Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rutherford B. Hayes/archive2


 * 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 Raul654 18:42, 12 February 2011.

Rutherford B. Hayes

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

After it failed to be promoted in December, this article has undergone significant copyediting and has passed a GA review. I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Coemgenus 15:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting Just a clarification, my edit summary may have implied that I actually edited the article. I have not, the issues I listed remain in the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...on October 4, 1822; the son of Rutherford Hayes and Sophia Birchard." A semicolon is unnecessary here because it's one sentence rather than two semirelated statements; a comma would do just fine.
 * "Lucy, a Methodist, teetotaler, and abolitionist, influenced her husband's views in those directions..." Would read better as "on those issues".
 * "Hayes's work on behalf of fugitive slaves was personally gratifying to the antislavery lawyer..." Could be rephrased. This could be read as being gratifying to Hayes himself, because he was an antislavery lawyer, or it could be read as gratifying to an unspecified person who happens to be an antislavery lawyer. Perhaps, "A staunch abolitionist, Hayes found his work on behalf of fugitive slaves personally gratifying..."
 * There don't seem to be any links to West Virginia.
 * "Hayes and the 23rd Ohio set out..." Should this be "23rd regiment" instead? I'm not too sharp on the terminology, but usage throughout this section is slightly inconsistent.
 * "That September, the 23rd was called east..." Again, this could be made more consistent with other usage of the term. It's unclear at first blush whether this refers to a date or the regiment. Perhaps "That September, Hayes's regiment was called east..."
 * "Early was retreating down the valley, and Sheridan was in pursuit." Could read better as "...with Sheridan in pursuit."
 * "...in the cause of party unity." Perhaps "...to preserve party unity." or "...for the sake of party unity."? The wording seems kind of awkward as is.
 * "The election was mostly disappointing to Republicans..." would read better as "The election was mostly a disappointment for Republicans..."
 * "...since Ohio's governor then had no veto." would read better as "...since Ohio's governor had no veto power."
 * "Even so," Seems unnecessary, vaguely weasel word-ish. If the sources say that despite his lack of veto power he accomplished something, then "Despite the office's restrictions" would be in order.
 * "He also endorsed the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and urged his conviction..." would read better as "He favored conviction during the impeachment of President Johnson," or "He supported the impeachment of President Johnson,"
 * "...making certain Ohio's ratification..." would read better as "...ensuring Ohio's ratification..."
 * "...gratified to see the suffrage expanded..." is the word "the" needed here?
 * "Like Hayes, Tilden was..." the previous sentence had "like Hayes", so it might be preferable to say "Also like Hayes," here, because it's a continuation of the comparison.
 * "The balance was upset when Illinois Democrats elected Davis Senator," would read better as "Davis as Senator". And the wording seems a little wrong here, it implies that the Democratic voters of Illinois spontaneously elected Davis as senator, in an era before the 17th amendment allowed the direct election of senators. Could this be rephrased and expanded a little, perhaps use "appointed" in lieu of "elected"?
 * "Davis disappointed them, however, by refusing to serve on the Commission on account of his election to the Senate." Again, some strange wording. Who was being disappointed? Presumably the Democrats who elected him, but they aren't really described. And it would read better as "Davis disappointed (whoever appointed him) by refusing to serve on the commision due to his elevation to senator." Again, no public election took place.
 * "unredeemed" doesn't need to be linked a second time.
 * "Hayes had been a firm supporter of Republican Reconstruction policies throughout his political career, but the first significant consequence of his election was an end to Reconstruction and the return of the South to home rule." would this read better as "...but the first major act of his presidency..." The text doesn't make clear why Reconstruction ended and how it's related to Hayes, other than that it happened because he was elected.
 * "The election laws remained in effect, but the funds to enforce them were curtailed for the time being." This appears to be unsourced. Please put a reference at the end of the paragraph which covers this.
 * "Hayes next attempted to reconcile the South to the civil rights laws..." should be "reconcile the South with", and then some expanded description of the laws and how they relate to the south, like "Hayes next attempted to reconcile the social mores of the South with the recently passed civil rights laws..." Saying the laws needed to be reconciled with the south as a whole is just nondescript.
 * "Hayes took office determined to reform the system of civil service appointments, which had been ruled by the spoils system..." would read better as "modeled on", not "ruled by".
 * "which was stacked with Conkling's spoilsmen." Sounds a little archaic, perhaps "spoilsmen" could be replaced by "cronies"?
 * "20% of the employees could be dispensed with immediately." Sounds a little archaic, might read better as "20% of the employees were expendible?"
 * "...making it more expensive for debtors to pay debts they had contracted in a less valuable currency." Would read better as "...making it more expensive for debtors to pay debts they had contracted when currency was less valuable."
 * "He vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode his veto, the only one of Hayes's vetoes not to be upheld." Would read better as "He vetoed the bill, but Congress, for the first and only time during Hayes's presidency, overrode his veto."
 * Maybe you could put in a little blurb about who Ferdinand de Lesseps is? Something like "Hayes was also perturbed over French developer Ferdinand de Lesseps's plan..."
 * "Hayes and his wife, Lucy, are best known for their policy of..." I'm not sure if both Hayes and his wife are most well-known for that. Maybe just Lucy, or maybe it could be rephrased that they were "known" for it, without adding any qualifiers (and keeping it in the past tense; the rest of the section speaks in the past tense, referring to how they were perceived in the period).
 * "In fact, the first reception the Hayeses hosted..." The "In fact," doesn't mesh well with the following sentence of follow the preceeding one.
 * "Although Evarts quipped that at the White House dinners..." Maybe casually put in "Secretary", it's been a while since Evarts was referred to in the text.
 * "The first vacancy occurred when David Davis resigned after his election as Senator..." Again, please clarify that he was appointed.
 * Link circuit court, it's not a term in common use.
 * "He urged, unsuccessfully, Congress to pass a bill..." Would read better as "He urged, unsuccessfully, for Congress to pass a bill..." or "He urged Congress, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill..."
 * "In retirement, Hayes was also troubled by..." You used the word "also" in the previous sentence, it doesn't seem necessary here.
 * Even though Oakwood Cemetery (Fremont, Ohio) is a stub, would it be worth linking?
 * Thanks for the thorough copyedit! I've made almost all of the changes you suggest, most of them word-for-word as you suggested them.  There were a few I thought should stay as they are:
 * "23rd Ohio" is in keeping with the way Civil War volunteer regiments are always described. If you really think it will confuse readers, I'll change it, but it's pretty standard in Civil War histories.
 * I think the impeachment sentence reads correctly as it is because it makes clear the distinction between the impeachment by the House (which succeeded) and the trial by the Senate (which failed to convict Johnson).
 * The term "spoilsmen" is indeed old-fashioned, but that's because the spoils system is old-fashioned. "Cronies" makes these men sound like Conkling's political friends or hangers-on, while "spoilsmen" makes clear that they are government employees who have their jobs because they are Conkling's political friends or hangers-on.  Again, if you think it's really distracting or confusing, I'll change it, but I think it's the most accurate term.
 * Davis's election to the Senate is difficult. I've puzzled over this issue and how to phrase it in more than one article.  Senators, as you point out, were not directly elected in those days, but neither were they appointed in the way we usually use that term -- an appointment by the executive.  It was an election, just one with a very small electorate (state legislators).  The Constitution actually uses the same verb (choose) for House elections and Senate elections/appointments/whatever.  I think the changes I made are better, but let me know if you still think that passage needs work.
 * --Coemgenus 23:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are fine, I'm just moving the remaining issues down here.
 * None of the notes have references.
 * "...effectively making the basis of the dollar gold alone." Would read better as "...effectively tying the dollar to the value of gold."
 * "Following the gift of his home to the state of Ohio..." Would read better as "the donation of".
 * "The next year the Hayes Commemorative Library and Museum..." Would read better as "The following year,"
 * "...the builder of the Suez Canal, to build a canal across..." Repeats the word "builder". Could this be changed to "...to construct a canal across..."?
 * "...Congress overrode his veto, the only time they did so during his presidency." You refer to Congress in the singular throughout the article ("the Congress"), so it should be "...the only time it did so during his presidency".
 * --Gyrobo (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I've made all the changes now. I'll see about references for the notes when I get home from work today.  --Coemgenus 12:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes all have references now. --Coemgenus 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, there are no prose issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support (In the last line, I would change "Hayes's family" to "Hayes' family".)
 * Disamb and external links still check out. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What is "city solicitor"? Is it like District Attorney? It would need capitals if so. Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's different -- the duties vary by jurisdiction, but city solicitors don't tend to do criminal prosecutions. As to capitalization, WP:Job titles seems to suggest I leave it lower-case unless I was referring specifically to "City Solicitor Hayes".  I've never liked that rule, but I've tried to abide by it when editing articles.  --Coemgenus 14:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the article a bit long? (81K) Stifle (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
 * All images appear to be valid. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The length is similar to other FAs about U.S. Presidents, such as Calvin Coolidge (79K) and Grover Cleveland (90K). --Coemgenus 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7,300 words of readable prose is not considered excessive for an FA of this nature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: All sources look suitably scholarly and reliable. The single online link is working. There appear to be no citations to the Hayes Diaries and Letters shown in the bibliography. My only other comment is that over half of the 300-odd citations are to a single book. This seems quite a heavy proportion. A quick booksearch reveals a number of Hayes biographies, some of which are more recent than his, which have not been used in the article. I don't know the literature about Hayes, but perhaps you would comment on this one aspect. Otherwise, no problems with sources, though I have not carried out any spotchecking (I don't have these books). Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of cites to the diary. I labelled them more clearly.  I'm not sure what other source you want to add.  Hoogenboom is the most extensive of the modern sources, so I used it the most, but I could add others, I suppose.  --Coemgenus 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

' Minor comments' It's not critical but could a LOC link be found for File:Hayes boyhood home.PNG? All the other LOC images in this article have a link. And why is "Republican party" capitalized like that throughout the article? The spelling "bi-partisan" is unusual too. You have "vote of 31 to 25" and "vote of 31–25" in the same paragraph; you should probably pick one format or the other. I would use "Rutherford and Lucy" instead of "the Hayeses" just to avoid the awkward spelling. —Designate (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed most of these, and I'll look for that LOC number when I get home. As to the "Republican party", do you think "party" ought to be capitalized?  --Coemgenus 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. I usually see it capitalized but it looks fine the way you have it too. —Designate (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. After an abundance of copyedits this article meets all the FA criteria. No problems in style, sourcing, or neutrality. Good work. —Designate (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.