Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel J. Randall/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015.

Samuel J. Randall

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Samuel J. Randall, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, half-hearted presidential candidate, and a long-serving politician from my hometown, Philadelphia. The last biography in my long-running 1880 series, it contains a lot of tariff and monetary disputes that no longer fascinate the nation as they once did, but should (I hope) be an enjoyable read. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the omission. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I'd suggest replacing the Blackburn image with one taken from http://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/cwpbh/05200/05210u.tif (Bibliographic details at http://www.loc.gov/item/brh2003002521/PP/ ) - it makes the page look untidy to have one tiny image. Sometimes that might be justified - as it would be if no other images existed - but they do in this case. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nikkimaria. did you want me to use File:Joseph Clay Stiles Blackburn - Brady-Handy.jpg, or did you think that could be upgraded from the original in higher resolution? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given he's not the main subject, let's go with that one. If you're interested in Blackburn, I'll do a full restoration of him for you, but he's not the main focus of the article by any means, after all, and we don't need a featured picture for every person mentioned in an FA, right? =) That said, I bet that lead image could be made an FP... But! We're going off-topic. Image issues sorted. .  Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Only thing - and this is easy to make it work either way: CSS crop Blackburn (as now) or upload a crop as a new file? Normally, I'd say it doesn't matter, but we've cropped pretty heavily, so it might slim a few hundred kilobytes off the page if we did crop. On the other hand, I do like the functionality of clicking on the cropped image leading to the uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen CSS cropping, but I don't know how to do it. If you want to have at it, though, that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)°
 * Nice. Really emphasises that magnificent mustache. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber
Taking a look now. WIll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * he did not follow his father into the law - "the" law? We'd just say "law" here in Australia...is it different over there?
 * In the United States, "the law" is usually how lawyers describe our profession. A AmEng/BrEng difference, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I feel smater now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Worsening health also curtailed his power until his death in 1890. - makes the subject sound like an active agent...another verb for "curtailed" would be a better fit though an alternative does not immediately spring to mind....


 * If the sources have some dates to add about when he father and grandfather were active in politics, I think they'd be useful to add to give some temporal context.
 * None of the sources mention years, exactly. I'll look around for more and see what I can find. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I found a Philadelphia history that narrows it down a bit. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 *  In the meantime, the divisions in the state party harmed Randall's chances at the Speaker's chair - given the next sentence, something more definitive than "harmed" might work better - "proved ruinous for" or somesuch.


 * That makes sense. I changed it to your wording. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Rest of it reads well, without any prose-clangers leaping out at me, and its sounds comprehensive, so it's a tentative support pending a bit of investigation above....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments leaning support. Sorry if any of these are outdated, am doing this offline.
 * Infobox
 * The father's last name seems misspelled.
 * Fixed.
 * Why is Randall listed as a Whig based on what seems only a slight amount of campaigning, and not a Know Nothing when he was elected as same?
 * I wouldn't call him a Know Nothing, but more of a Whig with some Know Nothing leanings. None of the sources suggest he actually joined the party, which actually involved some initiation rites, I think.
 * Lede
 * "the President of the United States" I would cut the "the"
 * Done.
 * "political family of Whig leanings," this seems awkward. I suggest "family active in Whig politics"
 * Done
 * The second paragraph could be divided.
 * Done
 * "raised his profile within the House Democratic caucus, and they elevated him to Speaker" "they" refers to "caucus", which would probably get an "it" in American English. Suggest tinkering.
 * I changed it, should be OK now.
 * " the Democrats lost the House in 1881" perhaps "control" after "lost"
 * Done.
 * Early life
 * "Center City, Philadelphia" I would not use the comma, based on how we would have referred to it at my time at Penn, not too long after that of Ben Franklin.
 * You're right, I'm not sure why the article on Center City lists it that way. Fixed.
 * "a school connected" perhaps "affiliated" for "connected"
 * Done
 * "counting-house" the hyphen feels 19th century, would go without it. Do we have a suitable article to pipe to? And do silk merchants have counting houses?
 * I actually had intended to change that to "bookkeeper" a while back, since that's really what the job was, I think. Fixed.
 * Local
 * The Randall who is elected as councilman is, I assume, Samuel?
 * Yes, fixed.
 * "as all of the county's townships and boroughs were consolidated into one co-terminious city" I would strike "co-terminous", as it adds nothing (it doesn't make it clear that city and county are coterminous). And the reader may not know what county.
 * Fixed and linked.
 * "State Senate". Not sure "State" is capped.  Ditto with State House of Reps.
 * You're probably right. Wikipedia's eccentric capitalization continues to flummox me. Fixed.
 * War, etc.
 * The final sentence, the second 'Johnson' could be changed to "him".
 * Done.
 * " and Randall saw them as a back-door method of overspending what Congress had legally permitted" Well, they were, weren't they? Does this really need to be stated? (again)
 * Nah. Fixed.
 * Grant administration is not linked on first use.
 * Done.
 * "sought to have one implicated politician, Vice President Schuyler Colfax, impeached" maybe "sought to have Vice President Schuyler Colfax, implicated in the scandal, impeached." It might be worth stressing that the problem was not so much that they owned stock, but that they had been allowed to buy it at bargain rates, per Garfield, etc.
 * Yes, fixed both.
 * The description of the 1876 election contretemps may be a bit too long, given the limited connection with Randall.
 * Trimmed it a bit.
 * Monetary
 * "agreed to let the House vote on repeal, which narrowly passed." I think you need a "its" before "repeal" or else change the "which" to something more involved.
 * Done.
 * Potter
 * "Pelton telegrams" Might be best to include Pelton's name when you mention the nephew (I assume he was?)
 * Good point -- done.
 * Reelected Speaker
 * You should make it clearer in the first paragraph that the the candidacy you are mentioning was for Speaker.
 * Done.
 * The image caption says Blackburn challenged Randall. That's not what it says in the text.
 * Should be more accurate now.
 * 1880
 * " bowed out of " perhaps "withdrew from"
 * Done.
 * " meaning Randall's time as speaker was at an end" well, except for the lame duck session. Why the lower case on speaker?
 * Fixed.
 * Tariffs
 * "provided only a 10% reduction" probably need a "for" before "only". Also, I think percent signs are frowned upon in prose.
 * Fixed both.
 * "who unfamiliar with Randall" missing "were"
 * Yup.
 * That's the caucus vote, right?
 * Yes, added that.
 * "allowed Randall to keep charge of Appropriations" except he didn't control Appropriations before this, he was in the minority.
 * Changed it to "take charge of..."
 * Declining
 * "Cleveland's defeat" you haven't mentioned the nature of his defeat.
 * Fixed.
 * That's about it. Good job on an obscure figure.  Sorry to be so slow to review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. I'll get to these over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just ping me when you are done, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been traveling. I hope to get to the rest today. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that should be all of it. Thanks for the thorough review and sorry about the delay in responding. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Well done--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review – spotchecks not done Looks good otherwise, and no obvious reliability issues - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * References – all good.
 * Sources – per MOS:ACCESS, proper subheadings should be used instead of pseudo-headings
 * Memorial addresses... should be title case rather than sentence case, to be consistent with the other citations
 * Thanks for the review! These should be all fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Review by Acdixon
Comment: On first read-thru, I don't see any major errors. Just a few things I'd like to note before supporting.
 * Lead:
 * "His rise in politics began with election to the Philadelphia Common Council and then to the Pennsylvania State Senate." Would like to see a date or timeframe here, just to get some context in the lead of when he first entered public life.
 * "His defense of smaller, less centralized government raised his profile among House Democrats, and they elevated him to Speaker in 1876." As this is the first sentence of a new paragraph, I would change one of the first two instances of "his" to "Randall's".
 * I've made both of these changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Early life and family:
 * "Josiah Randall was a leading Philadelphia lawyer who had served in the state legislature in the 1820s." Consider linking "state legislature".
 * I linked it to Pennsylvania General Assembly. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Local politics and military service
 * "The strength of this group, combined with the Whigs' declining fortunes, led Samuel Randall to call himself an "American Whig" when he ran for Philadelphia Common Council the following year." Do the sources indicate whether Randall shared any ideological tenets with the American Party, or was this just a nomenclature decision to present himself favorably to supporters of that party?
 * The source says only that he was "impressed with the strength" of the Know Nothing movement. I've read nothing to suggest he was nativist, and as he became a Democrat in a district with a growing Irish population, my guess would be that it was purely opportunism. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't say what the sources don't say. I frequently find myself in that situation. Just thought I'd ask. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "He was elected, holding office from 1852 to 1856." Did this constitute a single term, or was he re-elected? Also, you might try to combine this short sentence with the one following it.
 * It was four one-year terms. I added that detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "In 1863, he re-joined the unit, this time as a captain." That's a big jump in rank for someone who did 90 days of non-combat service. I'm assuming this was a political promotion. Any details?
 * Neither source mentions it, but that unit elected its officers, so it's possible that his political position in civilian life made the men consider him for military leadership. But there's nothing explicit I can use to prove that. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's still worth adding the detail that he was elected captain by his unit. The sources don't let us speak to their motivation, but it still clarifies the large jump in rank for people – like myself – that don't have a super-great understanding of how these things work (or have worked, historically). Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The House quote is an excellent addition to this section. Just thought I'd mention that.
 * Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Election to the House
 * "The district had been designed by a Republican legislature for a Democratic candidate, with the other four districts in the city gerrymandered to guarantee Republican control." Maybe flip the facts in this sentence around to lead with the idea that Republicans had created four favorable districts but left Randall's for a Democrat. Otherwise, you're halfway through the sentence wondering why Republicans designed a district for a Democrat.
 * Good point. I reworded it.
 * "Gaining the Democratic nomination was, thus, tantamount to election; Randall did so, defeating former mayor Richard Vaux for their party's endorsement." I don't love the phrase "Randall did so" right in the middle of this sentence. Maybe just "Randall defeated former mayor..." Also, was there not even token Republican opposition in the general election?
 * I reworded and added the name of his GOP opponent.
 * "Randall quickly became known as a friend to the manufacturers in his district, especially as concerned protective tariffs." Is an "it" missing in the latter half of this sentence?
 * There probably should be. Added. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Appropriations and investigations
 * "During the Grant administration, he questioned thousands of items in the appropriation bills, often gaining the support of Republicans in excising dishonest expenditures." I'm unclear what constitutes a "dishonest expenditure" here.
 * I changed it to "expenditures that were in excess of the departments' needs", which seems to be what the author was getting at. He does call them "dishonest" and "graft", but those aren't particularly useful in explaining it.
 * "He successfully proposed a law that ended the practice, common at the time, of executive departments spending beyond what they had been appropriated, then petitioning Congress to retroactively approve the spending with a supplemental appropriation." The word "successfully" is misplaced here. It was not that he successfully proposed a bill; it was that he proposed a bill that was ultimately successful in becoming law.
 * True. Fixed.
 * "He also turned his attention to tax fraud by private tax collection contractors, known as the Sanborn incident. Fraud in the awarding of postal contracts, called the star route scandal, also drew his attention." These strike me as too imprecise. I suspect that these incidents "drew the attention" of anyone who read the newspapers of the day. Did Randall play any kind of role in investigating either event?
 * Yes, fixed.
 * "Seeing the unpopularity of the Salary Grab, the incoming 43rd Congress repealed it almost immediately." Presumably, Randall voted to preserve it?
 * He actually voted for repeal, which his biographer strangely failed to mention. I found the roll call in an older source. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Rise to prominence
 * "Kerr and Randall began to work more closely together through 1876, but he died in August of that year, leaving the Speakership vacant once again." Even though the context makes it clear, I still might replace "he" with "Kerr" here.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hayes and Tilden
 * "Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, had 163; the remaining 22 votes were in doubt, with official returns from both parties claiming to be legitimate." The returns didn't claim anything. The parties claimed their returns were legitimate. Given the next paragraph, you could probably just drop the last part of this sentence entirely.
 * Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Monetary disputes
 * "As the session began, many in the Democratic caucus were determine to repeal the Specie Payment Resumption Act of 1875." I think "determine" should be "determined".
 * Done.
 * "Randall allowed the bill to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote in November 1877: the result was its passage by a vote of 163 to 34 (with 94 members absent)." Wow, that seems like a lot of absent members. Any explanation?
 * It was a special session on appropriations, and the absent members were mostly Eastern members, involved in elections in their homes states. I added a note to that effect.
 * Much better; thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Declining influence
 * "Mills's bill would make small cuts to tariffs on raw materials, but relatively deeper cuts to those on manufactured goods; Randall, representing a manufacturing district, opposed it immediately." Is it Mills's or Mills'? If Mills', correct throughout.
 * MOS:POSS says either is correct, as long as it's consistent. I've always used "Mills's". --Coemgenus (talk)


 * Death
 * "Randall's positions on tariffs and pensions had made him "a practical Republican" by 1888." According to whom?
 * The New York Times. I added that attribution. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The tactic was effective, as he faced only token opposition for reelection that year." What tactic?
 * I clarified. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Much clearer. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "He had recently joined the First Presbyterian Church in the capital, and his funeral was held there." Do we know if this was his first official religious affiliation?
 * It's the only mention of religion I saw in any of the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd ask. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That should be everything. Thanks again for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, nothing deal-breaking here, but a little housekeeping and clarification, if possible, would help. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after edits. A very nice article on an interesting guy. Rather a shame that there is so little published literature on him. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

 * Rather than let this FAC go to waste without consensus to promote, I'll review it. I hope to support it as well. Comments to come. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Early life and family
 * "Randall was born in 1828" -- why not include the full "October 10, 1828" date?
 * I think you should make it clear whether or not Randall was the eldest.


 * Local politics and military service
 * "the battle" -- no battle mentioned to back this up.


 * Election to the House
 * "a Republican elected the same year" -- elected the same year as Randall (1862), or elected the same year Randall entered Congress (1863)?


 * Appropriations and investigations
 * "excising dishonest expenditures" -- I'm not sure what you mean here. Clarify?


 * Rise to prominence
 * "Republican measures" -- do you mean all laws that were backed by Republicans; laws that were conservative in nature; or just Reconstruction Era laws? You also use "Republican measures" in the "War and Reconstruction" section. That should be tidied up as well.


 * Monetary disputes
 * "this would effectively return the United States" -- what does "effectively" add to this sentence?
 * It elides a complex issue that would probably add nothing to the biography. The Coinage Act of 1873 (currently nominated for FA, itself) didn't explicitly say gold was the only basis of the U.S. dollar, but so marginalized silver that the effect was the same. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 1880 presidential election
 * "Major General Winfield Scott Hancock." -- could you clarify whether Hancock was actively in the military at the time of his presidential campaign (I doubt that, but anyway)
 * He actually was! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow... --cera don  06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The quibbles above are quite minor, in my opinion, and do not stop me from supporting promotion of this FAC. Good work,. --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 03:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for the review and support. I'll be glad to address these this weekend along with the remaining points from Acdixon's review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That should be everything. Thanks again. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.