It has been a few weeks since I raised concerns at Talk:Andrew Jackson about the neutrality of the Andrew Jackson article. In my opinion, this article should not have been promoted to a featured article. Since I first raised concerns, there have been some improvements, but I believe that there is a lot of work left to be done before this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA.
Overall, I think that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. Though one editor has been arguing that there is "no bias," many parts of this article are still heavily skewed in Jackson's favor. In particular:
Some of the language is misleadingly MOS:FLOWERY. For example:
As FloridaArmy has pointed out, Jackson is hailed as an advocate of the common man and the working class. This terminology is misleading because Jackson's policies were known to help the white working class in particular. The way it is currently written, it makes Jackson seem supportive of the working class in general. This is especially misleading because Jackson ruled over a country where slaves were common and made up a sizeable portion of the working class, and Jackson's policies were explicitly Andrew Jackson#Reaction to anti-slavery tracts pro-slavery. Indigenous people were also significantly more common before Jackson's ethnic cleansing, but they are also excluded from the common man. It seems that the main justification for this language is that it was "the language of Jackson's supporters,", but this strikes me as extremely biased to use this language without significantly more context.
As Cmguy777 has pointed out, Jackson is described as an advocate for democracy. The word "democracy" is fairly vague to begin with, and the way it is written makes it seem like Jackson advocated for democracy in general, when Jackson's ethnic cleansing was in fact extremely disruptive to the existing democracies in the region. It is misleading to describe Jackson as an advocate for democracy when in fact he was systematically replacing non-white democracies with white supremacist Jacksonian democracy. This needs to be clarified.
Conflicts tend to be described mostly using language from the U.S. perspective. Jackson won, he lost, he achieved a decisive victory or suffered a devastating defeat. I've made some changes particularly to the Andrew Jackson#Creek campaign and treaty section, but it still seems unbalanced; Creek victory is known as the Fort Mims massacre, while Jackson's victory is described by some historians ... as a massacre, or at least as having some characteristics of one.
There is WP:UNDUE focus on Jackson's positive impact on white men. For example, in the lead paragraph, Jackson's pro-white-working-class and pro-Union actions are each mentioned twice, while his ethnic cleansing is only mentioned once. Every source that I have read about Jackson has mentioned his ethnic cleansing. It is what he is known for, more so than his pro-white-working-class stance.
As Hobomok has pointed out, the cited sources are unbalanced. Most cited by far is work by Robert Remini, mostly from the 1970s and 1980s. Historians Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton have described Remini as "Jackson's most thorough biographer and energetic champion." This article would benefit from a greater variety of sources, especially Indigenous authors, as they were some of the most affected by Jackson.
As ARoseWolf has pointed out, this article violates WP:WIKIVOICE by stating facts as opinions. Jackson's actions were ethnic cleansing. That's a fact, supported by lots of reliable sources. FinnV3 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "Popular culture depictions" needs a heavy revise; its seems to be a trivia collection (you think for a such a figure as Jackson there would be a source which distills how he appears in movies, fictional literature, etc.) with some poor sources. With regards to the racial views, at a brief glance I think you're correct in that we could use newer sources, but on the whole I think the article represents this issue in a balanced fashion. There is a whole section devoted to his "Planting career and slavery" as well as "Reaction to anti-slavery tracts" and the whole "Indian removal policy" section. The Legacy section section also covers the contemporary shift towards a negative view of Jackson and his exclusionary actions. The lede itself is what needs work ("working class" is not even mentioned in the body text of the article). "Common man" is only mentioned once in the body of the article, I think the Legacy section could do a better job of describing how he became associated with that term
As for "Indian removal": it is simply the name of that historical policy/event. That does not mean it was not ethnic cleansing ("Holocaust" != "not a genocide of European Jews" because it doesn't say genocide). I have no objections to describing the Indian removal as an ethnic cleansing but of course, we should find a good RS which says such (preferably one which makes the direct connection to Jackson). Whether it is an "opinion" or a "fact" is a little more tricky. One or several scholars calling something a genocide/ethnic cleansing does not mean a consensus exists (my own experience) and thus cannot be treated as factual, so we should find a good RS which explicitly states there is a consensus (if one exists, I suspect so but do not know) that this was ethnic cleansing, then it can be treated as fact in Wikivoice. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPlace on hold-As FA nominator and most frequent contributor. Before several weeks ago, when parts of the article were challenged and underwent revision, the article was not perfect but was mostly fine. The larger grievances are not justified and in my opinion largely motivated by POV rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say. Details can be found on the article talk page. I would rather FinnV3 waited for the discussion on the talk page to conclude to see if the issues would be resolved, but whatever. I want to ping some prominent contributors to the article to give them a chance to contribute here: Wehwalt, Hoppyh, Alanscottwalker. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase; please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Let's first get sorted whether the notification wait period was respected, and a reminder that FAR is not dispute resolution. Please stay focused on WP:WIAFA, provide sources, and keep arguments at article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the talk page notice (FAR instructions step 1) was placed yesterday, and it generated a lot of discussion. I think that conversation needs to be resolved there (to keep everything in one place) before an evaluation of the article's merits can happen here. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close This discussion is currently being handled at the article talk page, quite extensively. I did not realize the notice of problems was given only a week ago (isn't it standard that the FA criteria warning notice be given a week or two to be addressed before FAR is initiated?). This should be put off until things are resolved there (my points on the lede and the popular culture section still stand). I also advise caution to the OP, who has only really been an active editor for a month. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Place on hold for at least a month, to see if discussion is productive. Best I can tell, notification requirements were not followed. But ... a procedural close is not optimal, as it could record an inaccurate event in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, with a whopping 17,000+ of readable prose, I hope that the excess has been trimmed and better summarized (to around 10 to 13,000 words of readable prose) by the time this FAR resumes, else I'll be headed for a delist declaration regardless of the outcome of the other issues. The size alone warrants we continue this FAR once the RFC closes. It is not hard to see why the size is so inflated, by examining any section where one's eyes happen to fall ... here's a sample of an entire paragraph that could be summarized in less than half that amount of words:
The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson. He had ordered the dismissal of Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement. On May 6, 1833, Jackson sailed on USS Cygnet to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he was to lay the cornerstone on a monument near the grave of Mary Ball Washington, George Washington's mother. During a stopover near Alexandria, Randolph appeared and struck the president. He fled the scene chased by several members of Jackson's party, including the writer Washington Irving. Jackson declined to press charges.
Skipping further down the page for random samples:
Jackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court. Most were undistinguished. His first appointee, John McLean, had been nominated in William T. Barry's place after Barry had agreed to become postmaster general. McLean "turned Whig and forever schemed to win" the presidency. His next two appointees —Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne —disagreed with Jackson on some points but were poorly regarded even by Jackson's enemies. In reward for his services, Jackson nominated Taney to the Court to fill a vacancy in January 1835, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval. Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, leaving two vacancies on the court. Jackson nominated Taney for Chief Justice and Philip P. Barbour for associate justice. Both were confirmed by the new Senate. Taney served as chief justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court. He was regarded with respect over the course of his career on the bench, but his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford largely overshadows his other accomplishments. On the last full day of his presidency, Jackson nominated John Catron, who was confirmed.
Goes off-topic in quite a few ways. If Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling can be done at 8,000 words, this can surely be done in under 13,000. Or less. We'd have a much better shot at analyzing other issues if the size were reasonable. With this size, I am concerned that other problems may be lurking. I find it very odd that this FA, more than four years old, has never appeared as WP:TFA considering the severe shortage of suitable topics, where issues like this would have drawn broader attention and it makes me wonder if the TFA Coords avoided scheduling it because this problem is so apparent. Part of the art of writing is as much about what to leave out as what to include, and that art needs to be exercised here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to wait for presidential FAs to be nominated by the person who's put the work in, rather than grabbing them without a nomination. Can't speak for my fellow coordinators on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering also the amount of verbosity reduction that is needed, along with the POV issues under discussion at talk, a one-month hold is probably insufficient; two months might be required to bring the FAR back with the article in a state that others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for a future time, but we could definitely spin some of this off to more dedicated articles, especially his military career, in the style of Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but spinning content off to reduce the size won't change the fact that the prose is just not tight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle and SandyGeorgia, I agree with you both about the length issues. The current dispute began about a month ago. Before then, the article was stable. It was already long, but the size was more manageable. Since then however, a group of editors has complained that the topics of Jackson's policies towards Indians and blacks has been underrepresented in the article. As a result, editors have been adding content to deal with that, and nothing has been taken out. The result is that the length has gotten a bit out of hand. I know that the article would benefit from trimming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is so charged right now that, if anyone dares to try to extract anything having to do with slavery or Native American issues, it could create a firestorm. I also may be a bit too attached to some parts of the article not dealing with racial matters that I wrote, and so I haven't been willing to touch those either. You're welcome to try to cut down on that or anything else that needs it. Regarding creating separate articles, I'm a amateur Jackson scholar, and creating separate articles about Jackson's early political career and his military career has been a long-term goal of mine. However, in order to do so, I felt that I needed to read more about Jackson than I already have, and my attempts to do that have been bogged down with delays. Maybe in the next year or two I can get started on that, but we'll see. That's a great long term goal, but for right now, I think that the focus has to be on trimming this article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, don't be discouraged; J. K. Rowling appeared at FAR under very similar circumstances, and came out wonderfully. After many months. Ditto for Joan of Arc, laboring under serious sockpuppetry. At this point, probably the best thing to do is to keep the FAR from sprawling, and keep the bulk of discussion on article talk, with only summaries back to here of matters relative to WP:WIAFA. Should the Coords decide to put this on hold, as instructions weren't followed, that should allow you some time to work. Have a look at not only Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, but Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its five talk archives. And the Joan of ARC FAR. FAR is patient, and editors who come here seeking a speedy delist are disappointed and tend to quickly disappear; a collaborative spirit prevails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hold also making sense. I think the editor who nominated this is sadly POV pushing and not giving the process a chance to work. Outside of the question related to forced removal/ethnic cleansing this seems to be an editor upset that their preferred phrasing/emphasis hasn't been used. This is not a case where a previously FA was slowly degraded by many poor edits over a long period of time nor is this a case where a trove of new information is forcing us to update the article. This is an editor who is unhappy with long standing phrasing and is now demanding the article be changed to match their preferred terms/emphasis. All of this could/should be addressed on the talk page without delisting. Certainly no delisting should occur so long as talk page discussions and the RfC are underway and the outcome of the RfC also shouldn't result in a delisting regardless of how it is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 22:41, August 23, 2022 (UTC)
Unsigned, please read the FAR instructions; it is a two-stage process, and keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that these discussions play out on the talk page. I don't think FAR is a substitute for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Place on hold, this appears to be an attempt to use FAR as dispute resolution. Hog FarmTalk 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe the discussions belong on the talk page, without the tags on the article. Hoppyh (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenance tags are a separate matter; they can't be removed until the issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Place on hold - As I stated on the article talk page, I believe the issues brought up there need to be addressed. If they are not addressed satisfactorily then I may agree with delisting but that's a big if. I appreciate the nominator for bringing up issues with this article but I disagree with the timing of this review. The discussion needs to be concluded on the article talk page first and this review should not be used as a form of dispute resolution or to force a speedy alteration to the article. There is no rush to do anything. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I was following the protocol. It has been three weeks since I first raised some of these issues on the talk page, but little has changed, so the WP:FAR instructions (and a suggestion from Oncamera) made it seem like this was the logical next step. Maybe the WP:FAR instructions should be amended; is there some unwritten rule that articles with recent talk page activity are ineligible for FAR, or something similar? I'm not trying to cause problems. FinnV3 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Place on hold per Hog Farm. FAR is not dispute resolution and these issues are cropping up throughout the project on articles about presidents, with the same editors showing up. Take a look at George Washington and the associated talk pages/archives. Unfortunately editors with little to no understanding of producing and writing content, let alone featured content, tend to flock to the discussions. Best to resolve the issues on the talk page via a structured format. Even better, in my view, is to disengage and let the issues die out. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not an attempt at dispute resolution. I believe that this article does not meet the featured article criteria. It has been more than three weeks since these concerns were first raised on the talk page, and they have not been addressed, so the WP:FAR instructions seem to indicate that this is an appropriate review. If everyone agrees that this article is ineligible for FAR, then I think the WP:FAR instructions should be amended to be clearer about this. FinnV3 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem the problem is with the instructions; the page was clearly notified per instructions on 22 August by someone who read the instructions. Please avoid filling this page with off-topic discussion: WT:FAR is where you would go to discuss the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions say to attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article, which I have been doing since July. It says to give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review, which I did, and the issues have still not been addressed. Are you saying that there's an additional unwritten rule that articles are ineligible for FAR if the talk page has been active recently? Or that the attempts to resolve issues must explicitly mention "FAR" two to three weeks in advance? FinnV3 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have clearly said you should raise your questions at WT:FAR and not disrupt this page. @WP:FAR coordinators: might we get this premature FAR put on hold (per consensus above) to stop the unhelpful use of this page, while work continues on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule that articles with an active talk page cannot be brought to FAR. However, there are two intertwined issues that do impact whether this should be here right now. First off, the notification step is targeted to improvement rather than just starting a countdown timer. If you post a notification and get no response for two weeks, great, bring it here, but when there is an active response and efforts towards improvement (including an active RfC) then we want to provide an opportunity for things to get resolved there. Second, FAR is not dispute resolution - overlapping discussion here when there's already an RfC as well as a noticeboard thread in progress will confuse rather than improve matters. Let the RfC run, let the noticeboard thread run, address any behavioural concerns in a more appropriate venue, and then if issues remain relative to the FA criteria those can be dealt with at that time. For the moment this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Considering that even the people above saying "Keep/Place On Hold" are all noting and largely agreeing with there being egregious issues with the article as it stands, along with major problems of bloat to the text and outdated sourcing, I see no reason why the article should remain listed as an FA. Trying to place a hold for months seems counter to the whole idea of this being FA quality as it stands. It should be delisted and, once all issues are fixed, it can be re-nominated. Otherwise, we risk the "one or two months" of waiting to instead be much longer with the improvements not being completed and the article not being in a proper FA-quality state that entire time frame. Delisting now and then re-nominating once everything is fixed seems like a much better option. SilverserenC 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Silverseren this FAR is already on hold; please don't add volume to an inactive page, and Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC the article has been improved somewhat, but some of the issues identified have yet to be rectified, such as article length. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC or restore to last high quality version, preferably around here. The current version of this article is a massive downgrade over where the article stood several months ago before it was largely rewritten. In being reduced from over 15,000 words to just a hair over 12,000, the article has been gutted of much of its valuable content. 12,000 words is too small a size for an article of this importance. A little over 15,000 was close to ideal, and it should have been kept within that general range.
It is important to note what has been cut and what hasn't. The article, again, has been reduced from 15,000 words to 12,000, meaning that about one-fifth, or 20 percent, of the article's volume has been reduced. Yet the coverage of slavery is basically equal in volume as it was before. The section on Indian removal during Jackson's presidency prior to these revisions stood at 766 words. Not only has it not appreciably shrunk like most of the rest of the article, but it has grown to 798 words. Plus, there is a completely new 469 word section on Native American policy at the end of the article. So how is it, that when the article as a whole is cut by 20 percent, coverage of this subject matter not only is not trimmed like almost everything else but actually increases by quite a lot? I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors who made these revisions (although that is not the easiest thing to do given the environment at the article at the time, and the fact that a note that Jackson demonstrated concern for the care of his slaves and that the size of his slave quarters exceeded the standards of the time somehow got removed), but I cannot deny the impact that these changes have had in terms of creating a severe problem of WP:Undue weight, shifting coverage away from Jackson's important actions with regard to white Americans while unduly emphasizing aspects of his life and policies with regard to black and red people.
Even for those who disagree with my views about how racial issues should be treated in this article, and I know that there are plenty of people who do, I think that it should still be clear that the "Native American Policy" sub-section of the Legacy section is objectively terrible. It's mostly just needless repetition of stuff that's already discussed further up in the article. In a couple of cases, things are mentioned here which are not mentioned already (the Jackson Purchase and Jackson's justification of removal), but they should be mentioned earlier for the sake of maintaining a proper sense of chronology. Somebody could delete the whole four paragraph, 469 word section and nothing important would be lost that could not be summarized in a couple of sentences placed in appropriate points earlier in the article. I think it's ridiculous that people are saying that 12,000 words is too long, but if they seriously believe that, they need to start the trimming here.
The final short paragraph at the end of "Historical reputation" is completely unencyclopedic and needs to be entirely re-written.
Editors should vote to restore this article to where it was before recent changes ruined it or take the next step towards delisting this sad relic of something much better that came before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that the final short para at the end of Historical reputation is odd and unencyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three mentions of Native Americans in the lead; does the preponderance of reliable sources, and summmary of the article, justify this weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I'm not sure if you're asking me, but I'll answer anyway. I'm fine with the lead. My issue is with coverage of Native American issues and slavery in the body. Whatever the reason, while the rest of the article was heavily shortened, coverage of these matters was not only not shortened but actually grew. The "Indian Removal Act" sub-section for Jackson's presidency is longer than any of the other sub-sections in the presidency section, and that's not including the special 469-word section on Native American issues in the Legacy section. The section on Jackson's war against the Creek Indians easily dwarfs all of the sub-sections on Jackson's presidency aside from the one on the Indian Removal Act. The Creek War is important, but it was one of many wars between the United States and Native Americans. That section has 924 words, whereas the section on the Nullification Crisis, which occurred during Jackson's presidency and probably marks the closest that the United States came to secession and civil war before the Civil War, has only 664 words. That's unacceptable. Plus there's still a 493-word section on Jackson's war with the Seminoles, which appears basically unchanged in size from before the revisions. I think it's clear that the article is heavily slanted towards coverage of Indian affairs in a way that damages its reliability.
The easiest thing to fix is the "Native American Policy" sub-section in the article. Like I said, it's mostly just needless repetition. I disagree heavily, of course, with your belief that the article is too long, but if you want to shorten it, here is what I recommend. Go to that section. Take the sentence about the Jackson Purchase and move it to the start of the "First Seminole War" section. Then take the sentence about Jackson's justification for Indian removal and move it to the section on Indian removal in his presidency. Condense into a short summary the historians' views of the matter and move them into "Historical reputation." Then delete the rest of the section. You'll save probably about 300 words of repetitive and overly detailed text. Display name 99 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MY question was directly about the preponderance of sources. Confining your answers to discussion of sources, and keeping them brief, is helpful at FAR. There is zero discussion of sources in your very long response, which is mostly opinion, which renders it not helpful for FAR purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article could still benefit from trimming and verbosity reduction. Here is but one example:
Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813.[85] A faction of Muscogee (Creek) known as the "Red Sticks" had broken away from the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, which wanted to maintain peace with the United States. The Red Sticks, led by William Weatherford (also called Red Eagle) and Peter McQueen, had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States.[80][86][87] Earlier in the summer, a party of Red Sticks had gone to Pensacola to pick up supplies from the Spanish.[88] During their return, they defeated an ambush at Burnt Corn Creek by American militia.[89][90] On August 30, the Red Sticks avenged the ambush by attacking Fort Mims, a stockade inhabited by both white Americans and their Creek allies. They killed about 250 militia men and civilians.[91][92] The attack became known as the Fort Mims massacre.[93][94]
Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]
The article retells too much history (and this happens repeatedly); there is an article for Fort Mims Massacre, and we don't need all the background detail. A trim is still needed throughout.
"Known as" is used twice in the sample para above, and nine times throughout; it is often redundant. For example, the entire para above could be reduced to something like (this can be improved upon, but just a sample idea that it can be done in two sentences) ...
Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre. The Red Sticks, a confederate faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.
Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]
Sample only, cuts the words in half. Getting this article to a reasonable size is doable, if the weight and neutrality issues can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be moved from Writings to External links?
"Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson's documents.
Progress is being made so I am not ready to declare move to FARC; Wtfiv has proven capable of working through disputes in the past, so we can give this more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Progress update based on FAR and Talk comments:
Ft Mims example shortened as per suggestion in FAR.
Seminole War section shortened to remove back story as per Ft. Mims example.
Native American Policy removed as per FAR suggestion. Treaties moved to text, final paragraph shortened and moved to other section of legacy.
Andrew Jackson papers moved to external links as per FAR suggestion.
Sections on Jacksonian democracy removed as per discussion on talk page. Some points reworded. Legacy reordered, awaiting reworking by another editor.
Final mention of issues related to Native Americans in the lead reduced to two. One in first paragraph of lead on general view; second specifically addressing the Indian Removal Act.
Current length of main body is 11603 words. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 Feb 2023 Progress update:
Still awaiting a possible further update of legacy from an editor. Otherwise, the article is unchanged. Currently, many of the first FAR concerns have been addressed (e.g., issues raised by FinnV3 addressed, attempts to address points from second iteraction of FAR editors, article length reduced by 4000 words; but is still 11.6K words long.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One new change from previous iteration: Clause and source added back in mentioning in legacy that the Indian Removal Act has been discussed in the context of genocide. Wtfiv (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11 Feb 2023 Progress update: Legacy reworked, as editor proposing to rewrite hasn't responded. Recent changes have attempted to address concerns. Minor trimming, article reduced by about 300 words, presently 11.3K words of main text. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I think most of the concerns in talk and listed above have been addressed. Another editor was going to rework the legacy section, but hasn't been able to. But, I reworked it based on comments on the article's talk page. I'm not sure if article length remains a concern. It has been significantly reduced in length. The article length was reduced by 3K words a few months back, and it was shortened another 1.1k words after the FAR was reinstated. The article length is now 11.3K words, which is longer than 10k words. But out of the 16 presidential articles that are FA, only four are shorter (Cleveland, Arthur, Hayes, and College). Wtfiv (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The length is no longer disastrous (those other presidents are :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What issues remain unaddressed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any at this point. I think the length issue, which had been a concern that is now acceptable. I think the other concerns have been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't support this article at FAC but if others want to close the FAR at this point, I would not object to that either. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is still problematic, in your view? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Duplicate, from Jefferson Davis FAR: same issue). This article needs a copyedit for prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity; it wouldn't get out of FAC like this, and we should do more than patch up articles when they clear FAR. Wtfiv does an excellent job of reflecting sources and hewing to them, but unfortunately, with this excessively long article, people give up on the ce phase, and documenting the remaining ce needs takes SOOOOO much time because of the article size. I'll put together some examples this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, when you say that it would not make it out of FAC right now, I believe that you're simply wrong. It's 10,900 words at the moment. We literally just had another featured article on a similar topic, James Madison, get promoted at over 11,300 words. So I don't know what your basing this assessment off of. Can you please explain? You previously rebuked me for resisting your efforts to shorten the article, and you (inaccurately, in my view) described my approach as "my way or the high way." Does collaborating and compromise work only one way or two ways? I am asking because the article size has decreased by over a third since it was first nominated for FAR, and the fact that, after all of that, you're still demanding more cutting is precisely indicative to me of a "my way or the high way" approach. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can rest assured I am not basing my assessment on two things: 1) what currently comes out of FAC (where reviews and number of reviewers of late are limited), and 2) how many words there are. As I stated, the issues are a need for "prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity". Those can be issues with 2,000 words just as they can with 11,300 words; the word count is not the (most) relevant problem here; the writing is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point makes no sense because, in saying that it wouldn't pass FAC where it is now, you are making a judgment about the standards of articles that are passed there. I won't argue with you on the rest. Virtually none of the writing left in the article is mine anyway. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right; what gets out of FAC these days actually has no bearing on anything at FAR or this discussion. So to rephrase what I clumsily did not say adequately-- my point is that long articles don't get the coyedit attention they should, sometimes precisely because of the length and the time it takes to get through them (several have given up on the two at FAR for that reason), and while we're here at FAR (where we do pay attention to prose standards) we should try to make sure that is done whether there are 2,000 or 11,000 words. I realize I still need to provide examples, but to do so, I need a long clear block of time at a real (not iPad) computer. As I've said: Wtfiv pays close attention to sources and hews well to them, but has frequently asked that others help copyedit, and that hasn't yet happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This problem is not unique to Wikipedia’s treatment of the Holocaust. A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia’s articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence. The Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson, plagued by such manipulations, attracts thousands of readers a day.
This is a very serious subject. I'm still reading the full scholarly article co-authored by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein. I think that is what has stirred ArbCom to action. Regarding WP:HJP, it appears from a cursory reading of the discussion that Levivich has been treated most unjustly. I can't read every word—I assume that most of the people who are active in these long-winded conversations and post those walls of text don't have jobs, how else do they find the time? ;-) I'm old but I still go out into the world every day and do stuff, so that leaves me only so much time for WP.
Shira Klein writes in the Forward article, dated June 14, 2023, only three days ago: "A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia's articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence." She uses the present tense, but does not point to any problematic passages. I don't see such a disinformation campaign taking place in the Andrew Jackson article; rather, it seems to have improved its coverage of Native suffering at the hands of white invaders. I certainly think it could still be improved, but it's made great progress since the iterations written mostly by an editor who expounds on talk pages about "globalists", bringing the mindset that such a worldview entails, which is generally not friendly to Jews, and by extension, to non-white people such as my Cherokee ancestors. Carlstak (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Carlstak has stated, this is a very serious subject. I'm not going to go into details about my ancestral connection to the Removal because it is irrelevant to the facts and though I am very prideful of my roots I do not parade it like a badge that can be used to pound others into submission. The facts will eventually win the day. I believe the article has made great strides. I can appreciate the hard work that has went into getting the article where it is, currently. Factually it is more improved than it was before. Is it perfect? No. But life isn't perfect either and I think the article stands as a representation of creating something more perfect that might eventually reach that mark. This will forever be the struggle between a slow moving and deliberate tertiary source like Wikipedia is and the day-by-day, minute-by-minute changing landscape of social activism. "She uses the present tense, but does not point to any problematic passages." This says it all. If you have an issue with the article then there is a talk page where discussions are ongoing about ways to improve the article. Maybe come there and have an honest and open discussion rather than simple throwing around accusations with no evidence to support your viewpoint.
I will leave the Holocaust discussions for others but I will say that I trust this community and our processes. I do believe the goal is to improve articles with reliable sourcing as it becomes available while defending them against vandalism and good faith disruptive editing that runs contrary to policy. Despite this seemingly perpetual struggle I believe we are doing that very thing. --ARoseWolf 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some expressed concerns about the article, but to date specific concerns have been addressed. I'm not sure if length (11354 words) remains a concern or is considered reasonable compared to other American presidents. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be trying to go through and address Sandy's concerns about prose quality, verbosity, etc. If I have any larger-scale questions or concerns, I'll note them here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when done, and thanks for engaging! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry...been pretty busy. This is still on my radar, though: I promise I'll finish everything up eventually! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be commenting on the talk page from here on out. I haven't been paying too much attention to the disputes below, so if anyone needs my feedback, just let me know. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Extraordinary Writ. I don't think the disputes are worth worry about for what you are doing. I appreciate the careful clean up you do, and that is what is needed. The disputes are at a different level. But your copy editing without worry about the details is the essential piece, the folk who watch the article can focus on that. Thanks so much for your perseverance! Wtfiv (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be on its way. The article text is currently at 10573 words, according to prosesize. Extraordinary Writ has done a great job in cleaning up and trimming prose. The article looks good up to the beginning of the presidency. I'm loosely watchlisting it while its still in process, and it looks like ARoseWolf and Carlstak are keeping an eye on it too. It'll be easier to confidently maintain once we get through the FARC process and we have a stable, accepted version. By the way, I can take a guess, but what specifically does "1e issue" mean?
I have it forever on my watchlist. --ARoseWolf 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have it on my watchlist, too. I've got a lot going on IRL and I'm trying to finish writing and finding more sources for an article I'm translating from Catalan WP that requires much research for verification. I can't give Jackson's article my full attention, but I do keep an eye on it. Carlstak (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bias
I’m not familiar with the review process, so I don’t know if it is appropriate to raise this here and at this time (redirect me if necessary). However, I find the depiction of Jackson’s revolutionary war service to be exaggerated and biased.
Humphrey Tribble, thanks for jumping in as we try to wrap up the review process. The original featured article was well-researched, but got caught up in controversies about its bias and length. We've been trying to address them (I personally have been also trying to respect as much of the original research done as possible.) Your comments seem to be picking up on a few more of those biases. I've tried to address your concerns. Please see below.
Jackson described his service to Francis Blair:
“I was never regularly enlisted, being only fourteen when the war practically ended. Whenever I took the field it was with Colonel Davie, who never put me in the ranks, but used me as a mounted orderly or messenger…l
Yet the article calls his service “couriers and scouts”. “Courier”, perhaps; scout, no. It is, perhaps, worth mentioning that Davie’s unit was nicknamed the “Bloody Corps”.
"scouts" removed. Didn't add "Bloody Corps", that would seem to push the POV the other way.
Jackson also told Blair:
“I witnessed two battles, Hanging Rock and Hobkirk’s Hill, but did not participate in either. I was in one skirmish [at] Sands House [where I was caught].”
Yet the article says Jackson “participated with Davie in the Battle of Hanging Rock”. I recall reading that Jackson held the horses; he heard fighting, but didn’t see anything.
changed "participated with Davie" to "present at".
Of his capture, Jackson told Blair:
“A lieutenant of Tarleton’s Light Dragoons tried to make me clean his boots and cut my arm with his sabre when I refused.”
"major" changed to "officer"
The article uses the stronger word “demanded”, calls the officer a major, and claims wounds to Jackson’s hand and head. Jackson said nothing of his brother or multiple wounds. (Why would there have been more than one wound?)
the cited source, Meecham is quoting Jackson about the story of the wounds. Remini, whose work is most comprehensive (though biased) gives a similar account (Remini, 1977, p. 20) Remini gives the citation, Meecham gives a quote. Both Meecham and Remini mention multiple wounds. Meecham a quote from Jackson Both accounts use the word "order". Both sources mention Robert, with Remini giving sources. Added Remini to citations, as his research is more thorough.
(Granted, Jackson might have said something different another time,)
I think you are right. Jackson probably told the story multiple times. Remini and Meecham are probably citing a different telling than the one your are citing.
The illustration used, “The Brave Boy of the Waxhaws”, is a Currier and Iveslithograph. It’s a propaganda piece, right down to the title: Jackson is a small boy, the officer preparing a death blow, chair upset, mother weeping, guard outside. The fact is that Jackson was already tall, “not quite six feet long…”. No one documented the rest if the scene, but the officer might have intended to hit Jackson with the flat of his sword. Certainly, if he had delivered the blow illustrated, there would have been one less “brave boy”. The illustration fails NPOV. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/NPOV images. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images says much about technical aspects but nothing about POV suitability.)
I don't see the Currier and Ive's image as an illustration of the event. This image, like almost every historical image before photography is not an actual representation of the event, but presents and creates the historical memory of the event. Like most images, including almost all the illustrations in this article, I think the picture is appropriate as it captures the historical understanding of Jackson's narrative and significance. I think if this were to be removed, it should be a discussion on the talk page.
The Battle of Waxhaws is controversial. That article says “What happened next is the subject of much debate; there are significant inconsistencies in the primary accounts.” Yes, I know Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source. I am also aware of errors and bias in that article. Nevertheless, the evidence iscontradictory and largely based on ‘hearsay’.
There are good arguments that no “massacre” occurred. The Jackson article should either use the neutral title Battle of Waxhaws or refer to an “alleged” massacre.
The cited source, Remini, rhetorically argues it was a "massacre", but the neutral term "Battle of Waxhaws" would be appropriate. Readers can click the link and make their own decision.
Finally, I think the article over-emphasizes Waxhaws and Jackson’s service as the reason for his hatred of the British. It neglects his mother’s influence inculcating such hatred. It says only that “Elizabeth encouraged Andrew and Robert to participate in militia drills.” I can’t pull a reference, but I think it’s accepted she nursed hatred from her experiences in Ireland. Jackson absorbed that long before the war. It didn’t take a “massacre” to convert him.
I wouldn't doubt that parents (and other family members) help form and guide a person's prejudices. It also seems probable that her background would support anti-biases. But, I would doubt there is any documentation of Elizabeth's attitude toward the English. If there are sources that make a strong argument about how her attitudes were formed, that would strengthen the article, and allow the addition of a clause or sentence stating something about her role.
- offered in the interest of making a good article better.
Wtfiv, I am addressing your response to Humphrey Tribble, in which you say that his comments "seem to be picking up on a few more of those biases," by which you appear to refer to the version of the article written primarily by myself before your rewrite.
It is unfair to blame the alleged biases and distortions that he points out on the previous version of the article. Humphrey Tribble took issue with the article saying that Jackson served as a scout as well as a courier, saying that the latter was possible but the former not. Yet the previous version of the article only that he was a courier; the part about him being a scout was added in later, either by you or someone else. Regarding Jackson's possible role at the Battle of Hanging Rock, the previous version said that Jackson and his brother "served under Colonel William Richardson Davie at the Battle of Hanging Rock." The language that was objected to that they "participated with Davie" at the battle was likewise added later. Humphrey Tribble took issue with the article saying that the officer who slashed Jackson was a major when Jackson supposedly said that he was a lieutenant; my version merely called the man an "officer."
I'm not looking to start a personal dispute, but I want to make sure that the record is clear about where these issues originated. It wasn't with the previously longstanding version that passed FAC. Display name 99 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...couriers and scouts..." was included in this edit by Wtfiv. In the same edit "served" was changed to "participated".
officer was changed to major in this edit by DonBeroni. Perhaps they can explain their reasoning. --ARoseWolf 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf, words added to my edits usually come from trying to hew to the sources. But my efforts are sure to need further editing and refinement. And Display name 99, I apologize if my response came across as finger pointing. Having gotten to know this article more deeply than I originally intended, I have repeatedly had the opportunity to appreciate the tremendous amount of work you put into it to get it to featured article status in the first place. Lesson learned for myself: In the FAR pages, if I am trying to help out, I should only be addressing the current editing issues. Wtfiv (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. No hard feelings. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Display name 99. Sandy, there may be one more small change in the Revolutionary War section based on Humphrey Tribble's comment about the role of his mother in forming his anti-British attitudes. (It's in Meacham...). Otherwise, I think it is waiting for the copyedits and trimming. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't directed at you, Wtfiv. You've done incredible work with the article and discussions. I should have been more clear. I was hoping DonBeroni could explain why they changed officer, something that has been in the article since the beginning, to major. Perhaps they had a better source? --ARoseWolf 12:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an artifact of when someone replaced the description of the officer in Jackson's story with "Major Coffin", whose is part of the folklore of the story. Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense as a plausible explanation. I've went as far back as 2017 and "Major Coffin" is in the article as part of the description under a lithograph implying he was the officer in question despite even the lithograph staying only the word "officer". --ARoseWolf 17:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hatred of the British beginning with his mother
For the record, here is the complete statement, from Read and Eaton:
[His mother] appears to have been an exemplary woman, and to have executed the arduous duties which had devolved on her, with great faithfulness and success. To the lessons she inculcated on the youthful minds of her sons, was, no doubt, owing, in a great measure, that fixed opposition to British tyrranny and oppression, which afterwards so much distinguished them. Often would she spend the winter's night, in recounting to them the sufferings of their grandfather, at the siege of Carrickfergus, and the oppressions exercised by the nobility of Ireland, over the labouring poor; impressing it upon them, as their first duty, to expend their lives, if it should become necessaiy, in defending and supporting the natural rights of man.
Meacham writes almost the same words, citing Read and Eaton, and adds:
These words were written for a book published in 1817, after Jackson defeated the British at New Orleans and preparatory to his entering national politics, which may account for the unlikely image of Mrs. Jackson tutoring her sons in Enlightenment political thought on cold Carolina evenings. But there is no doubt that Jackson chose to remember his upbringing this way, which means he linked his mother with the origins of his love of country and of the common man.
Remini quotes a little from Read and Eaton, and embellishes it:
…his mother’s “violent hatred of the British, a hatred that stretched back many years.”
“The young and impressionable boys trembled at the horror of her tales, a horror that was never forgotten.”
“Andrew absorbed a near-permanent hatred for the British…”
My version:
Jackson’s hatred of the British originated, first, with his mother. She had a difficult life, an immigrant raising three sons alone. He recalled his mother often repeating the sufferings of her father “at the siege of Carrickfergus, and the oppressions exercised by the nobility of Ireland, over the labouring poor…” She imbued her sons with respect for the natural rights of man. Jackson’s abhorrence was to grow in the coming war.
I have tried to be accurate, brief, and neutral, and propose to add this to the end of the section “early life”, providing a segue into the war. The source will be the original, Read and Eaton, which I will add.
Is this acceptable to you both Wtfiv (talk·contribs) and Displayname99 (talk ·contribs)? If so, I will do the edit then exit the scene to let the review proceed.
Incidentally, Eaton and Read, and Jackson’s memoirs (Eaton, Read, and Crowninshield, 1828), also missing from the article, have a version of the boot polishing scene”
“Young Jackson parried [the sword] by throwing up his left hand, on which he received a severe wound, the mark of which he bears to this hour. His brother, at the same time, for a similar offence, received a deep cut on the head, which subsequently occasioned his death…[from] an inflammation of the brain.”
I suspect some writers conflated both wounds onto Andrew Jackson. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would best to keep Elizabeth's influence as a single sentence or clause that is as short possible. One of the issues guiding this review is the article was too long, so we want to add as little length as possible. And, I think it would be best to cite Meacham, as featured articles insist on relatively recent sources when available.
I'd suggest either one at the beginning of the revolutionary war or perhaps in the first section. Perhaps something like: Elizabeth had a strong hatred of the British that she passed on to her sons. and then modifying the last sentence in the revolutionary war section to ...strengthened his hatred for the values he associated with Britain... What do you think?
For comment on the sword incident and wounds, please see this page's talk. (So as to remove longer discussion from this page.) Wtfiv (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Humphrey Tribble, I just wanted to let you know that I added the text I suggested to the article to address your concern about Jackson's mother's role in his hatred of the British. Wtfiv (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine with me. Move the article ahead. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is caused by the insane length of the first infobox, which repeats some information contained in the second infobox in the military section. Is it possible to remove some of the battle information from the first infobox, and incorporate it into the second? The first infobox extends into the second section of the article, forcing the first image into the third section of the article, with battle information partially repeated in the second infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the war/battles in the first infobox to a collapsed list. That might help a bit. And thanks for fixing the sandwiching. That was from a recent set of images being added and I didn't complete the reversion. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you're one of Wikipedia's long-standing veterans, so you probably have seen Extraordinary Writ's comments on this talk page checking sourcing and copyright. And you have probably seen in the editing history of the Jackson article that Extraordinary Writ has worked through the second half of this article.
So this is where we are, as I see it: prosesize puts the article at 10481 words, which is still over the 10,000 you would've liked us to get too. In addition, addressing the few additional concerns may add a few more words to the mix (e.g., ensuring Humphrey Tribble's point about Jackson's mother's role in his anti-British bias and addressing some of Henry Berghoff's concern. Is that okay?
Then, there is that larger issue: copyediting. I know my writing is rough and not sufficient for the needs of FAR, but with Extraordinary Writ's very much appreciated editing, do you think its now ready to pass muster? Or, do we need more work? If we are close, I'll do the touch up needed. It should be minimal, so my the negative impact of my prose style should be minimal as well. In your opinion, what is left to do that would make you feel positive about giving this a pass? And more publicly, thank you so much for your active role in ensuring the article keeps relative stability as we try to salvage this as a featured article. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no hard word count limit :) I won't be able to re-read for a few more days (need a large chunk of time, and have some medical stuff going on), but my sense is that, yes, we are very very close and at a fine-tuning stage, so go ahead. Thank YOU for everything! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll give this a review but it'll probably be Sunday or Monday before I can start on this. I'm moderately familiar with this time period of US history but have not ready heavily about Jackson himself. Hog FarmTalk 18:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I think we're good to keep here, if only we can keep it stable. I've permanently watchlisted the article and will try to keep an eye on it in addition to everyone else doing so. Hog FarmTalk 23:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is trimming the lead a possibility? Right now it's at 600 words, and it looks like something in the range of 500 could be attainable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I could. Would someone else be willing to try? Wtfiv (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did some trimming of the lead, getting it down from 618 words to about 574. But I'm too close to the prose at this point to do much more. As mentioned, I'm open to others trying. Wtfiv (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy,
Hog Farm has completed his review. I think the one outstanding issue is your request to shorten the lead. I did give it a try and wound up with a very slight reduction. Is that adequate? If not, would you be willing to give it a try as you see the elements that can go? In terms of stability, I think there's hope: I'll keep an eye on it as long to help it keep its featured article status. Hog Farm has it watch listed, ARoseWolf has been very active, and Carlstek has been there too. I've noticed a number of more quiet, but helpful editors jumping in as well. My guess is that this article may be a bit challenging, as this Jackson page strikes me as getting more active as this upcoming US political cycle gets more active. But I think the team is good. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I think most of the major concerns regarding this article have been addressed. But I'm unsure of next steps. Hog Farm and Extraordinary Writ have both provided additional input into this article that has improved it. I know that Sandy was still concerned about the lead's length. I tried to address the concern by reducing it a little, but am too close to the material to do much more. (I suspect I'm too sensitive to the fine balance this article has had to strike in its portrayal of Jackson when I took it on for FAR cleanup.)
How should we proceed? I think the article has been salvaged and almost every major issue, with the exception of whether the lead length is acceptable, has been addressed. Sandy hasn't been available for three months, but should we wait longer in case Sandy returns and wants to weigh in on the lead length issue? Wtfiv (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need others to review and confirm that the article now meets the FA criteria, whether that's Sandy or others. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for the reply. Wtfiv (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe this article is about as good as a featured article on a contentious president can be. Neutrality issues have much improved, as has depth of coverage and the general tone. Great job to Wtfiv and all involved! Aza24 (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is infinitely more neutral than it was and I think most of the original issues we had with the size of article and its verbosity have been addressed. I saw Hog Farm has reviewed per Sandy's request and the result was keep. I'm inclined to agree. --ARoseWolf 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]