and Eunice Polk, children of Polk's brother Marshall, though Eunice died while at school. Marshall doesn't seem to have come to the White House with Polk.

Even if "In any event" from "In any event, the Whig presidential candidate, General William Henry Harrison" is appropriate tone, it just overfills the sentence, so scratch that bit

Cut.

It's not grammatically correct to begin a sentence with "but" as you did with "But due to the opposition to Van Buren" as it makes a sentence fragment. You can make this into a complete sentence by turning it into a "however" or merging it with the previous sentence.

Done.

More to come later. Currently up to the "General election" subsection. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I can tell that the "myself" in "I intend to be myself President of the U.S." is intended to be emphasis, we're only supposed to use those for titles of works like books, journals, magazines, and newspapers.

The sources have it italicized. I gather it was underlined in the original. Isn't that almost altering the original?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not when you use the same words and punctuation as it does Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nearest to the original that I can find and it has italics.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it's not truly altering the text unless you use different words and/or punctuation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, just so we're clear, because I'm not as fluent in every detail of the MOS as you, are you asking me to remove the italics? Can you point me to where it says that? Not doubting you, just for information. I'd really like to keep the emphasis here in some way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through MOS:ITAL, it turns out this is better for emphasis than bold or all capital letters, but should only be used sparingly and with <em>word</em> or ((em|word)) rather than ''word''. Just be sure you're not using the two apostrophes. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, used the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The lack of trust Polk had in Taylor was returned by the Whig general"..... why not just say "Polk and Taylor did not trust each other"?

Because that treats the subject as fresh, and the issue of Polk not trusting his Whig generals has been discussed before.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third paragraphs under "Fiscal policy" could probably be merged when the third is quite short in order to avoid choppy-looking text

Done.

Having a really long paragraph followed right by a super short paragraph within "Judicial appointments" seems imbalanced; I'd even them out somewhat

I've split the long paragraph.

Even if "likely because he deemed it unpresidential to canvass for votes" wasn't just a guess, it seems unnecessary when you've already noted how Polk didn't run for another term to begin with

Campaigning for one's successor is a bit different from campaigning for oneself. The reader may recollect that the recent Democratic president had a different view on whether to campaign for another president of their own party.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at is that "Polk did not campaign, remaining at his desk at the White House" by itself is sufficient, though you could add Taylor into that sentence if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the text objected to and played with things there a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"March 4, the presidential inauguration day until 1937, fell on a Sunday"..... seems superfluous

Enough people know, I think, that March 4 used to be the inauguration day to justify an explanation.

What I mean is that the day of the week doesn't really seem to be a significant detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the reason for the postponement of the swearing-in. I'm not sure I can explain the postponement without mentioning the day of the week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should more directly say so in the text Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in early June, he fell ill again, likely with cholera"..... if you don't know for sure what this was, then just "fell ill again" is sufficient
Does "his infectious disease death" refer to cholera? While the section on his death seems to suggest that was what killed him, we should opt to be explicit on the matter.

On the above two: that we cannot know with 100 percent certainty what killed him, most sources say either "cholera" or "most likely cholera". I don't know how the reader is well served by saying nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could then say he was believed to have died from it Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how "Polk had a post-presidency of 103 days, the shortest of the presidents who did not die in office" is worth including

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The 17 year old and one of the 12 year olds were purchased together at an estate sale, and may have been brothers"..... whether they were related or not doesn't seem to be the focus of the slave purchase, so let's delete the "and may have been brothers" bit

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"and it is unlikely that her new partner, having paid $28,500 for a half-interest in the plantation and its slaves, would have allowed the laborers to go free had she died while slavery was legal" seems more appropriate for Sarah's article (if anywhere)\\

It deals with how the provisions of Polk's will were carried out, or in this case, not. He could have left his wife a life estate in the slaves, with them manumitted on her death. Like Washington did.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detail on deaths and tombstones of slaves doesn't seem relevant here

I think, especially in the present day, it is useful to know that the issue of Polk and slavery is still being examined, and that the slaves are not forgotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in Arthur M. Schlesinger's poll"..... do you mean Arthur Sr. or Arthur Jr.?

That should do it. Thankfully there are no major issues with this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've responded or changed all those things. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can now safely support given the article's improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Pls check over duplinks (some may be justified in an article of this size), but won't hold up promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.