This article was promoted to Good Article status recently, and has since received a peer review. I believe it is now ready for consideration as a Featured Article, and I am ready to make any necessary improvements. Omnedon (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a rather good article, and it's great to see that so much work has gone into this important topic. However, I don't think that it is of FA standard at present. Some statements are needlessly imprecise, and the article would benefit from material which provides greater context for Davis' actions and explains his motivations. My specific comments are:
When did the family move to Wilkinson County, Mississippi?
"Davis was assigned to the 1st Infantry Regiment and was stationed at Fort Crawford, Wisconsin. Davis was still in Mississippi" - the "still" doesn't seem appropriate given that he was Wisconsin in the previous sentence
Why did Davis resign from the Army in 1835? - the text implies that this was so that he could marry Sarah Knox Taylor, but this is never explicitly stated.
"Joseph desired to have his youngest brother nearby and gave Brierfield to Jefferson, who eventually developed Brierfield Plantation there" - when did these events occur?
The previous point having been addressed, this chronology is now more clear. Joseph desired both his brother and Sarah to be there. Omnedon (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Being bored, and feeling somewhat better, Davis returned to Mississippi with Pemberton" - when?
This is not documented in the sources I could find; but the visit to Cuba doesn't seem to have been very long. I've added more detail on the voyage. Omnedon (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did Davis really "worship" the memory of his first wife? This sounds rather extreme.
I disagree that it's "over the top", and I believe the source used that term; but I suppose "revered" or "honored" could work better in the article. Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, as I agree a different word works better here; but another illustration of the degree to which Davis was affected is the fact that he insisted on visiting Sarah's grave on his honeymoon with Varina. Omnedon (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"1840 Davis attended a Democratic meeting in Vicksburg and, to his surprise, was chosen as a delegate to the party's state convention in Jackson." - was this his first involvement in organised politics?
Why did President Polk agree to Davis' proposal to rearm the regiment, and what did this involve? (had Davis arranged for a stock of these weapons, or were they sourced after the event?)
It wasn't really a re-arming, as it was a new regiment. Polk had promised Davis the weapons if he would remain long enough for an important vote. The weapons were apparently already in stock, but not yet widely used. Omnedon (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Governor Brown of Mississippi appointed Davis to take the place of Senator Jesse Speight" - was this to the state or federal senate?
"He became a regent of the Smithsonian Institution, served on the Committee on Military Affairs, and was made a member of the Library Committee." - when?
Why did Narciso López select Davis to lead a military campaign in Cuba?
He had already contacted General Worth, who died before deciding whether or not to lead the expedition. Davis was known to be interested in Cuba and concerned about the presence of a Spanish holding so near to the United States. However, it might be original research to assume that this was the reason why Lopez next approached Davis. Lopez also approached Lee at Davis' suggestion, but Lee also turned down the offer. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Senate made Davis chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs" - when?
"In this capacity, Davis gave Congress four annual reports (in December of each year)" - was the routine reporting really his most important achievement in the position? It doesn't seem worth mentioning to be honest.
It isn't claimed that this was his most important achievement. However, there are a few other items I've found that can be mentioned in this section. Omnedon (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He promoted the Gadsden Purchase of today's southern Arizona from Mexico." - how did he do this, and what was his motivation? (was this related to his official role as the secretary of war, or his long-standing support of expanding the US?)
The immediate reason was that it would have provided an easier route for the railroad, which of course was important for expansion. Omnedon (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He also increased the size of the regular army from 11,000 to 15,000" - why was this considered necessary?
The material on Davis opposing secession comes out of nowhere in the "Return to Senate" section - I'd suggest including some historical context to explain why he was taking up the issue
"Nominally serving in the Senate" seems a misnomer - he was still a senator, even if he wasn't able to make it to Washington Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis was chosen partly because he was a well-known and experienced moderate who had served in a president's cabinet. In meetings of his own Mississippi legislature, Davis had argued against secession, but when a majority of the delegates opposed him, he gave in." - should this be in the previous section?
Second sentence was misplaced chronologically, yes. And in terms of the previous section, that sentence would be somewhat redundant, as it already indicates that he was not in favor of secession. Omnedon (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis had a very small circle of military advisers, and largely made the main strategic decisions on his own (or approved those suggested by Lee)" - this sentence is confusing: it mainly argues that that Davis acted as the supreme war leader with few advisers, but the material in the brackets then contradicts this by saying that he also rubber stamped Lee's proposals
I don't see this as contradictory. It's true that Davis preferred to manage things directly, but he also had a close relationship with Lee and respected his views. However, I can see that some might interpret the phrase in parentheses as rubber-stamping. I'll clarify this. Omnedon (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He attempted strategic offensives when he felt that military success would both shake Northern self-confidence and strengthen the peace movements there. The campaigns met defeat at Antietam (1862) and Gettysburg (1863)" - what about the Confederate Heartland Offensive?
"Once the war began, there were frequent changes to the cabinet." - why did this occur? - did Davis sack under-performers (real or perceived), or did they resign? (or both)
Is it correct to call Toombs an "advisor"? He seems to have held a cabinet position.
The reference uses the term; particularly given Davis' tendency to involve himself directly in various matters, this seems accurate. Omnedon (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Separately, the issue of slavery did not sit well with many European countries" - this seems an understatement given the issue's importance in the UK (probably the most important potential source of international support)
It's probably also worth noting that Davis did a poor job of choosing representatives in Europe - Amanda Foreman's book A World on Fire provides some rather pointed analysis of this
I will search my sources for more details on this. Do you have easy access to the Foreman book? If so, is there any chance you'd care to contribute something on this subject? Omnedon (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched the book (I have an e-book version), and couldn't find this. I think that it's in there somewhere, but it's not so obvious. There's some criticism of Davis' "King Cotton Diplomacy" here, and the other Disunion articles are well worth checking. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis gave speeches to soldiers and politicians but largely ignored the common people and thereby failed to harness Confederate nationalism by directing the energies of the people into winning the war" - this sentence is a bit complex and wordy
"Taxes were very low in the Confederacy compared to the Union" - the previous paragraph says that income tax was higher in the south
I'm not sure why there were conflicting statements, but the initial statement you quote is correct regarding the earlier days of the war. Later, more taxes were implemented, but there were various taxes, and they raised a relatively small percentage of Confederate revenue. I have tweaked this area, and will add a bit more detail as well. Omnedon (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Final days of the Confederacy" section seems over-detailed compared to the very high-level treatment of the rest of the war and Davis' travels. I was surprised to not see anything on the decision to arm slaves in which Davis played a role.
The war itself is well-covered in various other articles. As to the "Final days" section, this deals with events in which Davis was directly involved, including his flight and capture. I will see what can be added about the arming of slaves; that probably is worthy of mention. Omnedon (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the coverage of the war really establishes how weak a position the CSA was in due to the North's much greater population and economic capacity (not to mention its effective navy), and the resultant need for either risky offensive operations or a grinding defensive to end the war with a negotiated peace with someone other than Lincoln (which came fairly close in 1864). Adding this material could be used to put Davis' actions, and his failings, into perspective: he faced a very difficult situation, and made things worse overall.
I've added a paragraph that describes the disparity between the North and South in terms of resources. At the end of the "Strategic failures" section, your last sentence is covered. Omnedon (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can more be said about how Davis saw his role? Was his decision to focus on the military side of his responsibilities due to his background or personal preferences, or was it forced upon him?
Davis wanted to be a general, not the president, and due to his military background tended to focus on military matters. It was his preference to deal with those matters himself, and he did not delegate well. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that topic, when discussing the comparisons of Lincoln and Davis you could also note that historians regard Lincoln (a self-taught amateur in military affairs) as being a much superior military leader than Davis, despite Davis' extensive professional training and experience. I think that I've read some commentary arguing that Davis had a much-inflated view of his abilities as a military commander during the Civil War.
The comparison between Lincoln and Davis as military leaders was mentioned in the last paragraph of "Strategic failures"; I've added a bit more detail. Omnedon (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but this treatment continued for some months until he was finally given better quarters" - when was this change made?
What were Lost Cause ceremonies? Were these events given specifically in honour of Davis, or more general commemorations of the Confederacy?
In general, the Lost Cause ceremonies were held for many years after the war and helped the South deal with their defeat. As to these particular ones, I've not been able to determine if they were given in Davis' honor, but we do know they were events at which Davis appeared. Context suggests that the events would have occurred anyway. I've added a sentence that gives a bit of context to the Lost Cause. Omnedon (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what disease(s) resulted in Davis' death?
Have the various memorials to Davis received any opposition?
I've done some checking and haven't found much on this. Most memorials to Davis date from a century ago or more. My guess is that a modern memorial to Davis would receive some opposition, but that's speculation. The road renaming in Virginia is mentioned in the "Legacy" section, and there was disagreement about that as described in the citation. Some memorials are lasting by their very nature; but it is not uncommon for things that are named for famous people (such as roads) to be renamed later. Not quite sure how to address this further. Omnedon (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This 2002 NY Times story discusses opposition to naming a highway in Washington state after Davis. There was also recently debate over removing his name from a park in Memphis [2], and this 2008 story notes opposition to erecting a statue of Davis. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all excellent material; I appreciate you finding it. I've added a paragraph that deals with these issues, which I hope will help with the following item as well. Omnedon (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ending the article with fairly unimportant material on stamps seems a bit disappointing. A "legacy and modern perceptions"-type section which discusses how he's seen by historians and the general public would be more satisfactory. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your initial statement, and I've reordered this section; the paragraph about the restoration of his full citizenship seemed more appropriate. As for the views of historians, these are mentioned in various places throughout the article. Omnedon (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with indopug's suggestion below that the article should end with a section like those in the Nixon, Reagan and Truman articles which provides a summary of modern historians' overall assessment of Davis. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will work up something on this. I don't wish to rehash material already quoted, but I suppose you are both correct that a summary would be helpful. Omnedon (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief summary. As for the view of the general public, I'm not sure how to go about this, as it seems that this would be difficult to cite. Omnedon (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I felt that it had all been covered already earlier in the article, which is why I did not think to include references; but I will do that. I will see how it can be expanded. Omnedon (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having begun on this, I appreciate your detailed and constructive criticism. These improvements will definitely make for a better article. Omnedon (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm hold off responding until you finish tweaking the article, but please let me know if I can clarify any of my comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now addressed all of the issues. Do you have any other input, whether on new issues or further thoughts on the existing points? Omnedon (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've just marked some material as needing a citation, but this should be easily done. As all my comments are now resolved I'm pleased to support the article's promotion to FA status. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've cited the burial in Hollywood Cemetery. Originally, there was a claim that his tenure as President of the CSA was not listed on his monument, but it turns out that it is listed, just on another side of the monument from some of his other accomplishments. Hence, the whole sentence become somewhat superfluous. Omnedon (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please avoid using templates like "Done" or similar graphical templates per FA-guidelines, as they possibly slow down page load time or cause problems in the FA-nomination list. GermanJoe (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Legacy section, putting it bluntly, is a bit of a bore. It's basically just minutiae—stamps, roads, libraries, birthdays. On the other hand, a historical reevaluation, ala the Nixon, Reagan or Truman FAs, would be of much greater interest to the general reader (indeed, they are the most interesting sections in those articles). Also, as Nick-D said above, you could end the article on a high note.—indopug (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already reordered that section so as to end with the paragraph on the restoration of his citizenship. I found the Carter statement about "last act of reconciliation in the Civil War" interesting. I'll see what I can find re a historical reevaluation, but it will not be quite the same; Davis is much more distant in history than the others. His evaluation by historians is mentioned throughout the article as well. Omnedon (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also, you should crop the infobox pic. Too much blank space; the main purpose of the infobox pic is to be vale to identify him.—indopug (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article appears well-structured and well-formed, and succeeds in covering the subject in a suitably thorough and informative way without becoming overly verbose. I see too that the smaller particulars raised above have also now been addressed. Good work! ╠╣uw[talk]13:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the opening sentence, given the ambiguity of American, perhaps clarify "United States"? I like to keep a worldwide focus for FAC's, and American/United States is one of the issues I worry about. Otherwise, nothing in the first sentence definitively says it's about the USA (since you don't spell out American Civil War, which I don't mind if you would clarify the country)
"Abraham Lincoln was born 8 months later, less than 100 miles (160 km) to the northeast in Hodgenville, Kentucky." - while interesting, I wonder, is it trivia? IDK, torn on this one.
I know what you mean; but personally I feel it is more than trivia, since the two men ended up being leaders of opposing nations. It was an interesting early link, I felt. Omnedon (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to bouts with malaria, battle wounds from fighting in the Mexican–American War, and a chronic eye infection that made it impossible for him to endure bright light, he also suffered from trigeminal neuralgia, a nerve disorder that causes severe pain in the face." - should probably be split up, maybe with semicolon?
" of $100,000 (worth more than $2,000,000 in 2010[61])" - why in 2010 USD?
This was added a while ago, hence the 2010; I will change it to 2013. The estimate is cited but it isn't possible to come up with a precise figure due to many factors, so "more than $2,000,000" is still quite valid. Omnedon (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Def! I figured, I can't just nom something for FAC and not review others, especially when there is a topic as important as this up! Thanks for the quick replies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
