Talk:1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I will be conducting this review. I am reading the article now, and will post my initial comments sometime tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looking forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
The article has several strong points, and will likely meet GA standards after a little work, but right now I have some concerns. On the positive side, the article is well researched and cited. It is interesting and mostly well written. However, it is also confusing at parts. I admit that my confusion is partially due to my own minimal background knowledge, but I feel one shouldn't require much background knowledge to be able to follow an article on an election. This is a general use encyclopedia, not a scholarly study on elections.

A small part of the confusion arise from the use of several that contain 3+ grammatical clauses that are only loosely connected. These should be broken down into two smaller sentences whe possible. However, that is only a minor issue. I think the main source of confusion is the background section. You provide a lot of information which is good and useful in this section, but doesn't really belong in this article. It feels like you are trying to give a summary of a large chunk of the history of senate election procedures and the entirety of Hanna's political career. As a result, instead of supplying the knowledge necessary to understand the article the section only causes confusion. It would be much better to focus on information that actually plays into 1898 election. In other words, use your editorial judgement and "guide" the reader to what they need to know as background material in order to understand the events of 1897-8. Everything else should be removed (or moved to another article).

The rest of the article is more focused and thus until needs some minor tweaks. I'll do a more formal review with more specific comments after an attempt to address the "big picture" problem of lack of focus that leads to confusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. Interesting.  I would think that removal of the background information on who Hanna was and how they elected senators would add to confusion.  However, I'm trying it your way.  Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, my apologies about not replying sooner - I unexpectedly have been away for the last several days. With that out of the way, I say the background is much improved.  My only comment about the updated background would be the re-add a few sentences saying how Senators were chosen at the time period.  I did not mean to say to take out all that info, but rather to say it read like a (very condensed) version of the whole history.  Just say how it was done, perhaps when/why that version of the system came to be, and perhaps when direct election came into being. I'll post a full review of the rest of the article tomorrow (I don't foresee many issues.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I'll play with the paragraph I put in a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out of the footnote and used it as the lede paragraph in background, with some tweaking.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made some edits to (hopefully) reduce potential confusion. I added adjectives in a few places where the sentence seemed ambiguous to me and deleted a few sentences which seemed to be needless asides. Please make sure the edits are factually accurate and agreeable to you.

A few sentences, highlighted below, I was unsure of:
 * These Republicans (and the Independent Republican) supported "free silver" in opposition to McKinley, and had not pledged during the campaign to vote for Hanna if elected" - What is "the Independent Republican"? If it is important, it should be wikilinked or explained w/a few words;  otherwise the parenthetical should be removed. never mind, figured it out and fixed it.
 * Paragraph beginning "Foraker was not actively involved in the controversy, and in the sole interview he gave, said he was doing his best to keep out of it" - You original wrote he "also" stated Hanna would have a hard time, which is not entirely consistent with "staying out of it", so I changed it to "however". But, that makes it two "howevers" in a row.  I wanted to change the first however to something like "ultimately, most of Hanna's Republican opponents were from Foraker's wing of the party" and move it to the end of the paragraph, but wasn't sure how that would affect the referencing page #s.
 * "On election day, the contest came down to the votes of two Cincinnati Silver Republicans, in particular Charles F. Droste." - it is not clear why Droste's vote mattered more than the other guy.
 * "and notes that by one rumor, each of the two Cincinnati legislators was offered the senatorship by anti-Hanna forces if each would vote against Hanna" - this is unclear to me. Were they both offered the same job and when they found out about the deceit switched sides, or were they offered the seat in exchange for switching back?
 * I don't think so. Obviously both couldn't have accepted it.  Probably the offers were not made simultaneously.  It's unlikely they could have held their coalition together and peeled off a couple of Hanna Republicans with one of these guys as senatorial candidate.  I'll play with the language.  Unfortunately the source is not very enlightening.
 * Looks good now


 * "The Republican contingent which stuck to the last against Hanna has made a record which the victorious faction might well envy ..." - this is a really long quote. It should either be trimmed, or blockquoted if you feel the whole thing is essential.
 * I gave that some thought. I am anxious to allow the full text without blockquote as a good portion of the article is written from a Hanna perspective.  He's the famous candidate, he won, most of the people quoted served prominently in government.  I'd like to let the other side have a full say of their perspective on this, because, frankly most of the people on that side sank into obscurity.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A block quote tends to increase the emphasis on the quote, so if your concern is that the opposition has too little weight w/o the quote, I suggest blocking it. (MOS says anythign longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted)


 * Paragraph starting "The revenge by Hanna forces against McKisson was quick and effective." - the quickness is apparent enough, but successfulness less so. What is the significance of the convention mentioned? and how is surviving a bitter primary fight consistent with the rival faction being successful (esp. if it ultimately led to Democrats taking control)?
 * General comment: the tense of quotes/ideas attributed to biographers is inconsistent. Either present tense or past tense is acceptable, but they should all be the same
 * This was advice per FAC, that present-day biographers receive the present tense, while those who are less current (Leech, Croly, Walters) take the past tense.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that must have changed since the last time I last read to criteria on quote tense (a while ago.)

Let me know if you have any disagreements with my changes and/or questions. It is entirely possible I got something wrong or was unclear somewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made changes to address concerns except where I've objected. I also went through your edits and changed a couple of things, most notably you took "cast no ballots" to mean they voted no, I was trying to say that they abstained and I've made that clearer.  One of the things I've been working on outside of this review is lowering the frequency of words that are heavily used in this article, such as "vote" and "legislature".  Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied to your concerns above. In general, the latest edits have resolved my concerns.  However, one new sentence (According to Alfred Henry Lewis of Hearst's Journal, "The opposition to Hanna...) is a bit odd b/c of the "yesterday" and "today" w/o context.  Perhaps something like "According to a report by Alfred Henry Lewis published in the Journal the day of the vote..." would work.  Also, a believe the citation should point to the original source and then say as quoted by Horner, p. 231 (or Horner quoting ...). Instead of just saying Horner. If there are any other quotes of quotes, they should be referenced likewise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can certainly put in the date and page number of the original. Unfortunately, I don't have online access for the Journal.  Wish I did, it would be a great help not only with this, but with other 1896-era articles.  Or even a convenient library that had them ...--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it in as a hidden comment. If you think it should be part of the citation, I will need to consult with User: Br'er Rabbit, my technical adviser, to ask for his thoughts on the matter.  The only other quotes that are not cited to the originals are the ones in the press reaction area of Aftermath, which are cited to a contemporary source which collected representative opinion, and I took the ones which seemed best suited.  I've also inserted a mention that Lewis was writing on January 12.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have formatted it as part of the citation now. Take a look - if you don't like it, feel free to undo or adjust.  (Also, if there is an ordering the "other sources" it wasn't apparent to me so I just put it at the end.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's alphabetical by author, then sources not attributed to a person in alphabetical order by first significant word of source.  Was there anything else needing to be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Pretty much all my concerns have been addressed, but see above for my last comment on suggested (optional) ref format for quotes of quotes.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * I would like to see the long quote discussed above blockquoted, but that is not strictly speaking necessary to pass (would be necessary for FA though).
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Referencing is probably the article's strongest area. Well done.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Might possibly need some work for FA, but is more than sufficient for GA
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Although I am not an expert on the subject, I have done my best to independently research it and feel the article gives proper weights to all aspects of the election
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I would like to see ALT text added to all images. As a minor point, the spacing is a bit off as they bunch up in the first half with nothing in the last section.  Also, left aligned images should not appear directly under a section header
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just need to fix the pics and we will be at GA status.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I would like to see ALT text added to all images. As a minor point, the spacing is a bit off as they bunch up in the first half with nothing in the last section.  Also, left aligned images should not appear directly under a section header
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just need to fix the pics and we will be at GA status.
 * Just need to fix the pics and we will be at GA status.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The template documentation does not seem to allow for the adding of alt text to the infobox images. I've done it for the others and moved the campaign ribbon further down in the article.  I expect eventually there will be more images,   Obviously I could add images of the minor principals, such as Foraker, McKinley, and Charles Dick, but I'm hoping for better.  Image hunting is an ongoing thing.  There will be more at FAC.  Horner reproduces a couple of the Homer Davenport images of Hanna but I'm hoping for better quality.  On the blockquote, I'm going to hold off and await more opinions.  I will probably send this article for a peer review next, perhaps they will have ideas on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked at the template talk page, and they said you could just provide the alt text as normal. For example, "Mark Hanna by WJ Root, 1896 cropped.jpg" -> "Mark Hanna by WJ Root, 1896 cropped.jpg"  I'm not sure how helpful the alt text would be in this case, so I won't require it, but at FA they probably will.
 * Just now, I noticed that the "aftermath" section is not really summed up in the lead, so that will need to be addressed (bribe issue sort of is, newspaper reaction & political consequences is not). Two sentences will probably be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me take a look at the alt text. I've made some changes to lede, but there's nothing so remarkable about the press coverage that it need be included in the lede.  I don't think the press coverage needs be included in the lede, it's not part of the event, really, it's contemporary commentary on the event, and in this case, the dog barked in the night, as expected.  I don't think the reader has to be told, in the executive summary which is the lede, that Republican papers supported Republicans, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Article exceeds GA standards now, so I am passing it. I have a couple suggestions for work towards FA status, since that seems to be your aim:
 * 1897 campaign section - the opposition is probably not super important, but I feel at least some mention of their implicit senatorial candidate and platform should be made
 * General - the prose is very good, but still slightly choppy at points. Continue to work on transitioning between sentences and eliminating repeated words (as you have been doing lately)
 * Sources - although not mandatory, a couple more contemporary sources would be nice. If there is a specific article or two you'd like, I would be happy to try to request them through the inter-library document service.

That's all - the article is very close to FA status already, IMO. Keep up the good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your conscientious work. The Democrats did not endorse a specific candidate for senator.  I will look into what they proposed.  Silver, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)