Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solomon P. Sharp

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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:21, 31 December 2008 [1].

Solomon P. Sharp

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)}

Article has passed a GA review. It is well-sourced and, I believe, comprehensive. I hope to be able to address any concerns quickly and see this article promoted to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ky/county/franklin/index/madisonst.html

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Full disclosure, I passed the article for GA. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article lists sources on which it is based at the bottom. One is The Kentucky Encyclopedia, which I have already cited. The other is History of Franklin County, Kentucky, which unfortunately, I don't currently have access to. As best I can tell, the article in question only serves as a source for one claim (that of the Frankfort trustees offering a $1000 reward for the capture of Sharp's assassin.) I'm fairly sure I can find that in another source if necessary. Does this qualify as "material that is likely to be challenged"? If so, I'll try and dig up another source. If not, I'll just omit the cite and the reference altogether. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I found a more reliable source. Everything look OK now? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I attempted to add the appropriate information to the information template in Image:Beauchamp kills Sharp.jpg, but I was unable to find the page number of the woodcut in the Criminal Calendar. I found the 1835 Calendar at the Lehigh University Digital Library. I looked through the chapter on Beauchamp, but no illustration was readily apparent. The book, though quite fascinating, appears to be over 300 pages and I don't have the time to find the image. If you could, please, link the image summary to the source. If you can't link to the exact page number, please include it in the summary. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I grabbed the image from the Google Books preview of Bruce's The Kentucky Tragedy, and just referenced the source he provided. I have a hard time believing he could get it published with a false attribution (not that I think you're saying that.) What I'm getting at is that I don't have access to the calendar, so I can't provide a page number. If it needs that to pass FA, I'll try to get a copy on interlibrary loan. Let me know. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind again. I now see that the Lehigh Collection is free for public viewing. The image in question is on page 298. http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/cdm4/crime_viewer.php?ptr=13817&DMTHUMB=1&DMTEXT=criminal+calendar&searchworks=searchcriminal+calendar_0_0&CISOPTR=13757 Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Comments. I enjoed this article, but I feel like the last section is missing a little bit. The linked article on the tragedy provides more detail on the aftermath. At the very least, I think it worth mentioning in this article that Sharp's brother wrote a book about him and what happened with that. Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about how much detail to go into there. I tried to apply the logic that "This article is about Solomon Sharp, so it should probably end where his life ends." But you are probably right about Dr. Sharp's book. Let me work on it a bit. Any other suggestions for what ought to fill out that section vs. what strays off-topic are appreciated. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some expansion on that section. How does it work for you? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, but Darby is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so you might want to provide a few words of context (or at least full name). Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! That's what happens when you write two articles on related subjects, then wait several months before nominating them for FA! You forget what is in which one. Thanks for the catch; let me know if my latest edit is not sufficient to clarify Darby's identity. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent :) Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for incorrect spelling of Edgar Allan Poe. Heh heh... Comment Great work on this article! There are a couple very short paragraphs, notably the second one under "Political career" and the very last paragraph of the whole article. I'd suggest either bulking them up or merging into another paragraph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can eventually absolve myself for the sin of misspelling Poe's name. Judging from your user name, I gather that is of great importance to you. :)

I've merged the short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. Please feel free to leave any additional comments. I hope you will eventually be able to support the article's promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks quite good.
  • "(Whether Sharp..." Is there a reason this is in a parenthetical? It seems perfectly fine as a regular, old sentence. :)
    • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family briefly moved..." Do we know the approximate date for this move?
    • Unfortunately, no. The only source where I have found mention of it is Allen's A History of Kentucky, which says: "When the war was over, he moved from Washington County, Virginia, first to the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee, and a short time afterward to the vicinity of Russellville, Kentucky." I'm big on including dates for continuity, but I just don't have this one. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He supported the election of..." Is this during the campaign or after he was elected?
    • After; clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he worked with Ben Hardin" Who's that?
    • He eventually served as a U.S. Representative from Kentucky. He comes up a lot during the politics of Sharp's era and beyond. I was looking for his wiki-article under "Ben Hardin" at the time I wrote this and couldn't find it. Later, I discovered it's under "Benjamin Hardin", but I forgot to come back and wiki-link this. I've remedied that now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "harsh measure dealing with the welfare of slaves" Rather vague. What does this mean? Did this measure help/hurt slaves?
    • If I remember correctly, the measure was harsh against slaves, and Sharp opposed it. Unfortunately, I've already returned that source to the college library, which will be closed until January 5. I won't have access to the source again until then, but I don't think it was very specific about what the measure entailed. I've clarified the sentence based on my remembrance of what the source says. I can double-check it after the first of the year, or I can just eliminate the sentence since it isn't really critical to the overall story of Sharp's life. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nevertheless, Sharp recognized..." "nevertheless" doesn't really work as a connector here. Sharp could have certainly recognized the political value of service no matter what the length.
    • I see your point. Really, the "nevertheless" was intended to convey that, even though his service was brief, he managed to get promoted to colonel because he recognized the value of military service in state politics. I really wish the sources were specific on how this happened, but they aren't. Still, I felt it was worth mentioning, since many sources refer to him as "Colonel Sharp." I've hopefully clarified the sentence now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his ill-fated expedition " Is there a link for this? Or perhaps just give when this happened to establish some more context for readers.
    • This is also in the source I've returned to the library. Best I recall, the expedition wandered around for forty-two days and never did find or attack the enemy. I've revised this section based on that recollection. Again, it'll be after the first of the year before I can fact-check it, but I'm reasonably sure this is correct. If so, I believe my edit addresses your concern for clarity. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His opponent, John Upshaw Waring, was a notably violent and malicious man." This is one of those sentences that probably requires a citation on its own.
    • This entire paragraph is meant to be cited to the footnote at the end. I can repeat the cite at the end of that particular sentence if you think it necessary. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a remodel many years later" Do we know a more specific date?
    • Unfortunately, no. Again, only one source that I have run across mentions this. In Johnson's "New Light on Beauchamp's Confession", he states: "Although printed in 1827, Vindication was never sold to the public, because Darby threatened to sue if it was and, perhaps more persuasively, John U. Waring said he would kill L. J. Sharp if it was. All copies were walled up in the Sharp home in Frankfort, not to be discovered until many years late during its remodeling." Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd separate the footnotes and the references into two sections (==Notes== ... ==References==), but that's just personal preference. BuddingJournalist 15:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Sometimes, I include a ==Footnotes== section which includes explanatory notes (such as in today's main page article, Richard Hawes), so I combine References and Notes so I don't end up with so many sections. I don't have that here, so I'm happy to conform with your preference. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I hope you will find my responses sufficient to support the article's promotion. If the two issues related to the source at the college are still a problem, I'll see if I can find it at the local public library (doubtful, since it's a much smaller library) or if I can get it sooner on interlibrary loan. Otherwise, I'll be happy to pick it up when the college library re-opens January 5 if you're willing to wait that long. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm happy to support. BuddingJournalist 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both links. I don't know what branch of service Sharp's father was in, and I don't think "interim" necessarily needs to be linked in the first place. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Johnson article in the bibliography points out that the murderer Beauchamp was a vehement Old Court partisan, and that Sharp's brother was trying to portray this as a solely political murder. We should include this POV; which doesn't mean we should endorse it.
  • Yes, I seem to have omitted this fact in my haste to introduce the epilogue per Karanacs' suggestion above. I have added a passing mention of it now, which is probably all it deserves given that Dr. Sharp had a vested interest in how the murder was perceived. This addition also had the beneficial side-effect of making the introduction of Darby much cleaner. Thanks for the suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless "tried to frame" begs the question; "portrayed"? (And if I read your source correctly, Beauchamp's partisanship was not in dispute, but whether it was the motive for the murder. If so, we should state that he was.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take "portrayed", but I'm not sure why the text as-is calls Beauchamp's partisanship into question. It questions Beauchamp's motive, but the next statement, the one about partisanship, states definitely that both Darby and Beauchamp were Anti-Relief partisans. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At least after 1820, Old Court and New Court Party seems to be the standard nomwnclature. We should probably adopt it; if not, we should capitalize Anri-Relief. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I concede that after Old Court and New Court came into use, they constituted the preferred nomenclature, I prefer Relief and Anti-Relief in this case for precisely the reasons you mention. The factions identified by these more general titles first, and only became Old Court and New Court following the legislature's attempt to abolish the Old Court in 1824. Before this, those monikers would have no real meaning, since there was no New Court until then. By continuing to use "Relief" and "Anti-Relief", we avoid straying too far off-topic into the details of the Old Court-New Court affair. I have capitalized "Anti-Relief", per your suggestion. Hope that is satisfactory. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 05:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your review. I've implemented all the changes suggested above. The only one I'm not sure about is replacing "a number of" with "several". That's probably just as vague, but I can't say for certain how many works, exactly, were based on the story of Sharp's murder. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about "Sharp's murder became the inspiration for fictional works"? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made this change. It sounds a little awkward to me for some reason, but I always have trouble editing my own prose. Any other suggestions for the rest of the article? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. I'll be back with some more comments later. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A couple more comments:
• The measure, which paid Congressmen a flat salary instead of paying them only for the days when they were in session, was extremely unpopular with the voters of his district. - No need for "extremely".
• Sharp had clearly identified himself with the Relief Party, as had Governor Adair. - Remove "clearly". –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Any others? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Full support - with a few comments. Since the article is written in US English, shouldn't "duelling" and "remodelling" have a single "l". I might be wrong of course ;-). And, since the murder was not really politically motivated, I think "assassin" is not the best word to describe the murderer. Great article, thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to have to ask for another opinion on the spellings, because I'm honestly not sure. You'd think someone who minored in technical writing would know that! As for "assassin", I think it still falls within the bounds of this definition from Princeton and this one from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Still, it's easy enough to substitute "murderer" if consensus dictates. Thanks for the comments and the support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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