Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Henry Harrison presidential campaign, 1840/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017.

William Henry Harrison presidential campaign, 1840

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the famous "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign of 1840. The election may be quite old, but there are lessons in it that apply to today's politics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Moise
I've checked the 10 images and 2 sound clips, and they are all properly licensed. Tonight or soon I'll check the captions and templates. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I've now checked all the captions and alt text, and everything is in order. Image review passes. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood
William Henry Harrison and Tippecanoe: Candidate in 1836:
 * by 1840 the structure had vanished into the mansion that stood on the property - How so?
 * Even so, his military record was quickly controversial, and it remained so in 1840. - clarify "quickly controversial".
 * ...ran regional candidates for president who would boost turnout, increasing Whig chances further down the ticket - Strange turn of phrase. I do not know what it is supposed to mean. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Coemgenus

 * Lede
 * These sentences are a little awkward: "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won the presidential election, but he died after a month in office. His running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term, quickly breaking with the Whigs." I'd do something more like "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won a presidential election. A month after taking office, Harrison died and his running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term. Tyler quickly broke with the Whigs, causing conflict with former allies in Congress."


 * Background
 * "he bought a large tract of land from his father-in-law" could use a link to John Cleves Symmes.
 * "Hsinh a presidential candidate who was popular locally..." some kind of typo here.


 * Nominating convention
 * "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder, and provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority." I'd break this up into two sentences, maybe "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder. new York provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority."


 * Aftermath
 * "He left town, never to see the President again." I think the "he" here is Clay, but it would be best to change it to avoid ambiguity.


 * Much obliged for the review, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: I had a lengthy say in the peer review, and have nothing more to add. The article appears to meet all the required criteria, and for politics buffs it's an absorbing read, too. A sources review will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
All sources are high quality and reliable. I have just one small query related to formatting: the bibliography shows the Kindle editions of both the Collins and the Shafer books. For the Shafer book you show standard page references, but I'm not sure what the Collins numbers indicate. If they are page numbers they need pp.; if something else, a brief explanation would be helpful, e.g. "loc." Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, not all Kindle books have page numbers. I've added a note. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon
Interesting read, remarkably current. Some comments so far:
 * former allies in Congress -> link Congress?
 * Rewritten.


 * using his father's connections -> a bit of info of his dad would be good, at the very least enough to spell out his name and make that the link rather than the unspecific "his father"
 * My objection here is that I really don't want to say "Benjamin Harrison" right here as it is also the name of a later American president and I feel it is distracting to the reader. And WHH's dad is described almost first thing in the body of the ar
 * Ok, I understand.


 * until he won the office four years later. -> it's getting ahead of itself here, with the next paragraph having to back up to the campaign, so the question is: is there another way to say he never really stopped campaigning?
 * I had it as "never stopped campaigning after that", but Brianboulton objected to it at the peer review. I think the end of the paragraph provides the opportunity to back up a bit. After all, it's no secret Harrison won the election, we've just told the reader it and it's mentioned in the infobox. Open to suggestions.
 * I see things are a bit more complicated. I didn't know.
 * I hope I didn't come across the wrong way there. I was just trying to explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * no part in the selection of Tyler -> perhaps better: no part in the selection of Tyler as running mate?
 * Done.


 * March 1841; his death -> why no full stop?
 * Because that leaves the sentence about the inauguration too short, and in the case of Harrison the inauguration and the death are close in time and it makes sense to include it in the same sentence.


 * perhaps it could be helpful to say the cause of death in the lead?
 * We don't mention it in the body, actually. For good reason, see here.


 * at North Bend, on it was a log cabin; by 1840 -> not sure this is the best use of punctuation. I would start a new sentence with the log cabin
 * Split.


 * Harrison attacked his foes, and in the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813 in present-day Ontario. -> i think a verb is missing
 * Restructured.


 * remained controversial in 1840. -> I found that "in 1840" a bit odd. Until his death, maybe?
 * But this article is about the 1840 campaign. We already break chronology once to mention Harrison's death in a place where it was very relevant, the selection of Tyler. The cause here is too slight.


 * defeated by the Harrison forces -> forces is perhaps an unfortunate word choice, as I guess no actual fighting took place.
 * I've changed this, but military language has to a certain extent been adopted in political campaigns.
 * Yes, but because this article also describes real military action I think it is better not to use military metaphores for non-military actions by the same person.
 * Alright, I can think of a couple of later points when I do, I'll massage those.


 * Webster dropped out of the race in June 1839 -> maybe add, to be clear, something like "race, months before the convention, in"
 * The date of the convention ends the previous sentence. I think we're good here.


 * abolitionists -> worthy of link
 * Done.


 * Alexis de Tocqueville, -> some indication of why his words are worth listening to
 * Briefly recapped.


 * a Whig army of possibly 5,000 speakers -> I don't think using military metaphors is helpful in an article that also describes real military action
 * I've changed this one. See my comment above above military language though.


 * The future president spoke -> I assume this is Lincoln, but could refer to Harrison. Maybe better to rephrase.
 * I've done it, though I'm not certain there was ambiguity there.


 * at 1,275,390 for Harrison to 1,128,854 to Van Buren -> I would make that last to a for
 * Fine.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I've done that except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, one more: disappointment of some, like Henry Clay -> what's the rule to use full name versus only last
 * I'm not sure if there's a rule, but I tend to use first names more before a one-syllable name. Just "Clay" seems too abrupt somehow. I've been using Thaddeus Stevens' first name some because I'm hoping that people will remember who he is in an article which has a fair number of names.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, makes sense.

I'm afraid I don't have the sources to do a spot check. But I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * bibliography: New York referred to differently in line 1 and 2, 6
 * Thank you very much for your review and support. I've removed the state name from NY, NY for consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.