Talk:1880 Republican National Convention

GA Nomination Success
Okay, this seems very easy for me, this passes on all fronts. It is written extremely well and complies with manual of style. It is fully referenced inline from reliable academic sources. It has a good broad coverage while staying on topic. Is presented in a neutral, factual, manner and seems largely stable being primarily written by a single editor with only limited activity since nomination. All images are PD with appropriate captions.

In terms of improvement, there isn't much I can say. Some areas could be made a bit smoother and double checked. For example, the last paragraph of Presenting the nominees uses "Garfield" over and over and over which I think impedes the flow a bit. Other than such minor points, I hope you take it up to FA. --  J Logan t/c: 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the evaluation, JLogan. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayes
According to this article, "Hayes knew that he was not likely to win in the 1880 election, so he chose not to seek re-election."

I remember reading in several places (although I cannot find a source at the moment) that Hayes had pledged long before that he would only serve one term, effectively making him a lame-duck president from the start of his only term. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Seleucus (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
 * http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/jsherman.html
 * In 1880 Republican National Convention on 2011-05-25 02:10:09, 404 Not Found
 * In 1880 Republican National Convention on 2011-06-01 23:26:49, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism?
I removed a banner pointing to the WikiProject Conservatism which was placed by Lionelt in February 2011. The banner was restored by Toa Nidhiki05.

I do not see any connection to conservatism in this article. It cannot be the Republican Party which was progressive in 1880. Please prove a connection to conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no connection demonstrated between this article and the topic of conservatism. No improvements have been made by any member of the WikiProject Conservatism. I am once again removing the project banner. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The 306 Stalwarts.
It is perhaps not known to editors of this article that the Three Hundred and Six Guard society included among themselves items of distinction, items that identified one member to another. It happens that one such item was a pocket watch, manufactured by the Elgin National Watched Company. The case of each watch was engraved with a commemoration, reading in one example as follows:

"THE NEW YORK FRIENDS OF Genl Grant to John M. Moltz of Fredricksburg Va Chicago Ills June 2nd 1880"

I will provide later set of photographs of this watch. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

source problem
--Jarodalien (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) footnote NO. 17, "Cleveland Herald, May 31, 1880.", what's the title for the source, who's the author?
 * 2) footnote NO. 21, "Grant (1975), p321.", what's this stand for?
 * 3) footnotes NO. 23 & 79, "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 23, 1880." & "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 25, 1880.", where could I found those diary entries?
 * 4) footnotes NO. 131 & 132 seems exactly the same, but they're actually two different books when you open edit page, still don't know how's this happened.
 * This article was featured a few years ago, and the sourcing is probably not up to today's FA standards. Let me look it over this week and see what I can do. I've got tons of books on the period already. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's more, I'm thinking maybe needs a FAR.--Jarodalien (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited all six problem footnotes -- 17, 21, 23, 79, 131 and 132. If someone has suggestions for additions, deletions or edits, please let me know.


 * Billmckern (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Footnotes 126: "The exact majority in the popular vote is known to be below 10,000 votes, but the exact number is disputed. One election results source puts the number at 9,457 votes. Another puts at 7,368, and another has it at 1,898 votes." This needs to be clarify, which source indicate which number, and footnotes 131 & 132 seems still had same problem.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started re-citing it and doing some clean-up. Most of the newspaper citations actually come from Ackerman, who cites those newspapers in his book. I've changed them to cite the book directly, which is more in line with our policies. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now, thanks. Meantime, I feel that if "those newspapers" were cited at Ackerman's book, and editor could verify them directly, it should still remain in this article, cause looks now, the whole article is a little bit, too much depended on this one book. My English is not well, hope you can understand what's my talking about here.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I became clear to me during the editing that he editor who wrote this almost certainly was just reading Ackerman's book, not tracking down the newspapers on microfilm or something. I've added in a couple of other sources, as Billmckern did, so it's less unbalanced now. Still needs some work, but I think it's a lot closer to the current FA standard now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence that doesn't make sense
"However, in Chicago, a number of New York delegates who went against the resolution and expressed support for Blaine."

I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. Harfarhs (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Source-text integrity concerns
This article has been informally proposed for TFA next year, so looking over this one as source-text integrity concerns have arisen at other featured articles by this nominator. See Talk:Stede Bonnet, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman, and Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1 and Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, among others. Spot-checking some references to Ackerman below. Text from our article is in green:
 * - mostly okay, but this is spread out on a few more pages than the citation is to. Although I don't understand the reference to aiding post-war Reconstruction; the Reconstruction period as it is generally understood ended almost immediately after the inaugaration of Hayes, as that was part of the general agreement that got him in office in 1876
 * to Ackerman p. 18. The oppostion by Conkling & Blaine and Blaine being the leader of the half-breeds is mentioned on pp. 18-19, but the only info about Hayes' announcment not to run is that it had been made earlier (before 1880) or that this is solely due to the 1876 bruhaha. Instead, Ackerman's comment on this issue is after discussing a fight with Conkling over an example of the spoils system involving future president Chester Arthur
 * - checks out, but it should be noted that this is referring to Grant, not Conkling for the Stalwarts
 * - okay
 * - sourced to Ackerman, p. 17. Ackerman p. 17 states that Conkling switched his support to Hayes on the 7th ballot, but does not mention other candidates doing this or the 384-351 vote total
 * - sourced to Ackerman p. 17. I'm assuming this is a citation placement error; the citation before this one is Ackerman p. 74 and this info is on that page
 * - the quote checks out to Ackerman p. 75. I guess the rest is an inference drawn from this statement
 * - to Ackerman p. 75. Is from Ackerman a direct reference to big business, or a general support for increased industrialization in a nation whose west, midwest, and south were still heavily agricultural at the time? I'm not sure; I don't know enough about the politics of the Gilded Age to be confident on this. Additionally, "a tariff to protect American jobholders" is close paraphrasing of, even down to the use of the unusual word jobholders
 * - I see the 110 votes prediction on Ackerman p. 99, but I can't find the expecation that Grant's people would break apart after five or six ballots. The "reserved, self-contained" quote is apparently on p. 30. That is the prior citation; again I suspect a mis-placed citation but there' also the issue of where the five or six ballots is coming from
 * - checks out
 * - mostly fine, but the pagination is slightly off (should be pp. 32-33 not just 33) but a couple quibbles - the source notes that this process began in January, not that it entirely occurred in January, and "each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidates" isn't quite right when the source states and the material about selecting loyal candidates doesn't square well with the defections and need for the unit rule noted elsewhere in the article and Ackerman.

That's all I have time to check for now. The ideas are for the most part supported, but I do have concerns about the tendency for some details to not be supported and about the pagination and/or ref placement issues. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)