Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Bread-Winners/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) 23:50, 19 August 2014.

The Bread-Winners

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a rather dated book by John Hay, subject of my last nomination. Controversial as it presented a hostile view of organized labor, Hay prudently published the book anonymously, which led to quite a guessing game that is now entirely forgotten, but that was one of the literary events of 1883. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per my PR comments. I'll have to abstain from an image review as I uploaded several of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: I, too, carried out a detailed peer review. I have reread the article and picked up a few minor points that I either missed or have arisen since my earlier review:
 * In the lead: "the Bread-winners ... calls" The verb looks wrong. Although "the Bread-Winners" refers to a group, they are a "they" rather than an "it", thus the verb should be "call"
 * "This transformation did not stop at Appomatox". American readers will no doubt understand this, others won't, and will be scrambling around the link. Why not "did not stop when the war ended"?
 * "suppression" repeated in first line, third paragraph, Postwar labor troubles section (first could be "intervention")
 * "Offitt, at birth, was given the name Andrew Jackson which according to Hay shows that the bearer..." etc. I presume this should be "given the forenames"? Or did he change his name from Jackson to Offitt? In either event, I wouldn't say "according to Hay", which suggests that he gave an overt explanation. Something like: "which, Hays explains in the book, shows that..." etc
 * "Gilder called it "a powerful book", did not immediately offer to publish it in his magazine". A "but" or similar should precede "did not"
 * "In an anonymous letter to The Century Magazine after the book was published, Hay alleged that he chose to remain anonymous..." The repetition jars slighly. And I'm unsure about "Hay alleged". You could say: "...Hay said that he chose not to reveal his authorship..."
 * "As the second installment was read, and the character of Alice Belding became prominent" → "As the character of Alice Belding became prominent in the second installment..."
 * Disagree, the focus should be on the second installment being distributed.
 * I'm not sure I understand the distinction. And "read" does not necessarily mean distributed. But I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "convincing himself he is not a fortune seeker" – I had difficulty with this phrasing at the PR, you may remember. It's OK, but I think the sense would be reinforced by making it "not merely a fortune seeker".
 * "By comparison, Democracy sold only 14,000 copies". By this stage I had forgotten about Democracy. It would help if you said: "Adams's Democracy".

These points are easily dealt with, and I see no reason to withhold support meantime. An interesting study of a forgotten literary work (which perhaps had best remain forgotten). Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Except for the one noted above, I have made those changes, though sometimes varying from the suggested language.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review
 * Minor ce undertaken on p. -> pp. and spacing.

Only one wrinkle, around caps, with Dalrymple having lower case text after the colon: all the other sources are capitalised throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fixed. I'm uncertain on "Anti-labor" vs. "Anti-Labor" but have elected the latter.  Please feel free to change it.  Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Images All images are OK: PD and with appropriate descriptions. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.