Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1

TFA blurb review

James Longstreet was a Confederate general of the American Civil War. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy he served in the Mexican–American War, where he was wounded. In June 1861, he resigned his commission to join the Confederate Army. Longstreet made significant contributions to most major Confederate victories in the Eastern Theater, primarily as a corps commander under General Robert E. Lee. Longstreet's most controversial service was at the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, where he disagreed with Lee and reluctantly supervised several unsuccessful attacks. Afterward, Longstreet was briefly sent to the Western Theater, but returned to the east in 1864, where he was seriously wounded by friendly fire, recovered and returned to the field. After the war he worked as a diplomat, civil servant, and administrator. In 1874 he led African-American militia against the anti-Reconstruction White League. Many modern historians consider him among the war's most gifted commanders. (Full article...)

1,018 characters, including spaces.

Hi Display name 99 and congratulations. A draft blurb for this article is above. Thoughts, comments and edits from you or from anyone else interested are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog the Mild. Thank you. I like it, but I think that the sentenceabout the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874 should be replaced with a sentence about his general support for Reconstruction, since this includes not only his participation in fighting the White League but his advocacy for the Reconstruction amendments and endorsement of Grant. The vilification of him that followed should also be mentioned, because this is so important to his legacy. The sentence would read: "Longstreet supported Reconstruction and advocated cooperation with the North, which led many Southerners to vilify him as a traitor." I'd say it looks good otherwise. Display name 99 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

The Rambling Man - between this and this, Gog the Mild had clear intention to promote. I don't think it's appropriate to undo this closure because you feel that it was in error, especially since Gog would have the discretion to promote over an outstanding oppose if they so wanted to do that. Vacating the close should almost certainly be left to one of @FAC coordinators: . Hopefully this can be addressed by a coordinator, as FACbot is not exclusion compliant, so {{nobots}} won't work. Hog Farm _Talk 21:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate to promote when I have issues outstanding. And no, a FAC co-ord can't over-ride that. Don't forget, I had a FAC with eight supports and yet it was archived because one individual reviewer didn't support. We have to maintain consistent standards, I will will object strenuously if my own review is overlooked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

especially since Gog would have the discretion to promote over an outstanding oppose amazing since that FAC I referred to had eight supports and only Gog opposed. Let's talk about consistency here, shall we? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough rewriting history already. Your nomination was withdrawn at your request before an uninvolved coordinator could make a closure decision either way.
At the point at which I promoted this nomination it had three supports and image and source review passes. Your last comment was "I'm not sure how selectively overlinking certain items helps the readers at all. But that's your call of course. I can't support an article which adopts that approach" from more than 17 days ago. That is a clear consensus to support. If you did not intend your comment to be your final word you should have said so. Or at least not left it for 17 days. I shall let an uninvolved coordinator @FAC coordinators: take this forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Your first point is nonsense, and your very position has changed FAC, such that no-one has thus asked for the same kind of explanation for which you opposed, but thanks though! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to your second point, I'd be happy to revisit the article, but I wouldn't just promote it like you did. After all, you had an axe to grind about a previous FAC with nine supports yet you didn't rapidly promote. How weird. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Ian Rose has re-closed it despite my open and actionable oppose. FAC has hit the skids here. It's a complete joke that a few months ago I had a FAC rejected by Ian Rose with nine supports and one oppose and yet now we are just sliding stuff through because it's me opposing. I've worked hard to review "urgents", and this is how it goes? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it. You had one FAC that didn't go your way months ago, and now you feel the need to WP:BLUDGEON the process because of it. Drop the stick. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Angry. It wasn't "one FAC", it was the process, and the oversight from the FAC firmament which was the issue. I'm not bludgeoning the process, as I'm not opposing on the same puerile grounds. But thanks for your attempted insight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM did not have "one FAC that didn't go your way months ago", they had one FAC which they withdrew in a snit months ago. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Through an absurd and subsequently ignored oppose. But nevertheless, FAC delegates refused to promote. But suddenly, here we are. With Gog, again. What a coincidence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an open oppose wouldn't necessarily stop promotion. One of my FACs, John Adams, was promoted when it had an oppose open. It's up to the coordinator's discretion. Also, your oppose wasn't made until after promotion, so it doesn't count. Display name 99 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's funny how one FAC with an open oppose gets promoted but another doesn't. Still, not part of the club. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, back in the real world, how one FAC with eight supports was withdrawn by its nominator prior to any closure decision. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why that was. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with an opposition

This was prematurely closed. It's amazing that when an FAC delegate makes an oppose (followed by something as childish as "unwatching"), we have to kowtow to that, yet when regular reviewer makes some reasonable points, we can just overlook them. Well done to Ian and Gog for just over-ruling the system and doing whatever they like I guess. FAC was a bit broken, but it's clear that it's bust up totally. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 01:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]