Talk:James B. Weaver/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarnold17 (talk · contribs) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello; I've read through the article, and should begin a review tomorrow (18 November 2014).Sarnold17 (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I look forward to your comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Review
This is a very well written, organized and constructed article. I applaud your work on US Presidents and presidential candidates. Since the article is long, I will make comments section by section, and this will likely take a few days, but you can feel free to edit as I make comments. Following my commenting, I'll take a look at the other aspects of the article; there appear to be some new tools available since I last did a GA review more than a year ago. Sarnold17 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

 * Second sentence: "Born in 1833..." is redundant, since it was just stated following opening name.  Recommend "Born in Ohio, ..." because this fact fits much better with the remainder of the sentence about ending up in Iowa.


 * The lead makes a fairly precipitous jump from boyhood to political advocacy. There needs to be some kind of a transition from boyhood to adult pursuits, such as "Becoming politically active as a young man, he advocated for..."


 * "After several Republican nominations" to what position?  It would seem a bit more complete if it at least said, "After several Republican nominations to a variety of offices..."  or you could even be more specific and say what those offices were.


 * To keep the overall timing of things fresh in the reader's mind, I would recommend giving the year he switched to the Greenback Party.


 * The lead says he was elected to congress in 1888, but this is neither in the info box, nor in the main text. OK, I think I see what's going on; I believe he was elected to congress in 1884 and 1886 (not 1886 and 1888 as stated).  These two election years fit with the dates and with the text in the main article.


 * Rather than ending the lead with the fact that he died in 1912, it would be good to include his impact; after all, his legacy, while not recognized during his lifetime, eventually became the law of the land. So maybe expand the final sentence to something like "..he died in 1912, mostly celebrated for his impact after his death."  You have a better sense of this than I, so whatever you think his greatest impact was, based on your research.

Early years

 * Para 2: a avery minor point:  I would recommend changing "On his return..."  to  "Upon his return..."  This is because I could interpret "on" to mean "during" so I was expecting something to happen while he was returning.  However "upon", to me, clearly denotes that it happened after his return, which is the case.


 * Para 4: "He spoke on behalf of [Kirkwood]..."  In a political context, I as the reader find the word spoke to be rather mushy.  Did he campaign on behalf of Kirkwood?  Did he give a speech on behalf of Kirkwood?  Did he give multiple speeches on behalf of Kirkwood?  I would prefer something a bit more specific in this sentence opening.

Civil War

 * Para 2, a sentence begins "2nd Iowa was in the center..." Now, this may no longer be the case, but any writing style guide I've ever used says that thou shalt not begin a sentence with a numeral!  There may be an exception for military units, but just to skirt this little faux pas of style, the sentence could begin "Weaver's regiment was in the center...".  This wording also brings the reader back to the fact that Weaver was very much an integral part of the 2nd Iowa.


 * last sentence in section: is there some significance to Weaver being brevetted on 13 March 1865?  This was long after he got out of the service, so it seems like a fairly random date.  Was there some act passed in congress to brevet the Union's warriors on this date?  There is nothing wrong with what you have written, but it really left me wondering.

Republican politics

 * Para 1: What made being the "assessor of internal revenue" a lucrative position?  This choice of word, to me, makes it sound like there is some underhanded financial remuneration for political patronage going on.  Why would any government position be more lucrative than any other?  High-paying, important, prestigious...is there a better choice of words?


 * Para 1: "...which added five more children..."  This is vague.  Added them to what?  Be specific:  "...which included ____ children by 1877." (because we don't know how many he already had)


 * Gubernatorial race: it would be nice to let the reader know how the gubernatorial race finished.  Was it Kirkwood or his opponent who won?  Perhaps "...Kirkwood was nominated, later [winning/losing] in the election."

Switch to Greenback Party

 * Para 1. Greenbackers wanted an 8-hour work day and the end to child labor, but the paragraph is unclear as to what aspect of monetary policy they favored.  Did they not want to return to the gold standard (as implied)?  Please clarify the Greenback position on monetary policy, since this is so focal to their platform.


 * Para 2: "inflationists" implies Greenbackers, but I would be specific, since you are using a new word to describe them. I would write it as "...inflationists (Greenbackers)..."  Also, you might want to mention where the word "inflationist" comes from.  Is it because the opponents of soft money viewed it as being inflationary?

Congress

 * Para 2: the unlimited coinage of silver sounds like hard money instead of soft.  Can you clarify, or at least mention, that this was something advocated by the soft-money proponents?

Return to Congress

 * Para 2, 3rd sentence: recommend slight word change from "...the nation's hard money politics..."  to "...the nation's hard money policies..."  unless you really intended the former.  To my way of thinking, people have politics but nations have policies.  I may be wrong, so I'll let you decide.


 * Para 3. When you used the phrase "landless poor" it took me a while to figure out who you were talking about.  Could you just add a word and call them the "landless poor homesteaders" ?


 * Para 4, last sentence. I'm losing track of the time here.  I recommend you add a few specifics to the sentence:  "...Weaver was reelected to the House in 1886 with a..."


 * last para: I'm losing track of time again.  I assume that Weaver returned in September 1887.  I recommend the sentence later read, "..., John F. Lacey, was elected by 828 votes in the 1888 congressional election."

Populist Party

 * The term "Populist Party" is not mentioned once in this section, and only alluded to at the very end. It is not mentioned until the next section.  For this reason, it might be more prudent to rename the section as "Formation of new party"  or something of that ilk.

This ends my comments on the text of the article, though some other points may be brought up later. I've already tweaked a few typos. Now I plan to take a look at some of the other aspects.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I've incorporated your comments in the lede and "Early years". I hope to finish the rest today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That should do it. Thank you for the thorough review! Your comments were helpful, I think the article is much improved by them. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Review checklist

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: article reads very nicely throughout
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: no problems here
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: broad range of sources used
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: inline references throughout
 * C. No original research: no problems here
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: nicely balanced for an article about a politician
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: no problems here
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: no problems here
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

This was a very nice article to review, and the issues were all minor. I am keeping this article on my watch list, and if you decide to promote the article to FA, I would like to be there to support you.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm hoping to go for FA sometime in 2015. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! I hope to be there with you. Sarnold17 (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)