Toolbox
Copying check Manual of Style

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it at FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• Going through it now, I'll have some comments in the morning. "Sir, I am doing my best to conceal [contempt for the court]". Aha! Maybe that's where Mae West got the line "No, Your Honor, I'm trying my best to hide it." in My Little Chickadee. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal humor, and I have several books on it, tends to recycle every generation or so. So it's quite possible they thought it was original. Or maybe they just filed the serial numbers off.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Proficient and successful as an attorney, after his death in 1868, all who memorialized Stevens agreed on his talent as a lawyer. He rarely took notes": All who memorialized Stevens after his death in 1868 agreed on his talent as a lawyer. Proficient and successful as an attorney, he rarely took notes (misplaced modifiers, not enough to confuse but enough to make the readers work a little harder)
• I can't tell why his hair loss would make him dislike Masons more. Is the point that it made him more irrascible in general?
• "a political party, that proved popular": a political party that proved popular
• "reelected", "re-elected": consistency. ("reelected" is better in AmEng ... OTOH, it looks like a typo to some outside the US.)
• I did some copyediting, and got down to Thaddeus Stevens#Crusader for education. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will get to these tonight. Yes, that was the idea, the loss of hair made him bitter. The painting was probably done with his natural hair, but I've only found a small image of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got those.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm doing a bit of copyediting for flow as well, just revert me if I do anything dumb. Montanabw^(talk) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll have a look but I'm sure it will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, this paragraph is really rough, the last sentence in particular makes no sense. I can't even figure out how to rewrite it because I'm unsure what's being said: Lincoln is mentioned but then goes nowhere, the senatorial election mention is abrupt and unclear, as the rest of the paragraph is about him running for the house, etc. I made copyedits to the first few sentences but after than got lost... Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1848, Stevens ran for election to the United States Congress. There was opposition to him at the Whig convention. Some delegates felt that because Stevens had been late to join the party, he should not receive the nomination. Others disliked his stance on slavery. He narrowly won the nomination. During the campaign, he was consulted by Illinois Representative Abraham Lincoln, who asked his fellow Whig if the party would win Pennsylvania; Stevens was uncertain but hopeful. In a strong year for Whigs nationally and in Pennsylvania, both Taylor and Stevens were elected. Stevens's supporters pressed his cause in the 1848 senatorial election in the legislature, but he received few votes.^[1]

The entire "First tenure in Congress" section is pretty rough sledding overall and unclear in several places; I rewrote some bits, not sure I didn't change some nuances, best that the lead editors take a look at it. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut out some of it and I hope that helps. He several times hoped to be elected to the Senate but it never happened. Even in 1866. No one took him seriously that time, but he was.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This will need to be done in instalments over a few days, given its length and complexity. Here's an opening tranche, with more to follow:

Lead

• "gave the vote to blacks" – rewording advised

Early life and education

• "His parents were Baptists and had emigrated..." → "His parents were Baptists who had emigrated..."
• "The circumstances of his departure and fate are uncertain" – I would tweak this slightly: "The circumstances of his departure, and his subsequent fate, are uncertain..."
• Brits need a link on sophomore
• The phrase "speaking at commencement" could be replaced with something a little more explanatory, e.g. "...and gave a valedictory address at the ceremony". I'm not sure about the literary device of "The man who, in his later years, would..." – does this fit the encyclopedic prose model?
• Another superfluous "though"

Early years

• "Stevens knew no one in Gettysburg, and initially had little success as a lawyer, sent just a few small cases by fellow attorneys". The sentence is incomplete without "being" inserted before "sent"
• "Proficient and successful as an attorney, after his death in 1868, all who memorialized Stevens agreed on his talent as a lawyer." The grammar is wrong; the best way of solving it would be to lose the first six words.
• The charge of being a "patricide" does not seem to be related to the pregnant woman's death.

Presumably the southerners hinted that he was responsible for his father's death somehow. They did not play nice in those days. Perhaps that quote should just be cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Masonry

• First sentence is over-complex and could beneficially be split
• "into control" → "in control" (more usual)
• It's a little confusing, having read that the investigating committee into Masonry didn't have subpoena powers, to find a couple of lines later that Stevens "used the opportunity to subpoena…"

An election took place and Stevens' committee was given greater power by the new majority. I've clarified

• "an opponent to the order" → "an opponent of the order", and I think the following "till" should be "until"

Crusader for education

• "Stevens got county voters to agree to pay its debt, allowing it to be sold as a Lutheran seminary." The "...ing" is problematic as it makes the second clause a subsidiary of the first. As I understand it, the county voters agreed to pay the debt, and then sold it.

The body on which Stevens served sold it, not the county voters. With the encumbrances paid, they found a buyer.

• What does the verb "deeded" mean?

It means he granted real property. Changed to "gave"

• "The result was a repeal bill easily passed the Senate" Seems to be a word missing somewhere
• "Stevens defended the bill": clarify, since "bill" presently under discussion is the repeal bill.
• Another superfluous "though"

More on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's a bit more:

Political change; move to Lancaster@@

• The sentence beginning "A campaign dirty even..." has a lot of commas (5) which rather suggests that the sentence is too long and needs splitting.
• On what grounds did Stevens hope to have the Democrats excluded?

It was the disputed electees, from Philadelphia. The Democratic-controlled board of elections had thrown out the vote in seven wards (obviously turning the elections), and sent the returns to Harrisburg by special messenger, when the law required them to be conveyed by the sheriff. The Whig minority on the committee sent its own set of returns, via the sheriff. Stevens argued that as the Democrat returns had not been regularly delivered, they weren't valid, and proposed to have the names of those Democrats excluded from the calling of the roll and election of a Speaker. Didn't fly. Clarified.

• "...with the Whigs electing a Speaker and himself as senator." Meaning not clear. Is it: "so that the Whigs alone would elect the House Speaker, and would elect himself as US Senator"?

Clarified with above.

• "he received none": maybe "he received no offer"

No, I like the brutal bluntness of the way it is.

• "he had landed in debt due to his business interests" – maybe business "failures" would be more accurate?

Probably too strong a word. He retained ownership of the furnaces, although they never made him that much money.

• "It would be in his new home in Lancaster that he engaged the services of Lydia Hamilton Smith, a mulatto housekeeper who would remain with him the rest of his life." Awkward wording, especially with two "woulds". Perhaps "It was in Lancaster that he engaged the services of Lydia Hamilton Smith, a mulatto housekeeper who remained with him the rest of his life".

Evolution of views

• "His reasoning has been disputed..." His "reasoning", or his "reasons"?

• "Of those who wrote in the 20th century...." Why not "Of 20th century writers…"?

Revert to the language I had before, "recent biographers"--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First tenure in Congress

• We should be told where (district, etc) he ran for Congress
• The short staccato sentences ("Others disliked his stance on slavery. He narrowly won the nomination") don't fit the general prose style of the article.
• I don't see the reason for the Lincoln information, which seems somewhat inconsequential

I feel that Lincoln is always worth hearing about, but I'll slice it.

• "In a strong year for Whigs nationally and in Pennsylvania, both Taylor and Stevens were elected" I think you need to be more specific, particularly about Taylor, e.g. "In a strong year for Whigs nationally and in Pennsylvania, Taylor won the presidency and Stevens was elected to Congress"
• "Stevens suggested that the state..." What "state" was he referring to?
• "to better breed black men..." Do you mean "to breed better black men"? Otherwise thephrasing seems unduly oratorial.

I've deleted that. It wasn't working.

• "in which the attempt to enforce" → "in which an attempt to enforce"
• "(which were not charged)" → "(with whichthey were not charged)"
• "While was easily renominated..." A "he" missing

Ah. I had referred to his renomination and reelection. Something seems to have happened here as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Know-Nothing and Republican affiliation

• I am not particularly knowledgeable, but from what I do know, the xenophobic Know-Nothing party seems a most unlikely vehicle for the abolitionist Stevens to join. Was he trying to fight it from within?

Recruit its members for the anti-slavery cause. Many former Anti-Masons became Know-Nothings, and in the aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act passage, the Whig Party was splintered.

• A redundant "as well" in the first paragraph

Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment (as I read through): I am finding this an absorbing learning experience, as I had no clear previous idea who Stevens was; I apologise if some of my questions seem a bit naive, but I am finding things out as I go. In the talkpage discussion about the length of the article there is an assumption that students will form the main readership of the article. I disagree; WP is a general encyclopedia for a general readership, and the organisation, content and length of all articles should reflect this. The optimum lengths of articles will vary from topic to topic – "big" topics will generate longer articles – but the needs of the general reader should always be paramount. From this perspective I would say the Amy Carter snippet is justified. There are perhaps other areas where the detail could be trimmed without detriment to the needs of the general reader; I will highlight area where I think this could be done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Secession crisis; 1860 election

• The "Stevens did not accompany..." sentence has a hidden note questioning its relevence. The sentence does seem eminently disposable.
• "the Buchanan administration..." Perhaps, for emphasis, "the lame-duck Buchanan administration" or "the dying Buchanan administration"
• "undoubtedly pleased" looks like a stranded quote, not clear from where. How about paraphrasing it to "encouraged"?

Because they are surmising, they do not know his feelings about the First Inaugural. He never much cared for Lincoln, after all.

Moving to emancipation

• "reversing the order of..." is slightly confusing - would be plainer as "reversing an order of..."
• Could some link or brief explanation be given for "the territories"?

It was already piped to, under "First tenure in Congress"

• "Lincoln was irritated at meeting radicals like Stevens and Senators Sumner and Henry Wilson wherever he went, urging him to issue an Emancipation Proclamation". Does not parse well. Suggestion: "Lincoln was irritated that, wherever he went, radicals like Stevens and Senators Sumner and Henry Wilson were urging him to issue an Emancipation Proclamation".

I will use a variation of that.

• "he would have to side with them" does not make clear with whom he would side.
• Date 13th Amendment passed the Senate?
• The text reads as though passage of the amendment by the House was its final stage; should there not be a mention of the ratification process, possibly by way of a footnote?

Reconstruction: Background

• "He would have preferred to vote for the nomination of the sitting vice president, Hannibal Hamlin..." As worded, this could be interpreted as Stevens preferring Hamlin to Lincoln for president. Suggestion: "For vice president he would have preferred to vote for the incumbent, Hannibal Hamlin..."
• "Stevens campaigned for the Lincoln-Johnson ticket; it was elected, with Stevens chosen for another term." This is not a "with" situation. It should be "Stevens campaigned for the Lincoln-Johnson ticket; it was elected, as was Stevens for another House term."

Advent of Andrew Johnson

• "Congress adjoined"? Is this "adjourned" with a Bowery accent?

More likely a spelling mistake that was corrected by the autocorrect on my laptop, to the wrong word.

• "Lincoln looked at Stevens for a few minutes..." is unnecessary detail (and obviously untrue – try looking at someone for a few minutes before answering them). I don't think it is encyclopedic, either.
• I wonder if the double mdash in "Betrayed again, by ——!" is really appropriate? The single mdash version looks like "Betrayed again, by — !"
• "whether those seeking membership..." Needs clarifying - membership of what?

Congressional Reconstruction

• "what he will do when he outlives them" - why use of present tense here?
• "When Congress convened in early December..." Give year.
• Hayes was mid-forties at the time. Does that qualify him as a "young congressman"?

From our perspective of age … but I'll change it to "new".

• "or against" → "and against"
• The information that Stevens supported the railroads, favoured high import tariffs and legislation beneficial to the labour force is rather lost in the middle of the text which understandably focuses on Stevens's historic role in the post-bellum Union. Perhaps this information would be included in a paragraph at the end of the section, beginning something like: "In the general legislative field Stevens supported..."
• "Republicans would have a two-thirds majority in both houses". Add "in the new Congress"?
• "In January 1867, he introduced legislation to divide the South into five districts, each commanded by an army general empowered to override civil authorities, and empowered to supervise elections with all males entitled to vote, except for those who could take an oath of past and future loyalty, that most white southerners could not". Far too complex for a single sentence; repeat of "empowered" should be avoided.
• "The Tenure of Office Act was amended to make it unclear if by its terms it applied to Johnson, as the officeholder could be dismissed once the president who had appointed him left office, and most of the officials the radicals sought to protect had been named by Lincoln." I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of this.

• I see the rewording, which is much easier to follow, but in what respect was the phrasing of the act "unclear"? You say it protected office-holders during the tenure of the president who appointed them; that's clear enough. Would it be right to say that the wording "appeared to protect...", implying that it could be otherwise interpreted? That would explain "unclear".

I've gone with a variation of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; up to date again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Impeachment and death

• Questionable section heading. It implies that Stevens was impeached and died, while it was Johnson who was impeached and Stevens who died. I can't think of an alternative offhand; maybe make the two subsections level two?

Impeaching the President

• "The new 40th Congress...": I'd say either "new" or "40th" should go, since there wasn't an old 40th Congress
• "It soon adjourned until July..." The "soon" is uninformative unless we know when Congress convened. Perhaps begin the section: "The 40th Congress, which convened on (date), was not as aggressive..."
• "though leaving its Judiciary Committee" seem incomplete; "leaving its Judiciary Committee in session"?
• "After Stanton refused Johnson's request to resign in August 1867" - "request that he resign", otherwise meaning unclear
• I struggled to understand Wade's cryptic comment. I assume he meant that his party's support for African-American suffrage cost it votes, but it doesn't sound like that, rather the opposite. I think this may confuse readers.
• "Nevertheless, dissatisfied with the committee's work, Stevens suggested another," - Suggested another what? This sentence should be split for clarity, perhaps after "Article XI"
• Parenthetical "(he would appear only by his counsel, or defense managers)" I assume this "he" is Johnson. I think you are saying that he did not appear in person, but was represented by his counsel or defense managers.
• General: Even though I knew the result, I still found this account quite gripping. It's a sort of 19th century Watergate, and would film well, I think – sequel to Lincoln, perhaps?

Final months and death

• "seeking to gain his history" - not sure what this wording means
• Another unnecessary "though"
• As a matter of detail, whose decision was it to allow Stevens to lie in state in the Capitol?

According to the Architect of the Capitol's website, it's a decision made either by a resolution of Congress or by its leadership, and at that time, Congress was in recess. So probably Senator Wade and Speaker Schuyler Colfax.

Personal life

• In this section I notice "African-American" both with and without a hyphen. I haven't checked this for consistency through the article, though this needs to be done.
• "Stevens took custody" → "Stevens had taken custody" (bearing in mind you are referring to an event in the distant past)
• "Alanson during the war..." - say which war

Related sites

• I have commented above on the Amy Carter issue.

Historical and popular view

• Third paragraph: "Stevens" five times in first two lines (10 times in the whole paragraph)
• "to deal with" is possibly a little judgemental

Last comment: the article is finally very absorbing, and the summation at the end is excellent. It does require some work on the reader's part to get through the earlier sections, and if it was my project I would probably seek to cut some of the minor detail from the earlier sections, to increase the pace of the narrative. This is something for you to consider; you may feel that this would damage the comprehensiveness of the article, but I usually find it possible to shed around 10 percent of my first drafts, by being a bit more selective. All in all, a very substantial piece of work on an important and indeed facscinating historical figure. Makes Davidson seem rather a pygmy. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words. I am afraid that you have caught the difficulty which made writing this article so slow. This man lived a life of three quarters of a century, and did a lot in that time, but what everyone cares about happened in the last tenth of that life.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all that and trimmed the article down to 101K, which is about 8 percent less than its peak. Thanks again. Well, who's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - User:Khazar2

I think this is the first time I've commented in a peer review, so please feel free to edit my comments for format. Overall, I'd say the article's really terrific work, and I think little stands in the way of its becoming a GA and FA very rapidly.

The biggest suggestion I have, like some others have raised, is to work on length. While this is improving since the first time I glanced here, 11675 words (~46 double-spaced pages) is still a big reading commitment that few of this page's 1000 daily visitors likely have time for. For a figure like Lincoln or a topic like the Civil War, it may be necessary to break 60kb readable prose (for comparison, this one's currently at 71kb readable prose), but I'd think Stevens is someone who doesn't demand an exception to WP:TOOBIG, which suggests considering a split after 50kb. This isn't a criticism of your writing style, which I always find sharp and easy to read--just a reflection of what I imagine to be the needs of most users. It's worth pointing out that even in this peer review, nobody's been able to get through this article in one sitting. (I'm no exception, alas. Made it to the impeachment, but now it's time for bed.)

So what I'll do here is put my money where my editing mouth is and show you what I think could be condensed or cut to bring this closer to 40-50kb. If you find it of help, great; if you don't, I won't be at all offended. Because this will involve a lot of examples, I'm going to be brief, so I apologize in advance if that makes my suggestions sound dismissive or curt. Please don't worry about responding individually, these are just for you to take or leave. (Obviously, some of these may require minor modifications to sentences before and after, too). Since I ran out of time before reaching the end, I'll just post this list for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• axe-cow anecdote - cut.
• "with Judge John Mattocks" - cut

Problem is, this leaves "read law in Danville" which does not imply the apprenticeship it was. It's worth the four words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "after writing to friends in York, Pennsylvania, seeking information on job prospects, he moved there" -- shorten to "he moved to York, Pennsylvania"

Cut in part.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the seat of Adams County" - cut

This introduces Adams County, which is mentioned several times. It's going to have to be explained sooner or later.

• " being sent just a few small cases by fellow attorneys" - cut
• "There was much local prejudice against the accused, and Stevens defended him in front of a hostile courtroom crowd. Stevens contended that his client was insane, an uncommon plea at the time. Although he was not successful and the farmer was hanged, he later stated that this was the only time one of his clients was executed for murder. " - cut

Mostly cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " The slave, Charity Butler, lived in Maryland, but had been taken to Pennsylvania repeatedly. She claimed her freedom on the grounds that the visits totaled more than six months—a slave brought to Pennsylvania was freed if kept there for longer than that period. Stevens appeared on the other side, and convinced the state supreme court that the law required a continual presence." - cut-- the one-sentence summary is enough
• " This incident sparked anger against the group. " - cut
• ", which became widespread in 1826 after the disappearance and death of William Morgan, a Mason in Upstate New York; Morgan's likely killers were fellow Masons who disapproved of his publishing a book revealing the order's secret rites." -- I wonder if this context could be moved to an explanatory footnote

I don't think it would improve things. Stevens devoted ten years of his life to this cause, I think a little exposition is justified.

• "he may also have had personal reasons as the Masons barred "cripples" from joining. " - cut

We have too little which explains Stevens's actions. I think it's worth including. It's the only time we mention his clubfoot as an adult. I think it should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "His biographer, Hans Trefousse, suggests that another reason for Stevens's virulence was due to an attack of disease in the late 1820s that cost him his hair (he thereafter wore wigs, often ill-fitting), and "the unwelcome illness may well have contributed to his unreasonable fanaticism concerning the Masons"" - cut

His baldness and wig need explaining as it is in the movie. Seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ", where much of the population belonged to small religious groups such as the Mennonites, who considered Masonry papist" - cut
• "In September 1833, Stevens was nominated for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by the Anti-Masons. He was elected to a one-year term" -- shorten to "In September 1833, Stevens was elected to a one-year term in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives as an Anti-Mason."
• "At the time, no state outside New England had free public education for all, and even there the quality was poor in most places. " - cut
• "When the school's appropriation was attacked in 1834, he successfully defended it, charging that to his opponents "it was more important …that their horses may go dry-shod to the mill, than that the rubbish of ignorance should be cleared away from the intellects of our children""
• "working across party lines with Governor Wolf, " -- cut

Wolf has to be mentioned, he was a big part of this, and is still considered a father of free education in Pa. Cut in part.

• "(about half the districts did) " -- cut
• ", and demonstrated how" -- cut

I think the words are keeping to show he didn't just mouth off. He was specific.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1838, Stevens ran again for the legislature. He hoped that if the remaining Anti-Masons and the emerging Whig Party gained a majority, he could be elected to the United States Senate, whose members (until 1913) were chosen by state legislatures. A campaign dirty even by the standards of the times followed. The result was..." -- shorten to "An ugly 1838 election season resulted in…"

I am going to think about this one. Another reviewer has made it clear in past articles he feels that if I mention election to the Senate pre-1913, I need to mention something about the mode of election.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I wonder if it could be moved to an efn, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " and Ohio senator" -- cut
• "There was opposition to him at the Whig convention. Some delegates felt that because Stevens had been late to join the party, he should not receive the nomination; others disliked his stance on slavery. He narrowly won the nomination." -- cut
• "No party had a majority, and the balloting to elect a Speaker lasted weeks. Stevens received some votes, but never came close and Georgia's Howell Cobb was elected." -- cut
• "This potential expansion of slavery was bitterly opposed by Stevens" -- cut; his opposition already stated in previous sentence
• "Although many Americans hoped that the Compromise would bring sectional peace, Stevens warned that it would be "the fruitful mother of future rebellion, disunion, and civil war".[46]" -- great line, but cut

I think it's worth keeping but have made compensating cuts elsewhere.

• "Other former Whigs who were anti-slavery joined as well, including William H. Seward of New York, Charles E. Sumner of Massachussents, and Abraham Lincoln of Illinois" -- cut

You have to introduce people sometime, and especially Lincoln and Sumner play important parts in Stevens's story..

• "Stevens saw an opportunity to return to Congress. Stevens obtained nomination at the party convention, and despite influence exerted against him by the Buchanan administration, was easily elected." -- shorten to "Stevens saw an opportunity to return to Congress and was easily elected."

Mostly cut.

• "Democratic papers were appalled. One banner headline read, "Niggerism Triumphant"." -- cut

Worth keeping, I think. Stevens was viewed almost as a demon by Democrats, especially in the South. There needs to be mentions of that.

• "Stevens opposed Brown's violent actions at the time, though later, as Brown became considered an abolitionist martyr, he was more approving. " -- cut
• "No blood was spilled, and Stevens acted with aplomb, but later referred grimly to the incident" -- cut; the "drew" rather than "stabbed" already makes it clear he wasn't hurt

Cut in large part, but I think it's worth keeping that no blood was spilled.

• The discussion of the 1860 Republican convention seems more detailed than necessary here

Some cuts made.

• ", and as it proved, Lincoln," -- cut

Done up to here. If no comment made, I either made the cut as specified or completely overlooked it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. That's 3kb prose gone already. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Stevens was at home in Lancaster, practicing law, when war began in April 1861. He took part in patriotic rallies, and returned to Washington for the special session that convened on July 4" -- shorten to "When war began in April 1861, Stevens took part in patriotic rallies in Lancaster, and returned..."
• " Stevens had an able set of colleagues on the Committee, including Vermont's Justin Morrill and New York's Erastus Corning, who did much of the detail work of legislation, while Stevens forced the bills through the House." -- cut
• ", and reversing an order of Frémont (now a general for the North, or Union) freeing slaves in Missouri." -- cut
• "Stevens and other radicals were frustrated at how slow Lincoln was to adopt their policies for emancipation; according to Brodie, "Lincoln seldom succeeded in matching Stevens's pace, though both were marching towards the same bright horizon".[63] Trefousse writes that Lincoln "fully availed himself of the unceasing radical pressure … the radicals pushed further, thus enabling the president to continue his onward march toward freedom for the slaves".[64] Nevertheless," -- cut

I'll cut the Trefousse, somewhat reluctantly. I think Brodie's comment is too good to lose.

• "The President told a story of a boy who during a reading of Bible verses in turn by his class, is punished after failing to adequately pronounce Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. As his next turn approaches, there is renewed sobbing from him, and when asked what is the matter, responds, pointing at the text, "there comes them same damn three fellows again".[66]" -- I love a good folksy Lincoln story, but cut

If Lincoln's story was more to the point, rather than just funny, I would keep it. Still, very reluctantly cut.

• ", pointing out that president and congressman were promoting the same policies" -- cut
• " Early defended his actions stating that the North had done the same to southern figures, and that Stevens was well-known for his vindictiveness towards the South" -- cut
• "The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure, did not apply to all slaves, and might be reversed by peacetime courts; an amendment would be slavery's end." -- cut

I think it needs to be explained why they needed an amendment. And that is only some of the reasons.

• "; fears that it might not pass delayed a renewed attempt there" -- cut
• "and when he did, as Illinois Representative Isaac Arnold described it, "distinguished soldiers and citizens filled every available seat, to hear the eloquent old man speak on a measure that was to consummate the warfare of forty years against slavery"." -- cut

Again, due to the film, I think this is a matter of pubic interest (both of the above suggestions) and it would be wise to keep. I don't always believe in playing to the audience, but one reason is, that if you don't talk about it, someone will feel the need to add to the article, and probably not as well as doing it up front.

• "Stevens and Lincoln differed on the fate of the African-American in one regard: Lincoln, although he eventually came to see them as impractical, supported schemes to have freedmen colonize outside the United States, feeling that both races would be better off if separated. Lincoln did not support forced deportation, though through his intervention, the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia had subsidized freedmen there wishing to emigrate to Liberia, the nation founded by freed American slaves on the West Coast of Africa. Stevens believed that the African-American should remain and be made the white man's equal in all regards through legislative action. When he supported emigration programs in the House, it was to gain votes.[75]" -- cut. Stevens' views are already clear; Lincoln's views on colonization are a bit of a side note.
• "Brodie notes that in opposing schemes that if successful would have devastated the South's economy, ideas with which Lincoln at least toyed, "Stevens, in effect if not in intention, was the truer friend of the South."[76]" -- cut
• "Within a day of his appointment as Ways and Means chairman, he had reported a bill for a war loan. Legislation to pay the soldiers Lincoln had already called into service and to allow the administration to borrow to prosecute the war quickly followed. These acts and more were pushed through the House by Stevens. " -- cut

I don't see why. Although the slavery bit is probably what Stevens is better known for, he did get the war financed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "As he turned back attempts to slow the legislation, he would convulse the House with such comments as "There are no grave questions in this bill except the question of sending it to the grave."" -- cut
• "Stevens did not write the bill—that was done by New York Congressman Elbridge Spaulding, a banker who fought for the legislation in a divided Ways and Means Committee. Stevens backed the bill and forced it through the House." -- shorten to "Stevens did not write the bill, but forced it through the House."
• "working with Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, " -- cut
• "Stevens, who preferred that only the government issue money, initially held up the matter, but got it passed once persuaded of its merits." -- cut
• "The Senate believed bankers would not take the risk of buying the bonds with gold without receiving interest paid the same way. To gain the necessary gold, Stevens got legislation passed making tariffs payable in that metal, and raised rates repeatedly" -- cut
• "Stevens was unrepentant even as the value of paper currency recovered in late 1864 amid the expectation of Union victory. Despite this restoration of the value of paper currency, Stevens proposed legislation to make paying a premium in greenbacks for an amount in gold coin a criminal offense. It did not pass.[82]" -- cut

Some of this has to be left. I know the financial stuff is not as sexy as the slavery, but it was very important. Three relatively short paragraphs, as it is now after some cuts, is probably scanting it.

• "Lincoln's position on Reconstruction is unclear, and he might well have changed it as events required had he lived to complete a second term.[85]" -- cut

As all sides in the Reconstruction dispute (well, except the South) claimed to be carrying on Lincoln's policy, I think it needs to be said.

• "No rival candidate emerged, and Stevens voted for Lincoln at the convention of the National Union Party (as Republicans and some others called themselves in 1864). He would have preferred to vote for the sitting vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, as Lincoln's running mate in 1864, but his delegation voted to cast the state's ballots for the administration's favored candidate, Military Governor of Tennessee Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat who had been a Tennessee senator and elected governor. Stevens was disgusted at Johnson's nomination, complaining, "can't you get a candidate for Vice-President without going down into a damned rebel province for one?"[87]" -- cut

Johnson needs to be brought into the story somehow. Stevens actually said a lot more about Johnson, but as he said it after the Reconstruction debate arose, I discounted it. And there is a popular myth that Stevens opposed Lincoln's nomination. He probably wouldn't have minded seeing Lincoln denied it but he never did anything overt.

• "Before leaving town after Congress adjourned in March 1865, Stevens met with Lincoln to urge him to press the South hard in the war that by then was drawing to a close. Lincoln looked at the congressman, then said "Stevens, this is a pretty big hog we are trying to catch and to hold when we catch him. We must take care that he does not slip away from us."[90] Never to see Lincoln again, Stevens left with "a homely metaphor but no real certainty of having left as much as a thumbprint on Lincoln's policy".[91]" -- cut

I think having cut one story about Lincoln, it's worth keeping the other.

• " Stevens, when brought the news in the middle of the night, exclaimed "Betrayed again, by —!" and recalled that the previous vice presidents to take office had been unsuccessful." -- cut
• " Trefousse speculates he may have had other reasons for avoiding the rites. According to Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, Stevens stood at a railroad bridge, and lifted his hat.[92]" -- suggest moving to fen

I'm inclined to keep it. It wraps up the Lincoln/Stevens relationship well. It may be jarring to the reader to see how much Stevens disliked Lincoln, even after the war, but so be it. That's how it as.

• "Wendell Phillips stated, "the reconstruction of rebel states without Negro suffrage is a practical surrender to the Confederacy."" -- cut
• "He argued that as not even Congress had the power to meddle with the domestic institutions of the states, that if the seceded states were treated as if they had not left the Union, no reform could be imposed.[98]" -- cut

That was the whole point of Reconstruction, however. Once you admit a state, you lose all power to interfere with its domestic institutions (one reason for the Amendments).

• "In September, Stevens gave a widely reprinted speech in Lancaster" -- suggest shortening this paragraph to 2-3 sentences

Rjensen felt I did not spend enough time discussing Stevens' positions and accomplishments. This would be cutting his positions. However, I will see if I can tweak it into a shorter form.

• "He prophesied that Johnson, if he continued in his course, would be the most unpopular president in history, with the exception of his fellow Lancastrian, Buchanan" -- cut
• ", most prominently Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, voted as senator by the Georgia Legislature" -- cut

It shows how chutzpahdik the South was. Although one source does note they were sending their best to Washington in a difficult time.

• "He remained cheerful about his condition, asking his young black bearers what he would do when he outlived them. " -- cut
• " This was done over objection, and the representatives named by the Clerk proceeded to elect a Speaker and continue the exclusion of the southerners" -- cut
• "A new congressman and future president, Ohio's Rutherford B. Hayes, described Stevens, "He is radical throughout, except, I am told, he don't [sic] believe in hanging. He is leader."[100] " -- cut

What a president says about Stevens is worth hearing.

• "These defeats for the South caused gloom there, with Georgia's Howell Cobb writing that "if the movements of Sumner in the Senate and Thad Stevens in the House foreshadow the future policy of the Govt. then indeed are our darkest days yet to come."[101]" -- cut
• " It heard not only of the violence against African-Americans, but against Union loyalists, and against what southerners termed "carpetbaggers". These were northerners who had journeyed south after the restoration of peace, some of whom came to teach or otherwise help the African-American." -- cut

It explains why Stevens acted as he did, or at least what turned.

• " This would invalidate the Black Codes. Trumbull met repeatedly with Johnson, and was convinced he would sign both bills. " -- cut
• " In his veto message on the Freedman's Bureau bill, Johnson called the agency unconstitutional, and decried its cost, when Congress had never purchased land, established schools, or provided financial help for "our own people"" -- cut
• "Congress convened in December for its lame duck session, again with the South excluded. Stevens joked that he had been too conservative in the previous session, but intended to be radical now" -- cut
• "though each was amended in the Senate in ways Stevens did not like: the Second Supplementary Reconstruction Act was changed to allow the president, rather than the Army, to appoint and dismiss the generals. " -- cut -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll implement much of this, but some of it is necessary to explain the fifth W, "Why?" Otherwise people are seen to be acting for no reason.

Other minor suggestions:

• I'd suggest explicitly mentioning the American Civil War in the lead.
• "At the time, no state outside New England had free public education for all" -- it could be clearer what time this is--his early years in G-burg?
• "do better service" seems a little awkward to me.
• "Stevens acted with aplomb" -- this seems mildly interpretive/nonneutral
• Moderate Republican redirects to Rockefeller Republican, which isn't really what's being talked about here. It may be best not to link it until a better target article is created
• "for the last 60 years"" --needs closing period, but I'm not sure whether it goes in the quotation marks or out
• "aided and abetted by the purest man in America" -- it might be made clearer here that Stevens is referring to Lincoln here and not himself. (He was talking about Lincoln, right?)

He never said his biographers think so but aren't certain so I'd rather leave it unexplained.Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although Johnson, like the radicals," -- two "although" sentences in a row -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a most through and conscientious review. I will look them over carefully and probably implement most, although there may be some I disagree with and do not. Keep in mind this is a man with a half-century public life, but the final eight years of his life are the subject of considerable interest. It's a challenge.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem--as I said, please treat these as possibilities/suggestions rather than insistence. In addition to Stevens' long career, I could also see the challenge of balancing conciseness with giving sufficient context (as with the Anti-Mason movement, for example). So perhaps I'm being over-optimistic in my proposed target.

As a side note, if you decide to put this up for GA review before going to FA, feel free to ping me. This appears to meet the GA criteria (including conciseness) as is, and we could get through a review in short order so you could keep rolling forward. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated but this will probably be my next FAC nomination. If there's time I'll bring it over there. I suspect the reason why it's getting a large number of hits is that people have seen the movie Lincoln and are seeking information on Stevens. Accordingly I think we'll have to keep a lot of the Lincoln stuff including the story since his stories got so much attention in the movie. I think people want to hear about Stevens and Lincoln. Addition some of the quotes where his contemporaries are talking about him should be Because even though Stevens's ideals seem reasonable and rational to us, at the time they were extreme and I think that's necessary context But I'll go through it all probably later in the weekend then see what I can figure out.Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am done for the night, Wiki-wise anyway. I'll try to finish it tomorrow, time, other commitments, and so forth permitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it, I'll re-read it soon to clean up any debris. Where I've left stuff, it is very often because I feel it is necessary to put in proper context the actions of Stevens or others. An article that does not do that, in my view, is insufficient. I could get a big bump down by eliminating the quote box, but no one has to read it who doesn't want to, and it helps show why Stevens was so controversial. He insults both North and South in a single paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for meeting me much more than halfway on these cuts--the article's now at 64kb readable prose as a result, which I think is getting into a better range for readers. (I'd definitely argue for keeping the quote box, btw, though for what it's worth the tool I use doesn't count those towards the 64kb total). You've persuaded me on some of the proposed cuts where we disagree, I might quibble on others, but I'm satisfied with the cuts that have been made. (I tried to find a less smug word than "satisfied" here, and couldn't--no morning coffee yet. If you can think of one, mentally put that in instead.) Thanks again for your work on an important and complicated figure--I'll look forward to seeing this again on Wikipedia's front page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I may grumble about cuts but I recognize others' opinions as valid.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JMO, and an aside, unlike some other reviewers, I've not ever felt this article was too long, as Stevens was a complex individual, but the prose needed tightening or clarifying in a few spots, and the changes have been positive in that regard. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]