Wikipedia:Peer review/Cross of Gold speech/archive1

Cross of Gold speech
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to nominate it for FA in due course. The Cross of Gold speech was long famous, though few really understand what it was all about. Hopefully I shed a little light on it.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a stab at this. Once ... long ago in a school far far away... I did a senior history paper on William Jennings Bryan. This was before I discovered that I really didn't like American history much, but I suspect I still remember bits and pieces. I'll get to work on this later today. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.
 * Lead:
 * Run on links: "Nebraska Congressman William Jennings Bryan"
 * Portrait faces out from the page ... you know someone will whine.
 * I know. I'm still looking for good images from 1896 that are defensible copyright-wise.  I've got a shot from outside the convention coming, and I plan to add two or three more.


 * Do we have an article on "presidential nomination" or the process ... for those who aren't familiar with American presidental elections?
 * United States presidential nominating convention it is only so-so and really deals with the modern beast. But it's the best we got.


 * Linkie for "monetary standard"?
 * Awkward: "upon which the United States had effectively been since 1873" can we reword ... perhaps "which the United States had effectively been on since 1873"?
 * Why is free silver in quotes?
 * Monetary standards:
 * Double linkage " United States Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton"
 * Is there actually a MOS issue for back to back links, or is it a matter of preference? It is natural to refer to someone by their title, and if you have to separate it, it looks awkward.
 * Tony got on my butt once for stringing links together - I don't have the MOS memorized, but I know I've been told to not do it. Manual of Style/Linking fifth bullet point. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * link for "mint"
 * Probably need a conversion for "ounce"
 * You say "new currency" but then later refer to the dollar. Perhaps it's best to specify that the dollar=new currency? Or continue to refer to this as the "currency" as later you actually define the "dollar"
 * why is the second mention of "dollar" in quotes?
 * Picky, but you haven't defined what the abbreviation "US" is for (and also - this is an American article - we generally use "U.S." with periods.
 * Double linkage" "Tennessee Senator (and future president) Andrew Johnson"
 * Political events:
 * Again, why "free silver" in quotes?
 * Triple linkage: " Missouri Representative Richard P. Bland,"
 * Need to briefly explain "passed over the veto" as non-Americans might not understand it.
 * Linkie "treasury notes" also "recession"
 * Non-Americans will probably miss the context of "1896 campaign" - best explain.
 * "Farmers went bankrupt; their farms were sold towards their debts." sounds jargonish. Perhaps "Farmers went bankrupt; their farms were sold to pay their debts."
 * Bryan prepares his rise:
 * Really dislike the title of this subsection - can we get it a bit less POVish?
 * "to end a strike against" strongly suggest "the strike" for two reasons - first linking "a+word" looks odd and two, using "the" makes it clearer that easter egg link is to ONE event rather than just to a general article on strikes. Would be even better if you dropped the easter eggishness and just did "to end the Pullman strike against..."
 * "Railway workers had joined the strike, which threatened to paralyze the nation's rail lines." okay - unless you know the details of the event, this isn't going to make any sense to folks - why did railway workers join the strike and/or why weren't they the ones that started teh strike (if the reader vaguely recalls that Pullman's are railway cars).
 * Linkie: "midterm elections"
 * Non Americans (as well a too many Americans who will have forgotten that the Senate was ever not popularly elected) will be confused by "The Republicans gained control of the House, as well as the Senate, which was then elected by state legislatures." Best explain.
 * Who is Stanley Jones and why do we care?
 * You mention this several times. Is it sufficient to add "historian"?  I already mention his book.
 * "Historian" would be fine ... just something to give folks an idea of why his opinion is important. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "...he believed the silver question could carry him not only to the nomination, but to the presidency." awkward, suggest rewording...
 * Best explain that the populist party was not a mainstream party at the time...
 * "You are young yet. Let Bland have the prize this time." need to explain who the heck Bland was and why he matters to Altgeld.
 * "Professor James A. Barnes, in his journal article pointing out myths..." two things - Who is Barnes and why do we care? and what journal - did he write in a historical journal or is the subject matter something else? Also - why "Professor" here? Didn't list title for the other guy - Jones.
 * Selection of delegates:
 * "The 1896 Democratic National Convention followed events unique in post-Civil War American history. One after another, state conventions to elect delegates to the national convention in Chicago repudiated an incumbent president of their party..." this is ass-backwards - suggest stating the events that happend THEN the fact that they were unique. As it is, the first sentence is jarring.
 * Let me explain. The 1896 campaign was very unusual, even for its time, and I feel it best to focus the attention of the reader right off the bat. That gives the reader the context to understand, as he reads, that it, even then, was not usual for presidents to be renounced by their own party.


 * "According to Professor James A. Barnes.." We've already discussed Barnes above, no need for full name and title here.
 * "Cleveland issued a statement urging Democratic voters to support gold—the next convention, in Illinois, unanimously supported silver..." Do you mean the next convention after Cleveland's statement? Confusing as written.
 * Okay... "A few states, such as Bryan's Nebraska, sent rival gold and silver delegations to the convention." how could they send rival delegations? Surely only one can be selected? (as an American who's reasonably well read in our history - I know, but most other Americans and almost all non-American's will be totally confused by this statement.)
 * 1896 convention:
 * Suggest you pare down some of this background as well as add a "main article" to this section - a lot of this is redundant to the actual speech. Detail is good, but some of this is overkill, especially with an article on the convention.
 * It is difficult. The speech has to be put in its context.  Part of the reason the speech was so successful was that events kept breaking Bryan's way.  I will look for stuff I can take out, but the world has changed so since 1896 (and we are so used to activist government and fiat money) that without the context, the speech has very little meaning.  Also, look at 1896 Democratic National Convention!  Perhaps I should work on that as well, but for now, it is in very poor shape.


 * Did Cleveland actually attend the convention? The reader will be a bit confused because of the mention of him doing more fishing than anything political.
 * "He arrived convinced that he would win the nomination. He had already begun work on a speech." Suggest "He arrived convinced that he would win the nomination and had already begun work on an acceptance speech." (or whatever sort of speech he'd begun work on)
 * Bryan did not know when he would make the speech. He got exactly what he wanted, but it could have wound up being the keynote speech if he had been temporary chairman, for example.  It was customary at the time for candidates to make acceptance speeches some time after the convention; Bryan made his in New York some weeks later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidates:
 * As above, condense some of this down - as it is really peripheral to the actual speech.
 * Bryan's path to the podium:
 * Again, the title of this subsection is POV - suggest "Pre-speech preparations" or something similar
 * Haven't defined "DNC"
 * "the pro-gold Democratic National Committee had seated the rival Nebraska delegation" - won't make any sense to non-Americans or those Americans who have forgotten all their High School American history.
 * "lame-duck committee"?
 * "The temporary chairmanship, for example, would have permitted him to deliver the keynote address." No idea what bearing this has on the "good luck" ... most folks would consider delivering the keynote address a good thing - nor is there any mention that Bryan was considered for the chairmanship - so the reader is left confused.
 * Making the speech:
 * Suggest "Speech delivery" or something similar - "making the speech" seems a bit too informal for an encyclopedia.
 * Who is Richard F. Bensel and why do we care?
 * "The self-deprecation helped disarm the delegates." Opinion - who's?
 * Convention events:
 * suggest explaining that the Washington Post is a newspaper - some won't know this.
 * Campaign and aftermath:
 * "Bryan did gain the support of the Populists..." suggest "Bryan did gain the support of the Populist Party..." to make this clear to readers
 * "Although McKinley outpolled him by 600,000 votes, Bryan received more votes than any other presidential candidate had." err.. something is missing here - if McKinley outpolled him, Bryan couldn't have received more votes than any other presidential candidate - do you mean "any other losing presidential candidate"?
 * "After McKinley's inauguration, increases in gold availability from new discoveries and improved refining methods led to a considerable increase in the money supply." - these were partly in Alaska, right?
 * Yes, Alaska/Klondike, South Africa, Australia. Also, the new methods made older deposits worth reopening.  Do you think I should mention the sources?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Although Bryan ran again on a silver platform in 1900, the issue..." suggest instead (to avoid the ugly easter egg link) "Although Bryan ran again on a silver platform in the Presidential election of 1900, the issue.."
 * Legacy:
 * Who is William Hardine and why do we care about his opinion?
 * Same for Edgar Lee Masters (even though you've linked...)
 * Same for William Safire (even though you've linked)
 * "William Safire, in his political dictionary, traces the term, common in the Reagan era, "trickle-down economics" to Bryan's statement that some believe that government should legislate for the wealthy, and allow prosperity to "leak through" on those below." very convoluted - suggest rewording.
 * "Williams suggests" - do you mean Safire? or someone else? If someone else, who???
 * File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg - when was this published or when did the copyright holder die?
 * I've clarified that it was published 10/3/96 per the L of C page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much it, I think. I've cut back on the context a bit but I feel that the world of 1896 is so unfamiliar to the reader that to be fair to him, I have to lead him by the hand a bit.  I'm sure you run into the same problem with your bishops, how much to explain about arcane ecclesiastical matters.  Especially since we have no decent articles about the Democratic side of the 1896 election (my Hanna and Hobart articles really only detail the Republican side).  I may be motivated to do something about that though, I think there is a rich field unmined here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)