`  == How are you holding up? ==  The last big thing I did on WP was add about 100 references to the AL page.  It wore me out (pant, pant).  I still really want to get the article on the front page, which requires it passing WP:FA, which is not easy.  It took me and another guy 3-4 tries to get Jackie Robinson on there, and the way it happened was I tried and failed, and then someone in a similar way to you came along and gave the article one last (humongous) push.  Then they and I ran the FA gauntlet and finally succeeded.  Anyways, I'm wondering if you're getting tired of it, or if you think the article might be getting close and want to try.  The FA criteria, in short, is that the whole article is referenced with the highest quality sources, and is well written (and then some minutiae).  What do you think? -     == Could you find some refs? ==  Hopefully you still have a copy of Donald.  Would you use it to add refs for the first para in the Abraham_Lincoln#1864_Election section?  Same with the first para of the Abraham_Lincoln#Gettysburg_Address section?  It's looking pretty good.  One of the first things they'll say at FA is para such and such is unreferenced, so hopefully we can stamp those out.  The easiest way to do that just to remove everything that's unreferenced, but as you may have noticed on the talk page, people are prickly about removing stuff.  If Donald doesn't mention it, we can try removing it and see what happens. -     :Will do.    ::The two references requested have been added.    :::Cool.  Thanks. -     While we're on the FA subject.  One requirement is that the lead summarize the body of the article, and not contain any info that's not in the body.  If it does have refed info, that info can be moved into the body so that it's in both.  Anyways, that's just one of the rules.  I mention it because in the lead it says ``Copperheads and other opponents of the war criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on the slavery issue.``  And there isn't another mention of Copperheads (politics) in the article.  I decided to mention it here instead of on the AL talk page, since we're (and mostly you) the ones who are running this show.  So, what do you want to do?  I think the rest of the sentence accurately summarizes the body, so we could just remove the copperheads word.  Or we could add the word copperheads somewhere lower to justify it.  Whatever you think is best.  If you want to keep it, I can find a ref, I imagine. -   (UTC :I will look at the Copperheads (not my addition I don't think.) I appreciate your comment on the lead because I had been wondering about the ref issue there. I have added some cites to paras you mentioned. A couple didn't really need it but no harm in breaking down cites to remove the doubt. On another issue, I noticed a comment somewhere in the FA guidelines about diversity of references...I know the article is now loaded with Donald and can only hope someone can help with other sources if that issue is raised...in terms of my own reading, you'll recall my presidents project..I must move on in my reading to Johnson. That is apart from our effort here, though.   ::Yeah, the lead doesn't need refs as long as the body has refs to support it.  I think we'll be OK as far as diversity goes, but it may be an issue.  Donald's book is considered the Lincoln bible, so there's some leeway there.  More important than that is to not have any non high quality refs.  I'm going to remove those soon (I noticed a Pawn Stars cite).  There's probably a couple other obvious things, and then I think we're ready to nom.  Enjoy reading about Johnson. -    :::The edit to the lead is done and I agree about Donald...I'm trying to be careful when I pick my biographers. But...there WILL be a relaxing fiction (Baldacci-though he is becoming more real with time) before going back to bios. ::::Ha!  There are too many stamps.  I'm not really sure we need any of them, since the body doesn't discuss them (I don't think). ::::Also, I've added a couple of citation needed tags in the later sections of the article, in case you have something for them. -    :::::Actually, I looked at the article and had deleted the ref. to the stamps thinking one or two had been removed already; whatever. I see the tags; I'll take a look.  == We're getting there ==  I just finished going through the refs, and they at least meet a cursory inspection.  There's still some ``citation needed`` tags in the article, which are not allowed at FA. If you can't get to them, I'll try and do them in the next couple of days.  Then, I figure we nominate it and see what happens.  By coincidence, George Washington just failed its third WP:GA (Talk:George Washington/GA3).  GA is the step below FA.  The review was pretty thorough, which is actually kinda harsh, since the review should have just said ``You're 150 references and 20 books shy of making it.``  Then the nominator could have just given up if they wanted to, instead of being strung along.  I guess the reviewer is not American, so they didn't know what it needed off the top of their head.  And some fun facts for you: You, I, and the rest are probably the most widely read Lincoln scholars in history, You're number 2 with a bullet, AL is a WP:VITAL article. -     :Thanks, I enjoyed seeing that data. I think I hit all the tags. Let me know if I missed any (and where they are).    ::There's one in the second para of ``Domestic measures``, and I think that's all the tags.  And I just noticed the third para in that section has no refs.  Same with the second para in ``Assassination``.  Also the end of the last paras in ``War Begins``, ``Secession winter 1860–1861`` and ``Republican politics 1854–1860``.  And I think that's it.  An easy way to the find the correct page in Donald is to use google books, like here.  You can search for ``emancipation`` or whatever on the left, and while it may not let you read it, it usually tells you the page number so you don't have to thumb through your book.  That's how I did it for a while, back when I had Donald checked out from the library. -    :::Done. And thanks for the tip on Google books.    ::::Very cool.  I'll probably nominate it tomorrow.  It will be a co nom, with both of us. ::::So, a bit of advice on an FA nom.  If someone says ``paragraph 23, sentence 2 needs a ref``, or ``the link to Gettysburg should be to Gettysburg address`` then we have to deal with it.  It's like they're the customer, and the customer is always right.  There's no point in arguing (at least early in the nom).  But if someone is like ``there's too much about his family and not enough about the civil war``, or vise versa, you want to sit on that kind of comment for a bit.  Someone else may come along later and say ``there's too much about the civil war, and not enough about his family``.  These are (somewhat) subjective decisions, and we want to see what people think in general, in case an early commenter is out of step.  It will become apparent what's going on pretty quick. ::::Basically, we don't want to do a bunch of work that will then be thrown out.  For instance, one thing you mentioned that I think will be OK, but you never know, is the diversity of sources.  We don't want to fix a bunch of issues using Donald cites, only to then find out later that we need to use other sources.  The work we do could be wasted in a situation like that.  So, let's take it slow to begin with, and see what's going on. -     :::::Makes alot of since. I had that sort of mindset when I raised the question about the Redefining Republicanism section. It's important to remember that one's viewpoint is but a minute part of the worldview, all the pros and cons and value-added variables aside. Another thought I have is...that if someone has a valid suggestion to improve something, it won't hurt to ask them if th