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 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Political career of John C. Breckinridge[edit]

Political career of John C. Breckinridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Political career of John C. Breckinridge/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article from scratch after realizing the John C. Breckinridge article wouldn't comfortably accommodate all there was to say about the man. I hope to eventually form a featured topic with John C. Breckinridge, Political career of John C. Breckinridge, John C. Breckinridge's military service in the American Civil War (under construction), and the as-yet non-existent John C. Breckinridge's escape and exile from the United States. The article has had a peer review, a a thorough review by Wehwalt, and just passed a GA review. I think it is ready for the next step to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - mainly on the lead:

• I'm not sure about your comment in the nom statement on accommodating "all there was to say about the man". This seems a somewhat excessive aim, more appropriate to a full-length biography than an encyclopedia article.
  • Badly stated on my part, I guess. I think when you read the article, you'll understand what I mean. This doesn't cover his extensive military career, his long exile from the U.S., or his early life, and yet it is still a longish article unto itself. No way to accurately summarize his life in one, appropriately long article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The most headline-grabbing features of Breckinridge's career – his election as US vice president at the age of 35, and his presidential campaign in 1860 – should be in the first lead paragraph. That way, readers who know little or nothing about him are more likely to be hooked. At present the initial paragraph is perhaps too dull to excite interest.
  • I usually prefer chronological order over interest because I feel like it makes the lead less repetitive. Nevertheless, I've attempted a rewrite to accommodate this feedback. What do you think? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The second lead paragraph begins "Considering his re-election unlikely in 1854..." without saying what he was seeking reelection to.
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording "Despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern states, Breckinridge lost the election to Lincoln..." is misleading. It implies that the election was close; Breckinridge's was a regional candidacy with virtually no support outside the Deep South. There was never a prospect that he would win.
  • Well, I think the sources indicate he got more support outside the south than did any of the other regional candidates, but the point about it not being a close race is well-taken. Davis extensively speculates on ways certain states could have broken a different way if candidates had dropped out, united, etc. and concludes that – outside of the wildly extreme – there were really no scenarios that didn't end with a win for Lincoln. Reworded to dispel the notion of a close race. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Though he sympathized with the Southern cause, in the Senate, Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states." The comma after "Senate" needs removal to preserve your meaning. And a double split infinitive ("Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite") makes exceptionally ugly and awkward prose.
  • I think I fixed all of these. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a start; I've only managed to look at the lead so far. I will try to read more later and hopefully, provide more commentary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always appreciate your insightful feedback. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still think the biographical sections should come first; his political views are less interesting to the reader and you may lose people before you ever get to the "good stuff".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really kind of wrestled with this at the beginning, and again when you brought it up in your review, but it seems like understanding his philosophy is foundational to understanding his actions throughout his career. Otherwise, the motivations for those actions may be misinterpreted. Still, I understand your point and would like for other reviewers to give their opinions as well. I'm not totally averse to making the change if consensus dictates. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I am giving this more detailed attention than I usually do at FAC, because Peer Review, where I'd have probably picked it up, is not working well at present. Here are my comments on the next few sections:

Formative years

• "Bullock told Breckinridge that by the time they opened their practice in Burlington, Iowa, 'you were two-thirds of a Democrat'" - presumably this comment was made at some later point; this should be clarified, e.g. "Bullock later told..."
  • Date added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Problems here: "Breckinridge's brother-in-law wrote that, upon learning that he had "become loco-foco",[note 1] his uncle William said "I felt as I would have done if I head heard that my daughter had been dishonored." I assume "head" is a typo, but I still can't sort out the meaning clearly. The "he" and "his" are unclear, and the whole sentence construction needs rethinking"
  • Yes, I really struggled with how to construct this sentence, but the quote is too illustrative not to use. I've tried to make the sentence clearer. See if it is better now.

• • Yes, it's clearer now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Visiting Kentucky later that year, he met and married Mary Cyrene Burch, ending his time in Iowa." The pronoun needs defining. Also, beginning the sentence and its secondary clause with participles ("Visiting...ending") is problematic. I suggest: "While visiting...which ended..."
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Views on slavery: preamble

• I would change the "and" in the first line to "although"
  • No problem with that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is meant by "slavery protections"?
  • Laws and practices protecting the institution of slavery and the "property" of slaveowners. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate reputation

• "some charged that Breckinridge was an abolitionist". Apart from the vagueness of "some", "charged" sounds like accusation of a crime. Perhaps "regarded Breckenridge as" or similar formulation?
  • This issue was raised in the peer review. The vagueness of "some" unfortunately can't be helped; the source gives the subject only a passing, non-specific mention. As for the "charged" language, my original wording was "believed", but the peer reviewer pointed out, quite rightly, that slavery was a political "wedge issue", and that opponents could have charged Breckinridge with being an abolitionist without actually believing that he was. That was probably the case (on both sides) in his congressional re-election bid against Robert Letcher, where both candidates charged that the other was an abolitionist, despite little evidence that either was. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ultimately" - meaning...when? End of life?
  • Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• A date for the Kansas-Nebraska act would be helpful
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later views

• What is the difference between the state legislature and the "Assembly"?
  • There is no difference. The Kentucky legislature is called the "General Assembly". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "After losing the election to Abraham Lincoln..." I would omit the words "to Abraham Lincoln", since he was way behind Douglas, too, on the popular vote.
  • Yes, but he was second to Lincoln in electoral votes, which are ultimately the only ones that matter. Just ask Al Gore. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, I'm not wholly convinced by that analogy, but I won't push the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky House of Representatives

• I recommend you make this a level-3 subsection of "Early political career", to avoid the present exceedingly brief main section
  • I was thinking I had made it so. That was my intent. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "When the House convened..." Give a date (in fact, this whole subsection is woefully short of dates)
  • Added. The whole section encompasses a period of time from October 1849 to March 1850. I don't think the months of most specific actions during that time are all that significant. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Congress's ability legislate emancipation..." Word missing
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• March 4 definitely needs a year
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First term

• "despite Breckinridge's deference" - is there another way of putting this, since "deference" suggests "grovelling"
  • Having trouble coming up with an appropriate synonym. "Yield" is the only thing that comes to mind, but it doesn't really fit here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd probably recast the sentence: "Boyd was elected, and despite Breckinridge's gesture, assigned him to the lightly-regarded Foreign Affairs Committee." Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That'll work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "a more active role" - maybe just "an active role", unless he was notably inactive previously
  • He was, in fact, notably inactive previously. Davis talks about how newly elected legislators usually clamored for the floor to talk about pretty much anything because they wanted to show that they were "doing something" and thus worthy of re-election. Breckinridge did not speak on the House floor for the first time until March 1852, three months into his first session, and Davis mentioned that his more senior peers respected that. All this didn't seem particularly noteworthy for the article, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Fugitive Slave Law
  • It is linked on first mention (last paragraph under "Later views"). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "he supported repairing" → "he supported the repair of..." The number of ...ings is bothersome; there are 5 in the following sentence.
  • Changed "repairing". The others are all in the same sentence and used for parallelism. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "when the legislature adjourned its session" - which session?
  • I intended the first session of his term, but on re-reading, the session didn't adjourn; he was just absent for part of it. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments

Second term - election

• The long blue link: "buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote" is a bit distracting, and I think unnecessary. The described activity is very obviously electoral fraud.
  • Yeah, I debated on whether to include that or not. Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the second session..." Clarify (second section of the 33rd Congress?)
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US vice president

• What was the nature of the "contemporary political convention" that Breckinridge defied during the campaign?
  • The convention, apparently, was that the candidates stayed home and made no speeches during the campaign, letting others do their speaking for them. It was seen as a sign of "ambition", which was frowned upon, to advocate your own election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• On the matter of the White House "hostess", perhaps you should explain to the reader that Buchanan was a bachelor, and that the hostess ran the house. That doesn't mitigate the disrespect to the VP, but it would help explain the somewhat ambiguous term "hostess".
  • I tried to do this succinctly in-line in previous iterations of the article, without success. I've added an explanatory note. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, maybe a word to explain the vice president's role as presiding officer in the Senate. This would help understanding of statements such as "Five tie-breaking votes provided a means of expressing his views".
  • I had hoped the quote about his intent to preside fairly would communicate that, but I've added another sentence to make it explicit. Do you think that sentence needs a cite? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Senate's move from the Old Senate Chamber to a more spacious one on January 4, 1859, provided another opportunity." - another opportunity for what?
  • To express his views, a reference back to the sentence about the tie-breaking votes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential election of 1860

• Specify Douglas's 1858 Senate reelection bid
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "After Douglas supporters voted to replace Alabama and Louisiana's walk-out delegates..." Two things: what are "walk-out delegates", and why did one candidate's supporters have the power to do this?
  • "Walk-out delegates" were the delegates who walked out of the previous convention. Douglas's supporters had the power to do this because they were in the majority (in both conventions, actually). They just didn't have the two-thirds majority needed to nominate in the first convention. (I think the delegates to the second convention accepted a simple majority threshhold.) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wry note: Earlier, you rejected my quibble about Breckinridge not losing the election "to Lincoln". Now you seem to be accepting my position, since your wording implies he was not even running against Lincoln! Seriously, though, the word "effectively" might usefully be inserted between "election" and "pitted".
  • Well, until the GA review, the sentence noted that this observation is credited to Lowell H. Harrison, but the GA reviewer thought it was the prevailing view of all historians and that citing a specific one was unnecessary. I think the suggestion about "effectively" is a good one. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the purpose of redlinking the words "committee of thirteen members"? Doesn't suggest a potential article title.
  • I took it from List of defunct United States congressional committees, although I copied the link incorrectly, which I have fixed. I think it could justify at least a stub article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Senate

• "He also voted against a resolution to remove the names of the senators from seceded states from the Senate roll." A brief note of which states had seceded and when, would be helpful.
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate Secretary of War

• "some time" is one word (unlike "sometimes", which has a different meaning)
  • A typo, I guess. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the term "youngest-ever Confederate cabinet member" a trifle absurd, since the Confederacy cabinet lasted barely five years. I would remove the "ever", if not delete this unimportant information.
  • It's not that absurd if you consider that there were a total of 19 people (if our wiki-categorization is correct) who served in the Confederate cabinet in those five years, five in Breckinridge's position alone. I've reworded to avoid "ever". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...John Archibald Campbell, who had opposed Breckinridge's nomination, believing he would focus on a select few bureaus and ignore the rest". What is meant by "bureaus" in this context?
  • Bureaus of the War Department. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "By late February, Breckinridge concluded..." Either replace "By" by "In", or amend to "had concluded"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The sudden reference to "President Andrew Johnson" without explanation might confuse some readers. Suggest a parenthetical "(who had assumed the presidency on Lincoln's assassination on April 15)"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...overtaken by forces under Lieutenant Colonel Andrew K. Campbell". Specify "Union forces..."
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this is an impressive article; most of the above points are routine fixes that can be easily made (or in some cases refuted). My one general criticism, a fairly mild one, is a tendency towards overdetailing. Trivial points such as Breckinridge's opposition to funds for a sculpture of George Washington in a toga, the nicknaming of his son, the draw-rigging non-event, and a few other instances, could be removed without any detriment to the article; indeed, such details make reading of the article harder than it should be. That might be just my personal preference, but you might reflect on it. I look forward to supporting the article after you have responded to my specific points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was a sub-article, I indulged in details more than I usually would. I'd be interested to hear the views of other reviewers on what information, if any, they feel is too trivial to include. The only one I'd probably fight for is the son's nickname; if someone were to find a reference to Owen in one source and John Witherspoon in another, it needs to be clear that they are the same child. Would you mind to weigh in on Wehwalt's suggestion above about the order of the political philosphy relative to the political biography? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wehwalt has a point, and if this was the main biographical article for Breckinridge I would entirely agree. In this case, given the article's specific focus, the issue is less clear. I personally found it quite helpful, when following his career, to have some knowledge of his beliefs and how they evolved, but others may feel differently and this is not, for me, a sticking point. I don't think the article's eventual promotion should hinge on this point, but if it does, I'll go along with the change if you so decide. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I don't think he would have insisted upon it as a condition of promotion; I just wanted another reviewer's perspective. It sounds like you read it pretty much as I intended, as a guide to his thinking for later reference, with only as many allusions to later events as necessary to keep the reader oriented. That tells me that I wasn't way out in left field with my organization, at least. (Not that I thought Wehwalt was implying that.) Like you, I can see the benefits of doing it either way, so I'm just trying to see what most folks find most helpful. Anything else needed to secure your support? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I have given this article a lot of review attention and I think my points have been suitably addressed. In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account of an interesting political career and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:John-C.-Breckinridge-circa-1850.jpg: page?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• File:LinnBoyd.jpg: source says Linn, description says Lynn - which is correct?
  • "Linn" is what I see most commonly, but I think both have been used, depending on which work you consult. I've changed "Lynn" to "Linn".
• File:RPLetcher.jpg: first source link is dead, and it's possible (though unlikely) that date of death was less than 100 years ago (since creator is unknown)
  • I tried to dig up some information on the Charlotte Letcher Collection to see when it was first exhibited, but no luck. I assume this refers to Robert Letcher's second wife, since her name was Charlotte and they had no children. He and his first wife also had no children. If so, she died in 1879, which would strongly suggest that the work was first "published" prior to 1923. I can neither verify this nor that the author died more than 100 years ago, but both are pretty likely, in my opinion. If neither of these are satisfactory, then I guess FfD it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg: source?
  • Looks like an original work to me. The author (JWB (talk · contribs)) looks like he or she is still semi-active. Perhaps we can contact him/her to clarify any specific concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg: who was the creator of the statue? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. At some point, I hope to do a bit more research on it, and I'll add that info if I find it. In the meantime, I know it was first published before 1923, so it's definitely PD. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to intrude, but I did a little copy editing as I saw fit. Just a quick scan: all in all looks good to me but I wonder if the article is not a little over-reliant on just two major sources (the Davis and the Heck), once you strip out articles and encyclopaedia entries. I know from editing the KFC page that sometimes major sources just aren't available, but is this definitely the case here? Plurality of reference is superior to duality. Farrtj (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I suspect there are many works that reference Breckinridge in some capacity, but considering that Davis' biography is over 600 pages, I doubt that many of them cover significant new territory. Davis' biography also won the 1973 Jules F. Landry Award for Southern History and garnered Davis the first of two nominations for the Pulitzer Prize, so I suspect it's pretty complete. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "charged" formulation, I've got an idea. Although Davis as the standard source uses it, it should be allowable, I think, for Wikipedia editors to de-charge emotional content in words used in the source, although great care must be exercised not to introduce unwarranted re-interpretations. So "believed" or "regarded" are out of the question, as I've previously pointed out, since those words introduce distinctly new meanings that are unfounded in any source. But, what about a formulation as "sought to represent him as an abolitionist"? If the word "charged" has a too strong connotation in present day English as "accused of a crime", then such a substitution might be in order. But, as I see it, to be the judge of that (i.e, the subtleties in the meaning of "charged"), you'd have to be a native speaker, I think, so I'll leave it to other editors to reach a verdict.Arildnordby (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sought to represent him as an abolitionist" seems a little wordy, but "represented him as" or "claimed he was" or something to that effect might work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, I'll leave this issue (if it really is an issue) for native speakers. A formulation like "alleged he was.." includes, perhaps, the rather shaky foundation upon which the allegation rested?Arildnordby (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I cannot be one of the three reviewers to OK this article to FA status. First off, I'm too new here, and need to build up sufficient experience. Secondly, I think that to FA this particular article, a reviewer ought to have quite a bit of US history knowledge, which I have not. So, I'll just leave incidental notes on points that strike me as unclear, rather than taking on the role as reviewer.Arildnordby (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable. In the limited circumstances under which I review FACs, I like to have at least a basic working knowledge of the subject. Your comments are welcome here, regardless of whether you register a !vote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even after the peer review, I had my concerns about this article but a lot of the rough spots seem to be smoothed out. Have not examined images. A few remaining things:

Early influences:

• Perhaps it would be wide to summarize his college career in a sentence, since you mention both Centre and Transylvania.

• Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. House of Representatives
• "using the money to buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote." It might be worth mentioning whether the secret ballot was then in use.

• I'm not entirely sure about this. I believe it was viva voce, but I can't cite that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breckinridge – a delegate to the national convention and a presidential elector " Still not happy about this. Suggest "designated as a presidential elector" as Breckinridge doesn't get to be one if the Whigs take Kentucky.

• I can live with that. It's a somewhat complicated issue to sum up concisely. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Douglas wrote to Robert Toombs that he would support his enemy Alexander H. Stephens" Whose enemy? Toombs's? Any ambiguity can be removed by adding after "enemy" and fellow Georgian"

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Lincoln's insistence on emancipation" I hope you are not stating this as a fact, but as what Breck was saying. Lincoln expressed more moderate views as candidate.

• Yes. This is a summation of Breckinridge's address. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Governor Magoffin refused to endorse the resolution, preventing its enforcement." Not that there was any way to enforce it, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite so. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• The format of the Richard Nelson Current entry in the bibliography does not conform to the standard otherwise used (surname first)
• Citations to that source should be given to author/editor, not to book title (ref 32).

Otherwise all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure if editors got the same treatment as authors. All fixed now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article. I like the way you broke out his views on slavery, since it was the biggest issue of the day. I have only a few questions:

• Does Heck write specifically that Breckinridge could have been removed from office for dueling? It goes against our modern understanding of states' limits on federal offices (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton,) but 19th-century folks may have thought differently on the matter.
• The first sentence in "U.S. vice president": I assume you mean Powell and Boyd were potential nominees for president? Or vice president? It's unclear.
• Where you convert $50 to present-day equivalent, is there a source? There was once a template for that. It may still exist.
• In "U.S. Senate," you call Montgomery Blair a Virginian. Is that right? I've always though of his as a Marylander, but I could be mistaken.
• That's all. Looking forward to the rest of the Breckinridge series! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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) 23:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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