Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1880 Democratic National Convention/archive1


 * 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 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2014 (diff).

1880 Democratic National Convention

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a Democratic political convention in the United States' Gilded Age. The Democratic party was working to return to the White House for the first time since before the Civil War, and the Republicans were working to sustain the diminishing dominance they'd held in the federal government since that time. Issues of coinage, tariffs, and Chinese immigration divided the parties and the nation. The previous election had been the closest electoral college vote in American history, and 1880's would have the closest popular vote. It was an interesting and under-studied part in American history, and I hope you'll enjoy reading about this facet of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:WHEnglish_photo.jpg: can you explain how PD-US applies? If this is an archival photo, it may not have been published at the time
 * That's a good question. I'm going to write to the Indiana Historical Society for more information.  In the meantime, I switched it out for a pic that had a better license.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * File:WilliamRallsMorrison.png: when/where was this first published?
 * It appears in this book, which was published in 1896. I've updated the info on commons to reflect this.
 * File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was created by Currier & Ives, Inc. The firm existed until 1907. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looks like a strong candidate, and I hope to get to a full review in due course. One concern right now is the reliance on the Official Proceedings - while I don't have a copy, unsurprisingly, based on the passages of the article sourced to that work, it sounds like it may be written in a somewhat jingoistic fashion.  Do we have any confidence, based on that account, that cheers following Dougherty's speech actually persisted for five minutes, for example? Steve Smith (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Official Proceedings is actually a pretty dry transcript of the convention. It doesn't make any judgments or praise the nominee.  I mostly rely on it for ballot totals and direct quotes from speakers.  The five minutes, in fact, is sourced to a 1988 biography of Winfield Scott Hancock.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After perusing that source for a while, I have to say it's not as dry as I remember. Still, I try to use it only for facts, not impressions or opinions, and I'll be glad to re-evaluate anything sourced to it that a reviewer finds questionable.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Reviewing. Looks very good.  As I won't have time to continue until probably late tomorrow at the earliest, let me give you the benefit of my few comments to date:


 * Issues
 * "to date" perhaps "to that time"
 * Fixed.
 * You are not consistent in your capitalization of "presidency"
 * I think the MoS wants it to be lower-case, so I've changed it to that.
 * Tilden
 * "He worked to form a rival faction" "worked to" clauses are generally aspirational, what they hope to do. Here, you are saying what was actually done.
 * I agree--this is something I've mentioned on other people's FACs in the past. I fixed the one I found here.
 * A mention of the Democratic price for acceding to Hayes' presidency, that is, the removal of Federal troops from the Reconstructed South, might be helpful.
 * Good point. I added a sentence about it.
 * "The effect was the opposite, as the investigation produced more evidence of Democratic calumny than Republican." Isn't calumny rather routine in political settings?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misused the word! What I meant was skullduggery or attempted bribery. Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Resuming
 * Bayard
 * "One recipient of Tilden's departure from the scene was Senator Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware." Perhaps "beneficiary" instead of "recipient".
 * Done
 * "Bayard stacked his years-long advocacy in the Senate for Southern conservatives" for Southern conservatives, or for their policies?
 * I changed it to "pro-Southern conservative policies".
 * Others
 * "In April 1880, a the New York Star " typo. I'm doing this offline so I can't correct it easily. Also, I would mention Payne's background right after the millionaire mention (you do it later in the paragraph)
 * Fixed
 * "as a popular conservative from a swing state and a background as an attorney" need a word before "a background", possibly "with"
 * Fixed.
 * "moderate on the money question" this may puzzle the reader.
 * I changed it to "less wedded to the gold standard", which might be clearer, I hope.
 * "His chance with delegates " chances?
 * I changed it to "popularity"
 * Preliminaries
 * I would mention that the permanent officers were elected by the delegates. You just say "installed", twice.
 * Fixed.
 * Balloting
 * I would mention up front that a 2/3 vote was needed to nominate
 * Done.
 * Aftermath
 * "Democratic newspapers attacked Garfield" whom you have not mentioned since the lede. You need to give a bit of info on his nomination.
 * Good point.
 * "rumors of his corruption and self-dealing" I would strike "his". A little too definite.
 * Done.
 * "New Jersey and the other Midwestern states " New Jersey? Midwest?
 * I meant "other" as in "other than Indiana," but, yeah, it does look weird. I took out "other", but now it seems repetitive.  I'll fiddle with it more throughout the day.
 * "By October, they switched to a new issue" They?
 * Changed to "Republicans shifted to a new issue"
 * "In the end, the fewer" typo;.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed that, and another typo in the same sentence! Thanks very much for the thorough review.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * No references for the last two sentences in the first two paragraphs of 'Issues and candidates'.
 * "The debate concerned the basis for United States dollar's value." I think it should be ' for the United States"
 * "He also advocated for legislation to reduce the power of monopolies." I would leave out the word 'for'.
 * These are very minor issues - a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I'll have these remedied today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made these changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey
———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that if you used instead of , you could specify | ref = harv and get the same results?  Not requesting a change, just offering some time-&-effort-saving advice fo the future.
 * It took me a while to figure it out, but I do know that now. My next article will probably have that exact format.
 * not a fan of alt text?
 * No, not really. I did it for a while when it was the hot new formatting trend at FAC, but haven't touched it since.  I don't think it adds much for someone using a screen reader to be told that a picture of a man is "a picture of a man."
 * not worth linking "Civil War" in the lead?
 * Good catch -- linked it.
 * The first round of balloting was inconclusive, but when, before the second round, Tilden's withdrawal from the campaign became known for certain, delegates flocked to Hancock, who was nominated.: I had to read this sentence twice to parse it. Could it be recast, and possibly split?
 * Yes. Changed it to "The first round of balloting was inconclusive. Before the second round, Tilden's withdrawal from the campaign became known for certain and delegates flocked to Hancock, who was nominated."
 * Debate over tariffs ... to sell goods domestically.: might want to link to protectionism somewhere in there
 * Yes, I added a link.
 * This, and Tilden's declining health made many Democrats: either drop the first comma or add one after "health"
 * I added one to close off the clause.
 * Tammany ran their new leader: normally groups are referred to in the singular in American English, no? Or maybe change to "a new" and avoid it altogether.
 * Good point. I changed it to the singular.
 * Hancock graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1844: worth linking "West Point"?
 * The town? I couldn't decide when writing it, but I'm glad to add the link.
 * We need attribution for the quotes, and clarification over whether they are quotes from the time, or opinions of the sources. If they're not quotes formt he time, you'll at least need to attribute the quotes, but you might want to consider paraphrasing instead—the act of quoting places a certain weight on the quote which may be undue:
 * After that, "every delegate was on his feet and the roar of ten thousand voices completely drowned the full military band in the gallery."
 * was "deliberately vague and general" on some points,
 *  stuck mostly to the message "our man is better than your man".
 * Fair points -- I think I've better explained the sources of these three lines. Thanks for reading and for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It all looks good to me now, and I'm happy to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Needs a source review for formatting/reliability; I've left a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN69, 71: page formatting
 * Should be fixed now (the numbering changed when I fixed them, because it combined with a properly formatted version of the note).
 * Since iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes Richardson a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only citing it for a fact (the election result), which is available elsewhere (though not on the government's website, for some reason). I'll try to find something else to cite it to. OK, I've re-sourced it to mainstream sources.  One problem, as Kenneth Ackerman writes in his 2003 book, is that "there remains today a range of published 'final results' for the 1880 presidential popular vote."  I've tried to use more recent ones, where possible, which is why I liked Richardson.  I'd love to do a thorough study of it someday, but that would probably end up being self-published, too! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.