Impeachment of Andrew Johnson was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 6, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 24, 2020. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Dixon (CT), Doolittle (WI), and Norton (MN) are all listed as Republicans on multiple wikipedia pages, yet the article only talks about 7 Republicans (all named) who vote not guilty. Anyone know why these 3 seem to be forgotten ?
I notice that the 1867 attempt, which got out of the committee and failed, as well as the attempt against John Tyler, isn't mentioned. I'm not sure that the Tyler stuff is Germaine, and the 1867 attempt should be here. I made a few small revisions to reflect that those events happened.
I just reverted this edit by an IP with only two edits, both vandalism, that has lain undisturbed since 27-Sep-2011! For more than 8 years and 4 months, nine hundred edits have been made, and nobody noticed this obvious anachronism! It should be obvious that no senator was offered cash cards either to acquit Johnson or to convict him! -- 76.15.128.196 ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
in the introduction it mentions he is one of two president to have been impeached. The number is now three, warrants updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.215.16 ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Your claim of the introduction remaining historically accurate is in error as the third impeachment is factually now a part of accurate history and remains relevant to this article which references the impeachment of Presidents.
The movie with Lionel Barrymore. Jplvnv ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Drdpw: I don't know why you feel your prerogative must be the default. The table was non-detrimental. How come you insist that I must discuss it in the talk page to make the addition, rather instead having you need to talk here first to make that subtraction. I asked you not to engage in borderline edit warring. You have not given a legitimate argument against the table being useful. Despite your insistence, two sentences of prose do not provide more information than the table does. As I said, the table greatly helps visual learners (particularly those who learn visually about numbers, and have difficulty picturing math when described in prose). The table's storability also readily allows for comparisons to be made between how many votes were cast in what way by each party compared to other articles, which is useful and engaging for readers, and would otherwise require great work for them to figure out on their own. On votes this consequential, it is important we be as illustrative as possible of how they played-out. On similar articles on other impeachments, we have tables for each article of impeachment, rather than prose describing them as "largely party line, except for....". Why should this impeachment differ? SecretName101 ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi SecretName101. It looks like this nom is languishing. I'll look at it. Please be advised that I am juggling things IRL and will work on this at a slow pace. The GAN instructions say seven days, but I think I'll be lucky to be done that fast. Maybe 2 weeks. If that's too slow, let me know and I'll bow out... I am old-fashioned. I can already say that there are too many collapsible tables etc. for my taste, BUT please don't go crazy and start deleting them for that reason. I absolutely will not fail the GAN because of that. I assume you're gonna go to FAC some day; let them worry about it... I also hope you won't get bothered if I request some sources from time to time (?). That's just who I am. Anyhow, later § Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Speaking of expansion, personally I would not recommend any overall expansion. The word count is about what I like to see at FAC considering that a some of the article's material is in bullet points or tables that are not counted in prosesize. Expanding any more is likely to worsen readability more than it helps comprehensiveness. That said, it should be possible to remove some content (possibly splitting off into sub-articles) at the same time as adding new content if there is other content that needs to be in the article. ( t · c) buidhe 23:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 6, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 24, 2020. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Dixon (CT), Doolittle (WI), and Norton (MN) are all listed as Republicans on multiple wikipedia pages, yet the article only talks about 7 Republicans (all named) who vote not guilty. Anyone know why these 3 seem to be forgotten ?
I notice that the 1867 attempt, which got out of the committee and failed, as well as the attempt against John Tyler, isn't mentioned. I'm not sure that the Tyler stuff is Germaine, and the 1867 attempt should be here. I made a few small revisions to reflect that those events happened.
I just reverted this edit by an IP with only two edits, both vandalism, that has lain undisturbed since 27-Sep-2011! For more than 8 years and 4 months, nine hundred edits have been made, and nobody noticed this obvious anachronism! It should be obvious that no senator was offered cash cards either to acquit Johnson or to convict him! -- 76.15.128.196 ( talk) 20:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
in the introduction it mentions he is one of two president to have been impeached. The number is now three, warrants updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.215.16 ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Your claim of the introduction remaining historically accurate is in error as the third impeachment is factually now a part of accurate history and remains relevant to this article which references the impeachment of Presidents.
The movie with Lionel Barrymore. Jplvnv ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Drdpw: I don't know why you feel your prerogative must be the default. The table was non-detrimental. How come you insist that I must discuss it in the talk page to make the addition, rather instead having you need to talk here first to make that subtraction. I asked you not to engage in borderline edit warring. You have not given a legitimate argument against the table being useful. Despite your insistence, two sentences of prose do not provide more information than the table does. As I said, the table greatly helps visual learners (particularly those who learn visually about numbers, and have difficulty picturing math when described in prose). The table's storability also readily allows for comparisons to be made between how many votes were cast in what way by each party compared to other articles, which is useful and engaging for readers, and would otherwise require great work for them to figure out on their own. On votes this consequential, it is important we be as illustrative as possible of how they played-out. On similar articles on other impeachments, we have tables for each article of impeachment, rather than prose describing them as "largely party line, except for....". Why should this impeachment differ? SecretName101 ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi SecretName101. It looks like this nom is languishing. I'll look at it. Please be advised that I am juggling things IRL and will work on this at a slow pace. The GAN instructions say seven days, but I think I'll be lucky to be done that fast. Maybe 2 weeks. If that's too slow, let me know and I'll bow out... I am old-fashioned. I can already say that there are too many collapsible tables etc. for my taste, BUT please don't go crazy and start deleting them for that reason. I absolutely will not fail the GAN because of that. I assume you're gonna go to FAC some day; let them worry about it... I also hope you won't get bothered if I request some sources from time to time (?). That's just who I am. Anyhow, later § Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Speaking of expansion, personally I would not recommend any overall expansion. The word count is about what I like to see at FAC considering that a some of the article's material is in bullet points or tables that are not counted in prosesize. Expanding any more is likely to worsen readability more than it helps comprehensiveness. That said, it should be possible to remove some content (possibly splitting off into sub-articles) at the same time as adding new content if there is other content that needs to be in the article. ( t · c) buidhe 23:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)