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) 14:00, 27 June 2015 [1].

Elliott Fitch Shepard

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I wrote this article merely to fill a gap in Wikipedia's biography collection. For someone who I couldn't find a single photograph of or really any detailed source about at first, I was surprised that as I researched, I found that Elliott Fitch Shepard was very well documented. I found numerous photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of his life. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fourth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19 TFA Briarcliff Manor, New York, and I nominated this same article a few months ago but had to pick through plenty of problems; all those that were mentioned are now resolved. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

a minor point, which I'm not even sure on: Is there anything in any MOS anywhere about how to use a wife's maiden name over married surname? ie in the lead instead of "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, granddaughter of..." should it be "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt, granddaughter of..." or even "...married to Margaret Vanderbilt, granddaughter of...". Likewise with the spouse entry in the infobox? cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

That's a good question that I didn't know the answer to at first. The MOS's WP:FULLNAME states "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." In her case, the most commonly used name is "Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard", as can also be indicated by the fact that that's the title of her Wikipedia article.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

ok, good find, it definitely fits for the infobox mention then. But for the lead I'm not fully convinced. Based on the very next section in that MOS under "Changed names":

If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention

so I would take that to mean that it should be "he married [insert wife's name using maiden surname]", but I suppose that in this particular case, since it's ...he was married to... (emphasis added) -ie written in the past tense- it's ok, I guess, If I'm understanding that MOS correctly - It just sounds wierd to my ears when I read it. In any event, a very minor concern- ultimately either way ought to work good enough. Cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I understand why you'd think that. The term 'was' is only in the past tense because Shepard is dead. If he was alive right now, I'd use the word 'is'. That's because I'm not trying to list his biographical history in saying he became married to someone; I was simply stating the fact that Shepard's wife was M. Shepard. Therefore it should still work with the MOS. That's also why the next reference to the wife is when he's first presented to her, and thus I don't use the name 'Shepard' as part of her name.

Yet I just looked at quite a few of Wikipedia's US President articles (GAs and FAs) and they all seem to omit the married surname, so I guess I should.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

ok, I see your reasoning for the way it was and I find it sound. But since you changed it I hope you don't mind I went in and changed them all to piped direct links rather than using redirects. Cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It's an interesting read. It looks like it meets all criteria. The images used are well-chosen. The lede accurately sums up the article. Coverage seems thorough although the Proceedings of the American Numismatic and Archeological Society seems to differ on his date of birth. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Chris troutman:: Thanks for the comment! I did the research a few months ago, so I can't be as specific as I could then, but I ran into a number of problems with one source providing different information than others. In all such cases I searched for more sources and used the statement backed up by more (or more reliable) sources. In this case the vast majority of sources say 1833, not 1835.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Support Just have one minor nitpick:

• When it shows page numbers, I think it would be more formal to do (p. 254.) instead of (p254)

Otherwise it was a quite interesting read. Nice job, Tomandjerry211 ( Let's have a chat) 18:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Tomandjerry211: Thanks! I use {{ Rp}} which doesn't have an option for that. I can request it, unless you prefer the template's alternative of displaying like Xyz [1]: 23  instead of like Xyz [1]: 23 .-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for response, and on that point, I would prefer the keep it that way for now, as ":23" at the end of the cite seems unclear. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 ( Let's have a chat) 20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree. Thanks for your comments and support!-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

comment I've read through the article, and here are some minor points that can be easily addressed:

• in the lead, since Woodlea is a structure within Briarcliff Manor, should it be "residence of Woodlea", or something similar?

ɱ: I don't think any extra words are necessary here.

• In the Civil War Service section- the 2nd sentence, though grammatically correct, seems to end abruptly. Should it be something like "recruiting efforts" or "recruiting soldiers" or something?

ɱ: Added 'volunteers'.

• In the Career section-
  • the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph (that 650th Fifth Avenue is the current site) is unsourced.

ɱ: I am aware. Every other scrap of information in this article is sourced reliably. This piece should be common sense to anyone who can access Google Maps or similar software or maps, though I do not have a source for it directly. I don't think it's a problem; nowhere on Wikipedia is it stated that every scrap of information needs an inline citation.

Gecko: As I think I stated elsewhere, I'm not familiar with the FAC criteria ( this is the only vague thing I could find) but from the lowly B-class assessment guidelines I know that As a rule of thumb, the absolute minimum is that all paragraphs should at least end with a citation and FAC should be much stricter than B-class, right?

ɱ: That rule isn't meant to be taken as literally as you take it. The guideline wants at least one reference to cite a paragraph. In the small paragraph of this article, there are four references; far more than expected as a minimum in the guideline. Also see this.

Gecko: I've been in the position to make the very same defense as you currently are in B-class assesments and lost- and seen others do the same. Again, unless it is a specific difference between a B-class assessment & a FAC criteria (Any other, more knowledgable and experienced editors, care to weigh in on this point?). And why would it be common sense, to someone not from Manhattan, that 650 Fifth Avenue is at 2 West 52nd Street (or alternatively that 650 Fifth Avenue is the same as the former De Pinna Building)?

ɱ: So? People can easily be wrong, and people misread guidelines and policies all the time. After searching for your 'rule of thumb', I found that it's something written up by WikiProject Military History members. There's nothing that says I have to follow individual WikiProject recommendations here. This article is being weighed up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as well as the Featured Article criteria. Also, I wasn't stating that the information is common sense. Just see the linked paragraph, that 'citing everything' is a misconception and is never required.

Gecko: ah, if that is something specific to MilHist then I gladly withdraw the objection. until now MilHist's B-class assesment review had been the limit of my experiences at reviewing articles.

• • The third paragraph (and maybe also the 4th) are out of place chronologically without any apparent reason from the flow of the text, should it be re-ordered to make it more chronological? (The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph - about him becoming a partner - could even be moved to another paragraph if needed to aid this effort)

ɱ: The third paragraph is all about his home in Manhattan. It goes somewhat off on a tangent chronologically, but I don't think it would be better if the information was reorganized fully chronologically; it would likely just be more confusing. Keep in mind that this is not a Timeline of XX history article, and thus prose can refer to earlier or later dates.

Gecko: It's not all about the home- See the first sentence as it is currently stated. Was the house part of the inheritance (or purchased using said money?), or did they acquire the house prior to her inheritence? If the former, then that should be mentioned - thus making the whole paragraph about the house as you apparently intended, but since that paragraph starts out with an event in 1885 it still would make sense to swap the 3rd & 4th paragraphs (which starts out "after his marriage" [>1868]) unless there was some flow to the text that makes a reasoning for doing it as is - which I don't see (ie there's nothing later in that section about the house that follows on to the info or required the information to be previously established as such). If the later, then the 1st sentence is oddly placed but the paragraph as a whole would be fine. Your correct that it's not a Timeline article, but if there is no logic to the order of the subjects discussed per paragraph, then it is either random and/or badly written. That logical order usually either come's from the flow of subtopics or, especially common in biographies, is usually chronological (plus the rest of the article seems chronological - asides from the one point you make below).

ɱ: The thing is, I'm really not sure whether the house was part of the inheritance. I do know that Margaret's father had it built for her and Elliott only started living there because of his marriage to her. I state that decently in the article already. I swapped the paragraphs as you recommended.

Gecko: ok

• • Middle of the 4th paragraph: should it be "As president of the newspaper company until his death, he approved every important decision or policy"?

ɱ: Not needed, but sure.

• • 5th paragraph, 2nd sentence- Does the usage of a period rather than a colon (or something) match the MOS for usage of a title with a subtitle within text? It currently reads like it's meant to be split into 2 sentences, one ending "...in The Riva", the next starting "New York and Alaska taken..."

ɱ: This is an odd occurrence. The book itself is titled The Riva. New York and Alaska, and thus I write it as such there. I get that there's a slim likelihood for confusion. Here's a link to a photo of the actual book's inside cover: link

Gecko: yes, quite odd, the period is part of the title. But the "New York and Alaska" bit is a subtitle, so the point stands, just slightly modified- I looked around at the MOS but couldn't find anything about subtitles, but based on written forms It seems like it should read "...in The Riva.: New York and Alaska taken..." (or perhaps with a semicolon instead of a colon, I'm not sure). Can anyone find where the MOS discusses subtitles?

ɱ: I have doubts that it does, and I've never seen anything that mentions it. I would say I am pretty familiar with the MOS; nevertheless I searched it and citation guidelines and found nothing. Anyway, I think the colon or semicolon would be out of place here.

Gecko: If there's nothing in the MOS, then the next authority would be what is proper English. I even dug out an old college copy of Writers INC to try to find the answer, but it only has how to cite a work with a subtitle, nothing about how to use it within the text.  :( Setting aside the specifc period in this case, There's got to be a way to indicate where the title stops and the subtitle starts. for example, if it was In word1 word2 word3 word4 word5 word 6 [author] asserts that... you can't tell if it is a 3 word title and 3 word subtitle, or 2/4 or 4/2, or etc. Adding in that odd period (is it a self-published manuscript from EFS? seems like a publisher would of edited that out) and the reader will be as confused as I was (at first I thought it was some old vandalism that had slipped through). If you think a colon is wrong, Perhaps rework that sentence to something like "He documented a trip from New York to Alaska taken by [list of who all] in The Riva." (leaving out the subtitle) and then cite The Riva (with the full subtitle) as a source for that sentence? Then the period is placed in such a way as to not be confusing.

I see now that it is already cited in footnote #26, but incorrectly without the colon there. It should have such per all the mainstream citation styles I'm aware of (MLA, APA, & CMS are all confirmed in Writers INC, I'm not positive but I'd bet that Harvard format is the same). Which citation format are you using?

ɱ: I always use Wikipedia's Cite web/news/books templates. I'd like if you could point out to me where those citation styles mention colons being added in to join titles and subtitles.

Gecko: As mentioned it's common to all the citation style's I'm familiar with, with multiple examples throughtout Writers INC: A Guide to Writing, Thinking, & Learning (I can provide several page or section numbers from my Third edition - 1992- if you wish), and is commonly seen elsewhere. But you said you use Wikipedia's cite templates- I did find in wikipedia Citation Style 1 Subtitles are typically separated from titles with ": " though " – " is also used.. There are various examples using the colon at Cite book.

ɱ: Okay, I'll put it in. I'll reply to the rest of your responses as soon as I am able.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Briarcliff Manor developments section-
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence I think needs a couple of "as" to be added "...with Woodlea as its clubhouse and the J. Butler Wright house as the golf house." Alternatively something like becoming could be used to avoid using as twice in the same sentence if you wish.

ɱ: OK, done

• • Consider swapping the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs around to make it read more chronologically.

ɱ: again, the first two paragraphs talk about the house; I really don't want to intersect that with a paragraph about the church.

Gecko: ok, it makes sense from that standpoint (ie I now see that this part flows logically, unlike above).

• In the Family and personal life section- I wonder if the 1st 2 paragraphs couldn't be reworked to make one about his children and family and the other about him- as it currently stands it seems to jump back and forth a bit jarringly.

ɱ: Done.

Gecko: The sentence about being a strict father could also be moved to the first paragraph to help balance the two lengthwise and subject wise. If so, then you might want to consider swapping the two sentences about "renting pews" and "was politically ambitious" around so that the sentence about religious support & charitable societies is adjacent to the preceeding sentence about social organizations.

ɱ:Good thinking, done.

• In the Later life, death, and legacy section-
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence- Were the degree's earned or honorary? If they were honorary, that should be mentioned.

ɱ: I have never found a source that stated one way or the other.

Gecko: Unfortunate. It sounds like they are honorary, but without a source it's best to leave it as is.

Gecko: coming back to this point, having now read the source it definately seems they were honorary, but I'm not sure how specifically and explicitly such needs to be mentioned in the source before it can be called such on Wikipedia without being OR. Maybe other editors could weigh in. Here is the relevant sentence from the source: Last year the University of Omaha conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Laws, and his alma mater the degree of Master of Laws. Honorary degrees are conferred while earned degree's are, well, earned. And why would it be specified that it was his alma mater if he had gone back to school to earn the Master of Laws? Do other editors think that is explicit enough or would it still be the dreaded OR issue?

ɱ: You make a good point, and no, I don't think that would be OR at all.

Gecko: I think so, but I've seen so many things attacked as "being OR" that I'd like to hear from others. Either way though, this point shouldn't hold up the candidacy.

• • And if you move that 1st sentence to another section (likely to the carrer section unless they are honorary degree's, in which case either carrer or personal life could work) then you can simplify the section title to leave out "Later life". Failing that, if you don't want to rename the section, then it is currently rather lacking on "Later life" information, so you would need to move some stuff to here from the career section - seems easyest to make it just a section on "Death and legacy" IMO.

ɱ: This 1892 bit wouldn't fit in the Briarcliff subsection or anywhere above that that's earlier. I still think this is best where it is.

Gecko: ok, in that case then the section needs more about his "later life", that is not about his "death & legacy" to make the section agree with the section heading.

ɱ: It doesn't need more information. It would be nice, but I don't have anything to put there, and it wouldn't make sense to remove the 'later life' part from the heading or move the content anywhere else in the article.

Gecko: Afraid I have to disagree here. If I see on the table of contents a section titled "A & B", and then the section has one sentence which only tangentially touches on "A" and then several paragraphs about "B", and nothing more, then that's not right (assuming of course that "B" is not obviously connected to, or caused by, "A"). As another idea, what about moving that bit to the education section of the infobox (though I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be included there)?

ɱ: I understand that it's not ideal, but there's no policy or guideline that states this as a requirement, and thus I am okay with leaving it as it is.

Gecko: Well, in my view this would make the candidate fail criteria 2b of the FA criteria - as I understand it (as well as more specifically A3 from the A-Class criteria, but I'm not sure if that is relevant here) and I would have to vote "oppose" on the article's candidacy if it remains in it's current form. As I understand it FA status is the best of the best here on wikipedia needing to be practically flawless and meeting the stringest (sp?) of requirements, so apologies but I don't think it meets it at this time. If you don't wish to move it, and don't have any further info to expand the section, then perhaps I can ask: is the sentence even needed? could it be deleted? (especially if they are just honorary awards from second tier {or perhaps lower} organizations - no offence intended to any alumni, but neither one is Ivy league).

Gecko: note: concerns on this point satisfactorily addressed, see below.

• • The last paragraph, last sentence- it's not clear why O'Donoghue's debts to publishing houses combined with news of Shepard's death provoked O'Donoghue's suicide (I presume it's explained why in the linked newsarticle)

ɱ: I know it's not as clear as I'd like it. I can't get anything of use from any sources.

Gecko: ok, I've read the news article's now- it sounds like O'Donoghue's suicide was not connected to news of the death of EFS beyond that he happend to commit the act right as his wife was reading him the obituary and the assumption had been that there was a cause and effect rather than a mere coincidence in timing. So maybe just add something to the end of the last sentence like "...debts to Chicago publishing houses, and not connected to news of Shepard's death[citation]" or some-such wording.

ɱ: I'm not sure if any publication flat-out denied that there was a relation between the two, even if they both suggest other motives. I can't be more specific or reach a closer conclusion than my sources...

Gecko: note that I had said "something like", you don't need to take my off-the-cuff draft too literarly. The source say's "probably", so word it in such a way to effectively (or directly) say "it was probably not connected". That would be in agreement with the source. perhaps something like: "Although his suicide was thought to be an impulsive act upon hearing the news, it was later learned that the likely cause was O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicago publishing houses and probably not connected to Shepard's death." Or something like "Although his suicide was thought to be an implusive act upon hearing the news of Shepard's death, it was later learned that it was probably rather prompted by O'Donoghue's large debts to Chicage publishing houses". again- just a off-the-cuff quick draft's, the specific's can (and should be- if nothing else to polish the wording) be worked around with.

ɱ: This is still much more easily original research than determining that the degrees are honorary or the building is 650 5th Ave. I don't like it.

Gecko: while I disagree, this point is not significant enough that it would cause me to vote "oppose".

Asides from the one unsourced bit, these are all minor (and some might actually be stylistic choices rather than outright oversights). Overall a very interesting read. Gecko G ( talk) 20:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Gecko G: Okay, thank you.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The other points which I didn't reply to are either addressed or are styalistic differences of opinion rather than being wrong. cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 23:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Could use some other editors to weigh in on a few of the above points. Cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay, perhaps that would be helpful.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Gecko G: I added in later life information. Was that the only remaining issue of the above discussions?-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd say that is just sufficient enough. And yes, that was the last of the above points. Now some minor points on the new bits:

• It could use explaining why he didn't want it to open on a Sunday, which could be as simple a change as adding "-The Sabbath" or similar to the end of that sentence. And did you mean to end that sentence with a semicolon or is that a typo? The bits before and after seem too long and complex to be clause's - but that's getting well beyond my grammer knowledge so I'm not positive.

ɱ: Okay, I've done these upon your request.

• The second sentence about the fair seems oddly constructed. Are you trying to say that on Sept. 7, 1891 (nearly 2 years in advance) he paid up front for the 6 months that he planned to attend (which, btw I belive was the entire duration of it)? On my first read-through I thought it was saying that he attended the fair on just the day of Sept 7th but that he paid for 6 months of hotel services. That source won't load for me - probably just my old system - but double check that it's not a dead link - and assuming it's a book there should be a page # or page #'s.

ɱ: Yes he paid up well up front for those six months of stay. The link works, and it's really more of a booklet than a book, and as such, lacks page numbers. Still, it should be easy to use the page's search function for those who can view it. Can you view the download options, seen upon scrolling down, that can allow you to download the text or create a PDF?

and some bits I apparently overlooked earlier:

• Shepard was being examined for a medical condition by doctors; they gave him ether at 1… Did he become ill and the doctors were trying to find the medical condition making him ill, or was he being examed for a pre-existing condition - for which they gave him ether- which in turn led to his death?

ɱ: I can add in more details recently found. Will do soon.

Done.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• I take it that the source for the times ("at 1", "at 4", "20 minutes") is footnote #2 (his NY Times obituary) cited at the end of the sentence following those two sentences? You know the MOS better than I do, does WP:CITEDENSE, (or some other part of the MOS) apply here (and thus it's ok as-is) or not since it's not at the end of a paragraph?

ɱ: Yes, this is normal and applies to CITEDENSE. The first half of that paragraph is cited to the NYT obituary; the second half is to the NYT resting place transfer article.

• Is the modern inflated value's really needed three times in one sentence (after 3 of the 4 amounts)? You might want to only use it on the last one, the total (the 1.35 million one).

ɱ: OK.

• The usage of the term " Religious bodies" seems odd here. The source calls one a Body corporate and the other a Religious corporation... It might be best to just call them religious organizations, or religious institutes, or religious entities, or something.

ɱ: OK, done.

Cheers, Gecko G ( talk) 08:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Gecko G: Okay, I've addressed all of the above. Do you have any other comments or concerns?-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe that is all. Gecko G ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Support Gecko G ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comments taking a look now - I'll make any straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

was a New York lawyer, banker and newspaper owner. He owned the Mail and Express newspaper - could we just reduce the repetition to "was a New York lawyer, banker and owner of the Mail and Express newspaper" ?

His early life seems bare of details apart from genealogy....but I suspect you've looked for material without success...?

In 1862 he visited Jamestown to inspect, equip and provide uniforms for the Chautauqua regiment, his first return since age twelve - huh? We have no background on leaving Jamestown apart from being born there.

Thanks @ Casliber! I fixed the first query. In response to the second, I've added as much as I've ever been able to find on him, and just added a little bit more now, also partially addressing the third point. In response to the third, the article does state: "He attended public schools in Jamestown and graduated from the City University of New York in 1855", which bridges the gap fairly well, I believe.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah that helps. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

He chaired lawyers' committees for disaster relief, including those in Portland, Maine ...err, what happened in Portland?

I'd reorganise Briarcliff Manor developments segment by switching paras 2 and 3 as 2 is largely after death so makes more sense chronologically.

@ Casliber: I found and added material based on your good (first) point. As for the second, I don't know whether it would be better to have it more chronological as you suggest or to keep the first two paragraphs about Shepard's Woodlea and the third paragraph about Shepard's church. I sort-of don't like having one short paragraph about the church stuck in between two larger ones about the house.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ok, I can see that. Not a big deal...ok cautiously support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any prose-clangers outstanding..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability, will post request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Source review

• Fn 1, publisher? Matthews & Warren is listed as the "printing house" but I'm not sure if that's considered the same thing.

ɱ: The Library of Congress, the Internet Archive, and WorldCat list Matthews and Warren so I will.

• Fn 14, typo Houghton Mufflin

ɱ: Fixed, thanks.

• Fn 17, I think you need to figure out the author, or provide some clue as to why it's not known.

ɱ: ? This is a newspaper article. Countless news articles don't have authors attributed, it happens all the time, even contemporarily.

• Fn 25, what makes this Q&A column a reliable source for building history? Gray doesn't cite any sources and it's unclear why they should be considered an authority.

ɱ: Well this is a New York Times article. Such a reputable paper has enough of a review process to withstand WP:RS for pretty much any of its articles, except editorials. Oh, and apparently Christopher Gray has a Wikipedia article of his own that describes his reputability as an architectural historian with many books on New York and its history and architecture. That (and more reliable sources on the guy and his accomplishments) should place him as a very reputable source.

• Fn 27, you don't provide enough information to meet WP:V here. Is this a book? Is the title correct (unsure why there's a period after "Riva")? How can we find it?

ɱ: This was published by Shepard himself. The title is correct, as I had to note to an above editor. Here is a photo of the inside cover to show: link. I am adding the OCLC number which should direct where one can find it, namely the Yale University Library, where I found it.

• Fn 30, this is a job posting, unsure how it meets WP:RS.

ɱ: Well WP:RS allows less reputable sources if used properly. I use it because it was written by the country club; they list their main building as being a more conservative 65,000 sq. ft. rather than the 70,000 sq. ft. the other sources say, so this article therefore says the building is 65,000 to 70,000 sq. ft.

• Fn 33, what makes this a reliable source? No sources cited, no indication of authority of author or editorial process. -- Laser brain (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Laser brain: Please see WP:SELFSOURCE. I use a webpage on the Scarborough Presbyterian Church's website to cite information about the Scarborough Presbyterian Church. Neither the content I cite nor any of the webpage's material contradicts any of the five criteria at SELFSOURCE, making this self-published source acceptable.-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm satisfied with the fixes/responses—please consider my comments addressed. -- Laser brain (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Okay; thank you so much!-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Support. A great read. Well done on the amount of research and effort you put into this. I see nothing in the current version of the article that is in need of attention or that falls below FAC standards. Freikorp ( talk) 10:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

comments from Karanacs. I think this is a very solid article. I have a few nitpicks still.

• The infobox includes the title "colonel", but the infobox itself does not mention his military service at all. I'd just remove the word "colonel".

ɱ: I tried to embed another infobox in order to add military information, but it didn't work; I believe the template's (or templates') coding may need to be altered to allow seamless embedding. I'll remove it anyway, I guess it's somewhat out of place.

• I don't know if it has changed, but the MOS used to say that pictures should be places so that the person is looking into the text. This would mean that the photo of Shephard during the Civil War should be placed at the right side of the article instead of the left. The only way to do that, I believe, would be to shorten the infobox a lot. I personally wouldn't have included that much detail in the infobox anyway - I don't think we need to know his ethnicity or the names of his kids, parents, or relatives there.

ɱ: I'm very familiar with the current MOS, but I've only been reading it for perhaps the last 3 or 4 years; perhaps that rule was dropped before I started reading it. Also, I believe those specifics in the infobox should stay; I, like many other readers, will often just read the lede and infobox for a basic understanding on a subject, especially in a larger article like this one.

• For those who aren't familiar with US geography, should we specifically state that he was in the Union Army during the Civil War?

ɱ: Good catch. I thought I had, but I guess I only did in the lede. Fixed now.

• " In addition, Shepard was involved in correspondence with Walt." -> about what? as it stands, this sentence seems like name dropping.

ɱ: While I was researching EFS I was surprised and interested to find that he and Walt Whitman had written letters to each other during the war. I thought that was meritous enough to include, and nobody else has remarked negatively about it, on or off the Wiki. As for what they were corresponding about, I'm unsure completely, the letters on the Whitman website only tell of Shepard's letters, so it's pretty one-sided.

• The third paragraph of Career bounces around a lot, in topic and timeframe. I'd move the last sentence (1875, arb court) to be the second sentence. Then you have 3 sentences in a row about his legal career. If you move the sentence about Judge Strong down with them, you have a soliid paragraph. Then split the next 3 sentences into a separate paragraphy (newspaper and the 5th Ave Stage company - great segue with the religion aspects!) The leaves the sentence on the college - that, timewise, seems to go up with his marriage in that paragraph.

Karanacs ( talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Wow, good work, that reordering fits very well. Fixed, thanks!-- ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{ featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose ( talk) 14:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.