Wikipedia:Peer review/William Howard Taft/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

{{subst:PR/archive} I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to list it for FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brief first instalment, to get the review started. I am rather worried that the extreme length of the article will deter most reviewers, a fear that seems justified by the fact that in nearly three weeks, I'm the first to post here. In going through I will try to indicate areas which I think could be cut without detriment to the article as a whole. Otherwise my comments will largely relate to minor prose issues.

I am aware of the length. I could probably have cut ten percent but it STILL would be extremely long and I chose not to bargain against myself. I'm just going to wait and see what people think and suggest. Possibly half of it is about the 27th president and half about the 10th chief justice.

An obvious solution would seem to be two articles; one presidential biography which only briefly summarises the chief justice years, and one for "Taft as Chief Justice". If each were to stand independently there would be overlapping material, and I think you'd probably end up with two 10,000-word articles instead of one of 17,000. That's more work for you, but would be easier on readers and, dare I say it, reviewers. It would also avoid problems around WP:LENGTH. Worth considering, and it will be interesting to see what others have to say. Meantime I'll continue with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Second paragraph: consider reversing the order of the penultimate and ultimate sentences
• "more and more" looks like a redundancy

Early life and education

• The general reader might wonder why Taft's parents would be "disappointed" with a their son's ranking second out of 121. Actually, the entire Lurie quote is vague to the point of meaninglessness, and I'd seriously consider dropping it.
• "he worked on the The Cincinnati Commercial newspaper" – there's a "the" too many there. I'd consider adding the words "as a reporter" after "he worked".
• "that was taught in no class" → "that was not taught in class" (seems more natural)

It may work better in American English, but the structure is not unusual. It stresses the importance of the practical training. I'm inclined to let it stand but would welcome comments.

Ohio lawyer and judge

• "...this first step on a public career that would last most of the rest of his life to having become friends with..." Suggest condense to "...this first step on a virtually lifelong public career to having become friends with..." – otherwise the overlong subsidiary clause makes the sentence difficult to read.
• "who then was elected prosecutor" – "then" unnecessary
• "Taft served for a year as assistant prosecutor" → "Taft served for a year in this post" to avoid repetition

Solicitor General

• As this is the first mention of the Supreme Court since the lead, I think it should be linked.
• "Such an appointment would not come to Taft from Harrison..." seems a rather oblique way of putting it. I think I would conflate two sentences thus: "He wrote to Foraker urging the governor to press his case but instead, in 1890, Harrison, appointed him Solicitor General of the United States".
• Do we need the "famous lawyer" description if he'd been Sec of State?

Federal judge

• Second para: split overlong overcomplicated first sentence after "In re Phelan" and continue: "Both cases arose out of..."
• I think there is way too much detail on the various cases discussed in this section . The particulars are very difficult for non-lawyers to follow, and unlikely to excite general interest. I think there is scope to condense paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 considerably.

I've cut some, but I see this as the judicial record of the man who became the 10th chief justice and some mention is needed. When he was nominated by Harding he had not been a judge for twenty years, so this is the chance we get.

• "Taft was spoken of for the Supreme Court again..." – "spoken of for" seems clumsy. Perhaps: "Taft was mentioned again for the Supreme Court when..."
• I think vacancies "occur" rather than "develop"
• "he received no appointment" → "he was not appointed"

More later Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this project. If I haven't commented, I've done what you say though sometimes differently from your suggestions. On the legal cases, I'm trying to keep the relevant facts in the cases so that if another lawyer should happen upon it, he won't wonder "but what about ...".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, here's another slew of nitpicks:

Philippine years

• "...the next vacancy on the high court" Is that "Supreme Court"? If not, what court was this?

I've established "high court" as a synonym for Supreme Court earlier in the article, as it is in our ENGVAR.

• A date for Taft's departure to Manila would be useful
• I think you can delete "at that time" (MacArthur's resignation)
• What is meant by "fiesta politics"?
• There is something clumsy about "a policy at odds with racial politics..." but I can't immediately suggest an improvement.

Tweaked.

• "Taft wanted to have the small farmer in the Philippines to have..." Repetition. Also I think I'd make that "small farmers" (I assume there was more than one).
• "both to purchase the lands," I'd delete "both" and the comma
• "to withdraw the" → "the withdrawal of"
• The horse story is funny, but is it encyclopedic?
• "Taft would remain in charge of the Philippines as War Secretary, and Root was willing to postpone his departure until 1904, allowing Taft time to wrap up his work in Manila." I'm confused by this: who would be responsible for what, and when?
• "Kramer questioned the significance of Taft's actions, as his course of action..." can the repetition be avoided?
• I found the meaning of the final sentence difficult to grasp. It could do with some clarification.

Secretary of War

• "Hay was aging and was often ill...." I'd drop the second "was" (it's the third in the line)
• "he under the terms of..." The word "he" looks misplaced here. It should be joined to its verb: "he declared..."
• Was there a US military presence in Cuba, to underpin Taft's declaration of himself as governor? It seems a risky thing to do without some force behind it.
• "The meeting in July 1905 come a month" – "came"
• In the final paragraph you mention twice that Japan had no designs on the Philippines
• I'm concerned about the final (of three in a row) link. It goes to an unratified "gentleman's agreement", which effectively means no agreement despite what you say in the article.

It was an informal agreement, and neither side really observed the spirit of that. I've tweaked it.

Presidential – Gaining the nomination

• "Taft, as president, in 1909 recommended the army convene courts of inquiry which would examine the soldiers' cases" This is out of chronology. I recommend you put this information in a footnote rather than letting it disrupt the main text.
• "Charles Taft was a major backer of his brother's campaign" – is this information noteworthy? If Charles had been backing a differtent candidate, that would be noteworthy, but as it is...
• Link Omaha

General election campaign

• "Bryan urged a system of bank guarantees, so that depositors could be repaid if banks failed, but Taft opposed this, offering a postal savings system instead". I am wondering why this particular proposal should be latched on to a paragraphed prim,arily concerned with controls over campaign contributions.
• Why "on the wrong foot"?
• "Taft defeated Bryan by 159 electoral votes": Since Taft is mentioned just before I'd say "He defeated..." I'd also say "by x electoral votes to y" rather than just the margin.

Inauguration and appointments

• "inside the Senate Chamber" → "within the Senate Chamber" (to avoid "in inside")
• "seeing to it" → "ensuring"
• "The most ill-feeling was because Taft did not keep his successor..." → You haven't said that Taft's actions engendered ill feeling, but now we have "The most..." You could tweak: "Considerable ill-feeling arose because..."

More anon Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fallen behind Tim, still stuck in the Taft presidency, but here are comments on the foreign policy section:

Foreign policy

• There's possible ambiguity with "progressive party members", particularly with Roosevelt's forthcoming bolt. Perhaps this could be "on the party's progressive wing"?
• "...passed both houses in early July, was sent to the states, and became the Sixteenth Amendment." I had in mind that constitutional amendments took years to ratify; could you indicate a timescale?
• "a reciprocity accord for Canada" – too technical, I think, for most readers
• "lame-duck" needs an appropriate pipe, perhaps Lame-duck session
• Notwithstanding the link, it might be advisable to indicate that Arizona Territory was part of the US
• "Salvadoran territory" – some indication of what/where?
• "Taft arranged for the removal of the new president, Eladio Victoria..." How? Assassination?
• link Prince Chun
• "When in December 1911, the revolt's leader..." The Chinese revolution should have a clearer introduction than this somewhat casual mention.

I'll try and get a little more done today. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More...

Domestic policies and politics

• Does the Ballinger-Pinchot affair need to be recounted in this level of detail? With due respect to the scholarship, much of this will not engage the general reader. I can understand its significance in deepening the Taft-Roosevelt rift, and that point should be emphasised, but most of the rest could, I think, be more briefly summarised.
• "Termed Taft's "Southern Policy", this stance effectively invited white protests" – the protests were surely against Roosevelt's stance, not Taft's?
• Many readers will need to use the links to discover who Washington and DuBois were. A word ofintroduction for each might be helpful.

Judicial appointments

• "Taft vetoed a bill to abolish the court, but in October 1913, when Taft was no longer president, Congress passed it again and Wilson signed it". Perhaps pipelink veto. The first "it" is slightly confusing on initial reading, and would perhaps be clearer as "the bill".

I think some understanding of the U.S. political system is necessarily assumed and veto need not be linked.

I would be a little wary of such assunptions so far as your Brit readers are concerned. We are astoundingly ignorant of the US political system. Someone said to me, after Trump's victory in a recent primary: "So Trump's president now, I see" ... but I digress. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1912 presidential campaign and election

• The wording "and Lurie suggested that" makes Lurie seem contemporaneous rather than writing 100 years later, I'd make that "and according to Lurie" or some such.
• "During the 1910 campaign..." Those unfamiliar with the US electoral cycle may wonder what "the 1910 campaign" was. "During the 1910 congressional and gubanatorial election campaigns" would be clearer.
• "...Roosevelt, who had made him president..." – a bit too sweeping (there were, after all, voters involved). I would modify a little (e.g. "who had helped him secure the presidency"
• Butt was described as "his military aide" first time round, so no need for the repeat description
• RNC has not been defined at this point.
• "Senator Root" – just "Root" in multiple earlier mentions
• "as the motion failed, 567—507" – clarify this was Roosevelt's motion that failed
• The last para of the "campaign" section gives the impression of a Wilson landslide. His actual share of the vote was around 41%, as against 50% for the two separated Republican wings. Worth a footnote?

OK, I'm done with Taft the president. Now for the justice - after a brief respite. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well earned. Thank you. I've done more or less as you've suggested except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On we go!

Return to Yale

• "the scholarly book" might be thought editorializing
• As president of the American Bar Association he removed opponents from committees. Was this usual? Did committees chop and change all the time depending on who was ABA president? As baldly stated, it sounds rather spiteful.

I think that's a fair summary of the situation. I do not know if other presidents of the ABA did the same thing, as the sources do not go that far. Roosevelt described Taft as a good hater. Taft held grudges.

• "Taft was chair of the American Red Cross' executive committee, and Wilson asked him to stay in that capacity, occupying much of the former president's time." Syntax wonky: I think "which occupied" rather than "occupying". Personally I would delete "and Wilson asked him to stay in that capacity", which doesn't really add anything.
• "Taft's subsequent flip-flop on the issue of whether reservations to the treaty were necessary both destroyed any remaining influence he had with the Wilson administration, and caused some Republicans to call him a Wilson supporter and thus a traitor.". Can't make head or tail of that. I can understand the first bit, but the "Wilson supporter and thus a traitor" seems incomprehensible.

Taft expressed public support for the treaty, unamended. He then wrote to Republican senators discussing what reservations might be needed, and even proposing text. He intended these in confidence but this was not respected, and was ineffectual when the letters became public, ticking off both sides. Very typical of Taft. I'm trying to keep it short, considering he drops the whole World Peace thing when he becomes CJ. I'll play with the language.

Chief Justice

appointment

• "his path to the Supreme Court was dependent on the election of a Republican president" – as that condition was now fulfilled, replace "was" with "had been"?
• "Past and future presidents conferred there on December 24, 1920" – gives slightly the wrong impression, Taft being the only living ex at the time. I wonder if here's a reason for including this?

Jurisprudence

• "found invalid the repealed Tenure of Office Act" - if it was repealed, surely its validity was moot?

Most certainly so. That didn't stop him.

• "allegedly advocating overthrowing" is a mouthful. In any case, he would have been convicted of advocating, not of "allegedly advocating"
• "he defended on free speech grounds" – what is this referring to? Who is "he" and what was he defending?
• "Lanza and his co-defendants committed acts allegedly in violation of both state and federal law, and was first convicted..." Something about the "was" sounds wrong, since the previous woring refers to "Lanza and his co-defendants"

Administration

• "Believing a responsibility of the chief justice was to be in charge of the federal courts" → "Believing that the chief justice was responsible for the federal courts..."?

Declining health and death

• "toward the end of his presidency,[200] though he reduced this after his presidency" – suggest rephrase to avoid the repetition
• "the crossing over Rock Creek he would often take was after his death named the Taft Bridge" - this phrasing seems oddly ordered. "...named the Taft Bridge after his death" seems more natural.
• Who did he mean by "the Bolsheviki"?

It's unclear. Plainly he was uncomfortable at even the modest moves to the left by the country in the 1920s.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We should have the date of his resignation in the text. It's in the infobox.

Just the Legacy section to go now. I should polish it off in a few minutes tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy and historical view

• comma after "manipulate public opinion" needs upgrading, I suggest to colon
• "Roosevelt generally got" followed closely with "Taft was generally slow" – the first could be "usually", to avoid repetition (especially with "generated" soon after)
• "And it was Roosevelt..." Beginning a sentence with "And..." for emphasis is. I feel, a journalistic rather than encyclopedic device.
• "Anderson pointed out that Roosevelt's Autobiography (which placed this view in enduring form) was published after both men had left the presidency (in 1913), was intended in part to justify Roosevelt's splitting of the Republican Party, and contains not a single positive reference to the man Roosevelt had admired and hand-picked as his successor." Too much info for a single sentence, in particular two parenthetical inserts. Difficult to read as it is; I'd make it two sentences.
• Scalia's verdict on Taft seems curiously incomplete; he seems to acknowledge Taft's quality as CJ "not so much on the basis of..." etc, but he doesn't provide a basis. On what basis did scalia approve of Taft?

And that is me done. I note that during the course of my somewhat extended labours the wordcount has shrunk significantly, which I think is good, bringing it more in line with similar articles. Yours is a noteworthy achievement in bringing this somewhat distant figure to present-day notice, particular when a modern brand of presidential candidate is much in view. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any harm in my putting my oar in while BB is still in mid-review. I've removed some comments from my notes that duplicate what Brian has already said. As to the rest, I'll need several goes. Here's my first batch of comments, down to the end of the Secretary of War section.

• Early life and education
  • "the demanding parents pushed the five boys toward success" - first we've heard of the four brothers/half-brothers. Perhaps "the demanding parents pushed their five boys..."?
• Ohio lawyer and judge
  • Probably just a difference in usage between the US and UK, but "assistant prosecutor, trying his share of routine cases" seems odd to an English eye. I'd expect that verb to be reserved for the judge (And now, if you please, I'm ready to try, This breach of promise of marriage). But I see later that he and Lloyd "tried many cases", and so I take it that this is idiomatic US use. I just mention it. I suppose I've restored many a burglar to his friends and his relations in my time, though mostly juveniles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In US usage, the lawyers involved in a trial do "try" the case.

• Philippine years
  • " MacArthur deemed the commission a nuisance" - this is the first of 18 "deemeds" in the main text and one starts to be a bit too aware of them after a while.
  • "two operations caused by an infection" - is "caused" the right word here? Perhaps "necessitated"?
  • "Taft testified before the Senate Committee on the Philippines. Taft wanted..." - perhaps "He" for the second "Taft"?

More during the next day or two, I hope. Tim riley talk 23:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm up to date with you both. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More from TR

Down to the end of Taft's presidency:

• Gaining the nomination
  • "Republican politicians and delegates-elect" – would the latter not also count as politicians?
  • "those individuals (often African American) frequently sold their support" – this could be read as implying a link between their ethnicity and their venality, which I'm sure you don't intend.
• General election campaign
  • "some reform to the currency" – unexpected choice of preposition: possibly "of" would be more usual.
• "flexibility in the government's response" – response to what?
• Inauguration and appointments
  • "William Howard Taft was sworn in" – we don't need his full name here, I'd say.

I tend to use full names in situations like this. Just preference.

• "talked out of it by his brothers" whose brothers? Taft's I assume, but it could be Roosevelt's or even Wright's (unlikely, I grant you, but it's as well to nail all possible ambiguities).
  • "Philander Knox" – I swear you make these names up.
• Europe
  • I think I'd make "Great Britain" just "Britain" here (twice): it has been the latter throughout up to this point.
• Ballinger-Pinchot affair
  • "Taft would elect different policies" – unexpected and rather curious verb.
• Judicial appointments
  • "Taft, who still had hopes of being chief justice, may have been more willing to appoint an older man than he (White) than a younger one (Hughes)..." – I don't doubt it, but we could do with a citation for this suggestion.
  • "was for corruption impeached in 1912" – awkward word order, I think. I'd move "impeached" to follow "was", and let the rest of the sentence fend for itself.
  • "Congress passed it again and Wilson signed it" – Two points on this: first, the preceding paras have been well stocked with Wilsons, and this one, being neither of them, needs at least a given name. Secondly, I don't think we have so far met President Wilson in the main text (rather than in the lead, which is rather a long time ago by this point) and a phrase of introduction and a blue link might be useful here.

Further comments to follow. – Tim riley talk 11:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've except for the one matter done as you suggest, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last few comments from TR

• Return to Yale (1913–1921)
  • "Taft was chair of the American Red Cross ... co-chairman" - gender-neutral for both or neither, I 'd say.
  • "whose senators were little-minded" - I don't think you want the hyphen here
• Commerce Clause
  • "for a 8—1 majority" - should the article be "an" rather than "a"? And is it right to have an em-dash here, rather than an en-dash?

That's what I was told to use for sports scores and similar. Will research further.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No other points of detail. You won't be astonished to hear that I share BB's reservations about the length of the article. Whether the answer is pruning the text, splitting the article in two or having sub-articles on the presidency and the supreme court years with a précis of each in the main article I am unsure, but I suspect others may share my view that 15,300 words is really too long. That said, I enjoyed the article greatly, and I rather took to the old boy. – Tim riley talk 17:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work and kind words. I've reduced the article by about ten percent, more or less, and will aim to bring it in at 13K words, ten percent more than Shaw, which is not unfitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is helpful, but the only sections where I was aware during my first reading that there seemed to be a lot of text are the Latin America, the Ballinger-Pinchot affair, and the Moving apart from Roosevelt subsections of the Presidency part of the article. Looking at them again I think perhaps they could be boiled down a bit without losing too much. Just my two penn'orth and feel free to ignore. Tim riley talk 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the first two back but the third is really necessary to explain how 1912 happened. I don't think that can be farmed out. I see a couple of sentences that could be cut but I will consider the matter more. I've implemented most of the recommendations but still have a few more to go. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]