Talk:Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson

Would copy-edit assistance (via Sandbox or otherwise) help the Review process?

I’m newish; I’m close to 500 edits, the vast majority of which are basic copy edits. I saw that this article is up for formal review. I don’t have the WP skills to handle all aspects of a worthwhile review, but I am interested in the topic and can credibly offer copy editing. In a preliminary read of a few hundred words, I saw several formulations that I thought warranted editing. So far, in my dipping in and out of dozens of articles by whim, I have just published my edits (while trying to learn WP policies & MOS as I go). In this case, though, would it be more helpful to you, User:SecretName101, for me to set up my Sandbox (which I have not done yet) and accumulate a batch of proposed edits for your review? (No pun intended, I guess.) Or should I just publish as I have the last few months, and let you and other users decide if I am ‘improving’ the article? I don’t want to interfere with the review process; that certainly would NOT improve our encyclopedia. IMPORTANT: I have very limited capacity most days; hence my decision to be an editing dilettante most of the time so far. Sandbox (or other logistical tactics) would be a significant change for me, and I cannot promise quick comprehensive suggestions. Thanks for all your work on this article, and for your ‘advice & consent’ (pun definitely intended). Left Central (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Left Central: Sorry for not having replied (just realized I never had). Any copy editing help would be wonderful and invited! Thank you so much for offering. If the offer still stands, I'd be grateful. SecretName101 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kwkintegrator (talk · contribs) 18:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article meets the well-written standard of a Good Article. The lead is sufficiently in-depth and gives a good overview of the article. The layout makes sense for a highly chronological event. Word choice has been reviewed and found to be fair and fact-based. I have gone over multiple points of weakness with the nominator, who has promptly resolved all of my concerns. Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The factual accuracy of this article is strong, with excellent and well-documented source selection. I can detect no original research, no copyright violations and no plagiarism. I believe this article meets the factual accuracy and verifiability requirements of a Good Article. Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Scoping is of a good and consistent quality, leading to an article that is in-depth, yet focused.Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am confident that this is a substantially neutral and fact-driven representation of a controversial topic. Credit to the nominator, who has built most of this article with an encyclopedic mindset.Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Requirement met, not a super high-traffic or controversial articleKwkintegrator (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Excellent choice of images spread throughout the article, without infringement of copyrights. Captioning is very well executed.Kwkintegrator (talk)

1. Overall: I find that this article meets the GA requirements, and would like to thank the nominator for their co-operation in fixing my concerns before I assigned this status. I believe any visitor to this page will come away well-informed, and in a manner that befits the operating principles of Wikipedia

   Pass/Fail:

Discussion

@Kwkintegrator: It is not clear to me which photos you said have unresolved copyright concerns, nor what is unresolved. SecretName101 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101:, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Having gone through the images again, I think I was confused by the comments about the Library of Congress tag not conferring usage rights. I will go back and revise my review accordingly, and I apologize. Could you confirm whether you've resolved the other issues highlighted?

@Kwkintegrator: Nearly all have, yes. SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the dealy @SecretName101, I'm still committed to completing this review. Just got busy. I will return to it next weekend, just wanted to give you an update. Kwkintegrator (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand. This is an aspect of Wikipedia where there is not really an urgency to rush, so I forgive your delay. SecretName101 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@SecretName101 Made my updates, only outstanding issues remain above. Look like quick fixes to me, also happy to take up any of these suggestions you disagree with. Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwkintegrator: News media of the era included other forms of printed media, such as magazines. I recall that Puck (a humor magazine known for their political commentary, particularly their political comics) and Harper's Weekly (a famous political magazine) were well known for their coverage of the era's politics. So I feel uncomfortable claiming the interviews that Johnson did with media were newspaper interviews without knowing so. I'll see what phrase works best, but something along the lines of "printed news" might work. Or perhaps I'll just write "interviews with reporters" SecretName101 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Interviews with reporters feels very appropriate, thank you. Kwkintegrator (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

And the reason the Republicans are divided (they were listed separately in the section on the trial before it was spun-off) is that only those listed first are cited as voicing those specific concerns/objections as their reason for voting not to convict. SecretName101 (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is clear from the paragraph, perhaps "In addition to the aforementioned seven, three more Republicans voted for acquittal without commentary on their motivation for doing so". And then shift the Democratic acquittal votes into another sentence. Kwkintegrator (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwkintegrator: I'm not sure if there is anything I missed that you mentioned, or any further inadequacies you'd encourage addressing. Let me know when you have an opportunity to. Thank you so much for providing me an opportunity to advance this article. SecretName101 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SecretName101, all seems in order here and I'm ready to complete Good Article review and pass this. Before I do, I wanted to check whether there is any ongoing work between yourself and @Left Central before I do so. I'll wait until Friday at about 9PM Eastern Time and if I don't hear back I'll go forward with the

I have two additional things to mention for SecretName101.

A) This is my first article review, so if you like, I can ask for a second opinion for another GA reviewer to come in. Doing so would mean more waiting and would open up the possibility of this article not getting passed, but if you would like a more experienced hand to double check, I can do so for you.

B) I'm doing this review as a paying-it-forward for a GA review someone else is doing for me. You have no obligation, but if you'd like to tackle the backlog of Good Article reviews, I encourage you to take a look at this candidate: Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. I think you might be uniquely positioned to do this review. If you haven't done a review before, I found following the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing closely made it pretty easy. Kwkintegrator (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwkintegrator: As game as I'd be to review the Nixon one (few GA articles nominations would probably interest me more as topics, and I am not myself a major contributor to that article), I do not think that I can at the moment. I have an active topic ban for BLP. While Nixon is most certainly long dead, a number of individuals that had roles within Watergate and his impeachment process are not, which would certainly complicate my ability to suggest specific edits. The topic ban as a whole complicates my ability to complete GA reviews at the moment. As for a second opinion, I'd say that if you feel that you'd prefer a second set of eyes before advancing this, I would not be offended or frustrated by that. I have no objections to either course of action (advancing it now, if you feel confident enough in your assessment, or getting a second opinion first) SecretName101 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have approved this article as having GA status, and have updated the review template above on this page accordingly. Congratulations, @SecretName101:

Oops! Just saw this Talk thread (and the gracious reply to me by @SecretName101, above). Sorry for the tardy attention. Upshot for @Kwkintegrator: there are still many unresolved copy-edit needs, and I am not certain I can meet the 9 pm Eastern timeframe (although I will try — see the copy-edit thread). More soon. Left Central (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SecretName101 — Please see my note on the GA Review thread. I sincerely apologize for not seeing your courteous reply until this morning. (I’m currently on Pacific Breakfast Time. :) I immediately jumped back into the Article and still see a lot of specific problems. And I would be honored to apply my skills to the awesome work you’ve done on getting this High-Importance Article this far!! Two issues: First, the timing is tough. I have many other pending obligations this week that will make it hard for me to be done by 9 pm Eastern tomorrow. Second, in the quarter since my April offer, I’ve doubled+ my edit total, learning a bit more every week. SO: here’s my proposal for us proceeding together now (which I very much want to do): No Sandbox (in the interests of time), but rather I would just jump in at the top and work my way down, as quickly as I can make the time work, edit by edit. THEN (using soccer metaphors): You (I propose) would Revert anything you see as a Red Card and we would hash it out in Talk if necessary. And you would go to Talk on this thread for anything you see as a Yellow Card, tagging me in the Talk Reply. On my other edits, no news is good news. WikiMagic will Notify me on any Reverts or Talk citations; I will see those on my phone and will respond ASAP. Does that work for you?? BUT this is a pretty huge article, and I may well be the bottleneck on timing — again, sorry! That’s for you and @Kwkintegrator to work out: above my pay grade, but I will do my best to plow ahead. Thanks again for all your excellent work on this Article! Be well — Left Central (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Hell… embarrassing. I muddled the threads. Anyway, @User:SecretName101 and @User:Kwkintegrator, at least I did propose a copy-edit plan. Please just let me know if that makes sense. Best wishes! Left Central (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Left Central, don't worry about finishing things by Friday, Friday is just when I wanted to know if there was more work to be done before movign forward. Happy to wait for @SecretName101 to offer their thoughts. If Sandbox is your preferred method I have no issues with that, but also happy from my end to just review your edits direct in the article (it probably is easier for me that way, but I can work with either direction). Kwkintegrator (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like we’re going with « direct in the article » plus Talk for discussion. Simpler for all 3 of us (plus, of course, anyone else who wants to cannonball into this swimming hole we’re in). 🙏🏼 Left Central (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

At the moment I have no major edits planned. Unless further research (Every now and then I am digging up some harder to reach sources just to further cover my bases) leads to me find significant additions, I see none coming on my part. Happy to see Left Central contributing copy edits. SecretName101 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and process this tomorrow. Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two articles on the same subject

Hi, I've noticed two articles on this same topic speak of two different results on voting on the Eleventh Article:

This article says: "The eleventh article saw a vote of *32–21* to convict, falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Verdict says the following: "The Senate was composed of 54 members representing 27 states [...] at the time of the trial. At its conclusion, senators voted on three of the articles of impeachment. On each occasion the vote was *35–19*, with 35 senators voting guilty and 19 not guilty. As the constitutional threshold for a conviction in an impeachment trial is a two-thirds majority guilty vote, 36 votes in this instance, Johnson was not convicted.

Which one of these is correct? FatMax1492 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)