Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898/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 00:22, 6 August 2012.

United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. From the bad old days when state legislatures elected senators comes this tale of pressure politics, money, and influence starring Senator Mark Hanna and men putting themselves and their careers on the line to give or deny him another term. And, perhaps, their money. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Support subject to source and image issues. One of my recent peer reviews; all my concerns were addressed and I am now happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Image and technical check and Support Wow. Superb initial submission. Images check out except the McKisson photo needs an author. You can list unknown if that's the case. Consider a support when source check complete and that author is added. Technical aspects look outstanding. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've noted that the author on the McKisson is not known.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
 * Support on prose. Interesting read although it is probably one of Wehwalt's shorter articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Next one's twice as long. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Source comment - how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have to consider all the circumstances. It is a master's thesis, yes; however, it is thoroughly footnoted, it is cited as a source by William Horner's book, which I've used extensively per here, and Warken went on to be a published historian, see his obit here.  The policy is not hard and fast, but depends on the circumstances.  It's higher quality than a lot of stuff we work from, it's cited to proper newspapers and to the then current biographies of the principal actors, and I have no issue with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for caring enough for digging that deep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The article refers to policy debates about "free silver versus the gold standard". Then at some later point the article refers to "Silver Republican" and "Silver Democrat". But the two are not explicitly linked. I'm assuming that the term "Silver Republican" refers to republicans who favoured free silver, but that needs to be explicitly stated. Also, given that the issue is a recurring theme in the events described by this article, I don't feel wikilinking "free silver" is enough - without visiting that article, I had no idea to what it referred. Furthermore, I note that the "free silver" WP article says that supporters were referred to as "silverites", yet the Ohio 1898 election WP article refers to them as "Silver". This could use a tidy-up. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll put in a bit when discussing the 1896 election. I don't think "silverite" was a formal term.  I'll also put in a hatnote, perhaps, to Cross of Gold speech, which contains thorough background on the silver issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done that now. Silverite is a term for a silver supporter, but it is not the only such term.  I hope this is sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I have obviously no previous experience with the subject dealt in this article, but the fact that I was able to read it from top to bottom and fully understand it reveals that it has been well written. I believe it's a great choice for a new FA and I can only wonder how much work Wehwalt probably had doing it. It was certainly worth the reading. --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the good words and for the support. It took about a week to write.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes:
 * Wehwalt, is it standard for such article infoboxes to duplicate candidate name/party links under "Senator before election" and "Elected Senator"? If so, leave them; if not, looks like blue overkill.
 * It's consistent with all other Ohio Senate election articles, though none are featured, example. The only other featured article on a Senate election, United States Senate election in California, 1950, did not involve an incumbent gaining re-election, however, the victor in the race, Richard Nixon, is of course named and linked in the candidate information below his picture and above his vote total.  So I would say that it's consistent with existing articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Brian and PumpkinSky, can you clarify whether your requests for source checks have been met by Nikki's review, or were you after spotchecks for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy with Nikki's review. No other checks required. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Nikki's review too. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.