Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Patrick Henry/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2017 [1].

Patrick Henry

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... A man who may not have quite the repute he did when I took U.S. history forty years ago. But still, his name lives on, even if, regrettably, people have forgotten what it was he did. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Washington and Currier images, and amending caption grammar on the former
I've cropped the first. I think the second is OK. Not sure what you mean with the grammar.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Henry_Signature.svg: source link is broken. Same with File:Parson's_Cause_by_Cooke.jpg, File:Patrick_Henry_Rothermel.jpg
On the signature, I've emailed Connormah, who traced it. If necessary, I'll substitute another, but he put work into the tracing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've consulted with Connormah and worked around the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Washington_Henry_and_Pendleton_going_to_the_First_Congress.jpeg: when/where was this first published?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Henry_broadside.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Done.
  • File:Patrick_Henry_estate_marker_Henry_County_Virginia_1922.JPG should include an explicit copyright tag for the marker
Done.
Red Hill done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moise

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stamp act: "and both recalled that Henry did not waver, "If this be treason, make the most of it!". " I think this means Henry said, "If this be treason..." but the transition into the quotation seems unclear. Also, I don't believe the final period is needed since there is already an exclamation mark. Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comma changed to colon, I'd rather not add any text here. I've deleted the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(butting in): I think you mean, above, that you've deleted the period, but in my view you should retain it. The exclamation mark is part of a quotation within the sentence. The sentence needs to be independently ended by its own period. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawyer and landowner: "Jefferson later complained that Henry was lazy and ignorant in the practice of the law, with his sole talent practice before juries": Is there a missing or extra or mistaken word in the second part of this sentence ("with his sole talent practice before juries")? I'm not sure how to parse it.
Legalese. I've tweaked it.
  • "Henry invested some of his earnings in western lands, in what is now the western part of Virginia, as well as in West Virginia and Kentucky." To avoid too much repetition, would you consider removing the first "western", unless you feel this is an important point? From one point of view, maybe it's enough that the reader know the locations of the lands, without having it specified that these were "west" of where Henry currently was.
Changed the first western to "frontier".
  • "Henry was a slaveholder from the time of his marriage at age 18, when he was given land and slaves." This has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Even if you want a reminder here, maybe at least remove "when he was given land and slaves"? Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all very good points. See my notes to the first three, and the fourth I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress: Many of these comments are quite minor, and here are a couple more: "This was a sensitive matter especially because of the recent Gaspee affair in Rhode Island, in which the British sought to capture and transport overseas for trial those who had burned a British ship. The Burgesses sought to rebuke Dunmore for his actions..." Two sentences in a row with "sought". Could be good to replace one of them.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Undeterred, the former legislators met at the Raleigh Tavern": The Raleigh was mentioned a few sentences earlier. Maybe change this later instance to "the same tavern" or just "the tavern". Moisejp (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it may be too far apart for that. My thought is as well is that it should be spelled out. The significance of the Raleigh Tavern was not that they served alcohol (though no doubt they refreshed themselves) it was the largest meeting place in Williamsburg that was not controlled by the government. So it seems to me the full name should be used here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough.
  • Liberty or Death: "There was debate on whether to adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica, complaining of British actions, but admitting the King could veto colonial legislation, and urging reconciliation." I'm afraid I got lost in the second half of this sentence. If you see any possibility that other readers may not follow the sentence, is there any way to rewrite it to be clearer?
I've rewritten the passage, hopefully with enough clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunpowder incident: "He returned to take command of the county's militia and, on May 2, march on Williamsburg, with, Dunmore wrote, "all the Appearances of actual War"." There are an awful lot of commas in this sentence. Would you consider trying to rework it to reduce the number of these? Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second period as governor: "During this time, Henry and his family lived at "Salisbury", in Chesterfield County, about 13 miles (21 km) from Richmond". Are the quotation marks around "Salisbury" necessary? I'm not sure what their purpose is here. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have finished reviewing and am very happy with the state of the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful comments, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Ref 136: should be p. not pp
  • Ref 160: can you clarify the page range rendered as "1–6—1–8"?
  • Ref 170: should be pp. not p.
  • There should be consistency in presentation of state names in publisher locations, e.g. "CT" but "Philadelphia".

Otherwise, all sources appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those things. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I'm about halfway through my picky prose review (I've also done a few very minor edits myself). Here are my comments thus far:

Infobox
  • Refreshingly concise, but one nitpick. The box describes Henry as the "1st & 6th Governor of Virginia", but then records his two stints in reverse chronological order. Can this be changed, or is there some inviolable Law of the Boxes?
Lead
  • "his famous speech to the convention" – clarify what convention.
  • Personally, I'd be inclined to drop the "not only ... but" formulation and reword: "...of Virginia, through his famous speech to the convention in 1775, and by marching troops..."
  • "the capital of Williamsburg" is ambiguous. Suggest "the state capital, Williamsburg"
  • "The failures of the national government..." seems a bit prescriptive, without any indication as to what these failures were. Would "weakness" be more apt? In any event, you need a comma after "strong federal government".
Early life and struggles
  • "At the age of 15, Henry..." Pronoun better
  • To save forcing readers to use the link, I'd say "The religious revival known as The Great Awakening... And you don't need "young" Henry as you say he was a child.
Revolutionary lawyer and politician
  • "Henry was engaged by Maury's parish vestry to defend..." I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure "defend" is right, here. As I understand it, this was not a prosecution but a hearing to assess damages, so "to represent them" might be better.
It's possible a different term was used in colonial days, so I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to" and "thanks to" in the same sentence reads a little clumsily and could perhaps be tweaked. Incidentally, "due to", one of my least favourite prose clichés, occurs six times in the article and could be replaced in a few of these.
  • "influential committee members" – you don't say what committee.
  • "In 1765, William Johnson, the brother of Thomas Johnson, who had been one of Henry's clients in the Parson's Cause..." As punctuated, it's unclear whether William or Thomas had beeen Henry's client. Drop the third comma?
  • I think you should add something to explain what the House of Burgesses was. I thought it was the state legislature, but later you refer to the General Assembly. Our WP articles state respectively "that "From 1619 to 1776, the representative branch of the legislature of Virginia was the House of Burgesses..." but also "The Virginia General Assembly is the legislative body of the Commonwealth of Virginia..." so I'm slightly confused.
It is mentioned in the first paragraph of Parson's Cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." Not grammatically sound as it stands – who "seemingly called" etc? I asssume it was Henry, thus: "Henry in his speeech having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." or some such
  • The passing of the five resolutions is stated twice, in the 3rd and 5th paras of the section.
Lawyer and landowner
  • There's a reference to "his Louisa County property", with no indication as to how he had acquired this, so early in his career.
  • "and citing earlier historians" → "and cited earlier historians", to be consistent with the sentence's grammar.
  • Probably best to be consistent as between "the age of 10" (Early life) and "age 18" here.
  • "for he did not believe colonization schemes were realistic" – I'm not clear what is meant by "colonization schemes".
  • "They assumed that in so doing, they fought slavery..." → revise to "...they were fighting slavery"?
Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress
  • "was inevitable" → "were inevitable" (two things)
  • "after there was time" → "after giving time"
  • Link Virginia Conventions (para 3). Perhaps begin: "In all, five Virginia Conventions..."
  • "There was intense interest in the Virginians" - intense interest among whom?
  • "Kukla" needs an introduction on first mention
"Liberty or Death"
  • "The convention debated whether Virginia should adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica" - I take this to mean adopt the wording of the Jamaican petition, in preparing one of their own?
  • "only one tried" → "only one person tried"
Gunpowder incident
  • "leave off" sounds a bit informal. "halt"?
Halt is ambiguous, I'm inclined to let it stand. It doesn't read as informal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would never again hold office outside its borders". I'm not clear what offices he had held outside Virginia.
Well, he was a delegate in Congress, requiring him to serve in Philadelphia. I gather you are quibbling that it was not an office. I'm open to some simple change in language.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He seems to have had two colonel appointments: of the 1st Virginia Regiment, and "in charge of all of Virginia's forces". To avoid possible confusion, maybe the last line of para 3 could be simplified to "commissioned Henry as commander of all of Virginia's forces".
  • "would no longer be" → "was no longer the" (avoiding two "woulds")

The rest will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get to these as soon as I can, but it may be a day or two due to travel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to date. I've varied from your suggestions in several cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My remaining points:

Independence and first time as governor
  • "used by Jefferson in writing the Declaration". Non-US redaers won't instinctively realise that this refers to the US Declaration of Independence, especially as the last Declaration mentioned is Mason's Declaration of Rights. So I'd clarify here.
  • In "great offender", does "great" refer to the offence or the perpetrator?
  • "The plan of government..." → "The form of government"?
  • "June 29" – we could do with the year being mentioned
  • What was the cause of the rapid depreciation of Virginia's currency?
The strains placed on the economy by the war, basically. Remember, tobacco to Britain was the big revenue source and there was an embargo. I'm not sure it's fruitful to interrupt the narrative for a digression into economics.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leatherwood and the House of Delegates
  • "once he left Richmond" closely followed by "Once he returned home..."
  • I'd be inclined to preface Benedict Arnold with "the renegade" or some such description. He's not that well known over here.
  • Para 2 line 3 "as the war" should be "so that the war". Cornwallis's entry caused the war to be played out in Virginia, not the other way round.
  • "There is a story..." etc. If it's just a story, with no historical evidence, should it be mentioned here?
It's mentioned by most biographers. If nothing else, it is illustrative of the high regard in which Henry was held by the common folk of Virginia. Some versions have the woman unimpressed by Randolph being there, but then she learns Henry is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second period as governor
  • The legal term "nonfeasance" is too arcane for the general reader. There could be a pipelink to the somewhat mistitled article Misfeasance. Or you could reword as "apparent negligence"?
Opponent of the Constitution
  • Needs "Henry", not "he", in first line.
  • "One legend..." – see my comment above re "There is a story"
We don't know if he said it or not, but again, it is mentioned by most biographers. Historical record only goes so far, as the final section shows.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was set for June 1788" –clarify "it".
Rather than change the "it", I've strengthened the reference in the earlier part of the sentence.
  • "proposed a fiery diatribe" – can a diatribe be "proposed"? Perhaps "intended"?
Later years
  • "...while Henry argued much of the case in court. Henry argued the case for three days..." – there seems to be some excess verbiage here.
  • Who is the "future chief justice" referred to at end of para 2?
Monuments and memorials
  • No issues
Legacy and historical view
  • None here either.

Support: The outstanding issues are relatively trivial and are not grounds for withholding support. The article bears many of the hallmarks of Wehwalt's American history articles – thorough research, readability, neutrality of tone – and will be a fine addition to the FA ouevre. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much obliged for the review, support and kind words. I've taken care of the remaining points except as noted, though sometimes in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "He was elected to the House of Burgesses" For information I suggest "He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses"
Given the number of times the word "Virginia" appears in the first two paragraphs, I doubt it is needed, but I've added it.
  • "Henry gained further popularity" You do not need to repeat "Henry". "He" would be better.
  • "A slaveholder through his adult life" I think "throughout" would be more correct, but is this AmerEng?
  • "The Burgesses instructed the body's agent in London" Why not "their agent"?
  • Oppose. The bibliography is very short for an article on such a major figure. The one in Tate's ANB article describes several sources as important which are not used, such as the second volume of Meade's biography and the Morgans' account of the Stamp Act crisis. I do not think it meets criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." In view of this, I have stopped my review for the present, although I am willing to reconsider if other editors disagree. Perhaps Ian Rose or Sarastro1 could comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meade's bio is a half century old. Henry has had several recent biographers; those are more important (and are too late to be covered by the ANB, which is pre-2000). Of course they use the books you mention as sources. I've used Meade's bios of other figures, such as Judah Benjamin, they are wordy and a bit old-fashioned. I've downloaded the Morgans book, they really don't say that much more than anyone else, just a seven-page discussion of the "Treason" speech and the resolves (part of which is quoted text, i.e., the resolves) and a bit in the "Conclusion" but I'll add a few items.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Again, note that the bios used postdate the ANB. I've also addressed your prose points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley's comment with regard to criterion 1c raises an interesting point: How can a survey of relevant literature be both "thorough" and "representative", since they are mutually exclusive alternatives? 1c as worded is clearly impossible to meet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brian makes a good point, and Wehwalt also makes a good point that the ANB bibliog is dated. But the bibliog in this article does seem thin compared, for example, with another article I am reviewing, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By number of books cited, arguably, but by material on Henry, not. Buckingham doesn't have five 21st century biographers, one in 2017. The nominators had to pull a little bit on him from here and another little bit on him from there. I won't say that every word in Henry's biographies is about Henry--the material on him is thin enough that there's quite a bit of text about "his times"--but the total amount on Henry in the books cited probably exceeds the total amount on Buckingham. And we are a tertiary source, the biographies, especially the modern ones, are the state of play on what the significant things in Henry's life are.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria for a general discussion about the meaning and wording of criterion 1c. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. That is helpful. Wehwalt, I am now inclined to strike my oppose in view of your explanation, but would ask whether general histories might give a view of Henry which may be more impartial and puts him in a wider context than provided by a biographer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point, although of course there may be individual variations. To that end, I've gotten a copy of Michael A. McDonnell's The Politics of War: Race, Class and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia (2012) which seems focused and by a highly reputable historian. I'll add from it to the article within the next day or so. (Wehwalt)--20:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Ping me when you have finished and I will complete my review. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, want to take another look?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • "and by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg after the Gunpowder Incident until the munitions taken by the royal government were paid for." This is a bit vague. How about "and because he forced the royal government to pay for munitions which they had seized by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg." Also in the main text, who owned the gunpowder? And you have not spelled out Henry's original purpose. According to the Gunpowder Incident article (in the lead but not in the main text) it was to force the governmor to return the munitions, and if so this should be spelled out here.
The gunpowder was technically paid for privately, by a note signed by a member of the governor's council so I'm hesitant to put it the way you propose. I've changed "taken" to "seized". I think the reader has what they need for lede purposes, and there's a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a characterization that Henry's biographers have found to be unfair." What do they say his position was?
  • You have a heading 'Revolutionary lawyer', but you have not stated that he became one in the text, and jump straight from working in a bar to counsel in Maury's case and adding 164 new clients. When and how did he become a lawyer? Was he trained?
  • "The fifth was the most provocative, as it named the Virginia legislature, the General Assembly, as the representatives of Virginia empowered to tax." This is unclear. Did the resolution state that the power to tax lay solely with the General Assembly, and deny the right of the British parliament? (I see below that a resolution stating this was not passed, so why was the fifth resolution controversial? It seems to follow from the first four.)
The resolves really weren't that different from the petition the Burgesses had sent the prior year, but why they were controversial doesn't have a simple or a single answer, depending on who you ask. Some combination of being too explicit and Henry being a new boy.
  • "In 1773, Henry came into conflict with the royal governor, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore". As a previous governor has been mentioned, perhaps "had been appointed royal governor in 1771".
  • "The first met in Williamsburg" "They first met in Williamsburg"?
No, the first convention. I've added the word.
Thanks, I'm up to date
  • "The gunpowder belonged to the government" I am confused. The gunpowder belonged to the government, but the colonists demanded compensation for it? If that is because a colonist had paid for it, that needs to be explained.
Dunmore took the position that it belonged to the Crown, Henry that it belonged to the colonists, i.e. the General Assembly I will add something brief on it.
  • "As popular support for independence grew, opponents either joined in, or remained silent." Opponents changed sides? Also presumably became rather than remained silent.
  • "and he took it up later that month" I would say "and he took the appointment up later that month"
  • " publick [sic]" I do not think the sic is needed. "publick" is given by OED as an archaic spelling.
  • "the resolution instructed the state's delegates in Congress to press for American independence, which they would, with Lee introducing the motion". Inserting "which they would" in the middle seems the wrong place to say that they supported independence.
I think it's a good place, the article is switching from the general to the specific, where the actions would naturally be recounted.
  • "the convention, by 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr., elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor" This confused me at first. Maybe "the convention elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor, with 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr.,"
  • "Jefferson and others wanted to reopen contracts that had been already settled, but in depreciated currency;" Presumably Jefferson thought that the contractors had been unfairly underpaid, but this should be clarified. It is also not clear why Henry thought fair payment unjust.
Who says what is fair? The debtors had paid according to the laws at the time. The money could not go to Britain due to the embargo, accordingly the Virginians paid according to the law. Henry took the side of his constituents both here and later on when he was involved in the 1790s litigation. I think that the article makes clear the key point: the creditors had been "paid" in a way that benefitted the debtors. That's sufficient for the reader of an article on Henry.
  • "He is especially attractive to Christian conservatives, who cite his deep religious beliefs, as well as his writings and speeches in favor of Christian virtue" You have not covered this aspect, so far as I remember.
No, but neither does the ANB :) ... I've added a paragraph.
  • "You say that Christian conservatives admire his writings "in defense of religious liberty" But the only example you quote on his views on religion I can remember (I may have missed others) is that "Henry believed that taxpayers who were Christians should be assessed for the maintenance of the Protestant church of their choice". The compulsion and exclusion of non-Protestants seems to favour Christian conservatism but not religious liberty.
I've added a couple of key quotes, see prior comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Jefferson's negative assessments of Henry have sullied the latter's historical reputation." "sullied" is POV and "his" would be better than "the latter's"
  • This is a good acount of Henry's career, but it gives the impression of being biassed in his favour, reflecting the main reliance on biographers, most of whom are open partisans, as shown in the titles of their books. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I don't entirely agree that a biographer is a partisan. Obviously the biographer is trying to present his subject as worth writing about, but I'm not convinced his 21st century biographers, to mention some, are partisan or even overtly favorable to him. We don't live in an era where a Parson Weems view of someone like Henry gets you far. I am comfortable that the article reflects the state of play on Henry, and includes the histories mentioned above, which cover the key moments in Henry's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging with my comments. I certainly do not now oppose, but I will try to have another look in a few days, and maybe see what other reviewers think on the last point. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: It has been a week since the last comments now. Dudley Miles, did you want to have another look? Otherwise, I think this article is just about ready for promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is biassed in Henry's favour, but it is nevertheless a very good article, and I am therefore ready to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Patrick_Henry/archive1&oldid=1090424654"