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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2016 [1].

---

William Howard Taft[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a president who perhaps falls into the shadow of his predecessor, but had an astounding federal career. No other president has even served on the Supreme Court, let alone led it, thus heading two of the three branches of government. It's a bit long, but somewhat shorter than it was.Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up map
• "Organization and principles" image has the image name displayed in the caption again
• File:Taft_Addressing_First_Philippine_Assembly_1907.jpg needs a US PD tag, but if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
• File:WmHTaft.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Gifford_Pinchot_3c03915u.jpg
• File:Taftheadstone.JPG: what is the copyright status of the headstone itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've resolved that either by deleting them or by beefing up the licensing (in the case of the headstone). I don't know what to do about the css crop problem so I've commented that out for the moment. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having commented profusely at the peer review, I have little more to add. As Wehwalt says, the article was originally somewhat longer; that he has managed to reduce the wordcount without in my view short-changing any of the facets of his subject is a laudable achievement in itself. The article is informative and readable; one question arising from Wehwalt's nom statement: who, or what office, is at the head of the third branch of the US government? Just curious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Speaker, but it may be a hydra-headed beast. If so, Polk would be the other person to have gotten two out of three, which ain't bad. Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is remarkably good. It took me a week, on and off, to read; by chance I had stumbled across it a few days before the nom, not knowing who the main editor had been nor his intentions. The writing is clear and engaging, I had no real changes to make. The sources are of the first rank, and formatted in the preferred style. I don't have an issue with the length, as I returned to it a number of times, and anyway, readers tend to search for the sections they are looking for rather than the subject as a whole, and the level of detail here, across the board, is admirable, they will be satisfied and well informed. Ceoil (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking in here in a brief Wikibreak-break – this one is too good to miss. At PR I found it top flight and it has been tightened and polished further since then. Balance impeccable, sourcing wide and impressive, images fine, and prose a pleasure to read. Very happy to support its promotion to FA. Looking forward to Wehwalt's article on Lord Chief Justice Obama in due course. Tim riley talk 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you indeed. I think the article on the present chief executive is guarded with dragons ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. Nicely done, as usual. Sources all look good. Minor nitpicks:

• fn 126 should be pp
• Is there a reason some long cites are in the text and some aren't? It's fine, just curious about your methodology.
• It was nice to see the Burton book -- I took his classes at St. Joe's, years ago. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ... I'd love to hear what he had to say. Generally, single use cites are in the main text, but there may be exceptions I've fixed the one issue. Thank you or the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if the fact that Taft's father was a member of Skull and Bones is worth mentioning in the lead. The information about Skull and Bones is furthermore not included in the main text of the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was I hadn't read anything that tied it to the rest of his career. Given the present-day notoriety of Skull and Bones because of W and all that, I wonder if it's really worth including? As for the father, I don't think it's necessary detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, etc. very readable and enjoyable. Only one comment: you have the dates throughout as (for example) "1921–1930", when I thought the MoS bade us go towards "1921–30". There may be a good reason, in which case all fine and dandy. Cheers - SchroCat (talk)

Thank you indeed for the review and support. I can't shorten the dates because it would be inconsistent with the Taft Court membership chart, which is a generated template and in which the years can't be shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: as long as there is a rationale for the decision, and consistency throughout, then I'm OK with it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2016 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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