Wikipedia:Peer review/William McKinley 1896 presidential campaign/archive1

William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback pre-FAC

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BB
Thus far I have only found minor prose nitpicks (I'm about half-way through with my close reading). Here are my musings:
 * Background


 * "Afterwards, he attended law school and was admitted to the bar" - perhaps say which school and which bar?
 * (first para): suggest change "and was there" to "where he served"
 * The word "deemed" occurs twice in first line of second para
 * When mentioning "former Indiana senator Benjamin Harrison" it might avoid some headscratching if you add a parenthetical "(Ohio-born)"
 * "McKinley's tariff proved unpopular among many people who had to pay the increased prices, was seen as a reason not only for his defeat for re-election to Congress in 1890, but for the Republicans losing control of both House and Senate in that year's midterm elections". Needs an "and" after the first comma., although probably better split into two sentences.
 * Preparing for a run


 * I'm a bit unsure of the rather convoluted sentence structure here: "The 1894 election campaign saw the Democrats divided, and the new political party which had emerged from the agricultural discontent, the People's Party (or Populists), further splitting the electorate." I believe it could be simplified to something like: "The 1894 election campaign saw the Democrats divided, and the electorate further split by the new People's Party (or Populists), which had emerged from the agricultural discontent."
 * First modern primary campaign


 * Perhaps describe Rove as a "sometime" presidential advisor rather than "former", which might suggest that his service as an advisor predated McKinley's presidency
 * "To devote full-time" → "To devote himself full-time"
 * "angered that he had appointed members of that faith as governor" → "angered that as governor he had appointed to office members of that faith" – meaning ambiguous otherwise.
 * (final paragraph) McKinley's "large" or "sizable" lead mentioned twice in quick succession. Suggest then final para could begin: "By the time the state conventions concluded, McKinley's lead was such that his opponents' only hope was with the..." etc

Fascinating, especially in comparing today's presidential campaigns with then. I'm looking forward to reading the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It really wasn't too different. One way or another, you are drowned in the message and the same people keep on running things. I'm up to date so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

On we go:
 * Republican convention


 * "A test vote was on the credentials report..." Missing word ("held"?)
 * "should stay on the subject" → "should say on the subject"
 * We have fairly close "overwhelmingly...overwhelming", Perhaps tweak to avoid repetition
 * "Although Platt wanted a recess, Hanna refused it" – this suggests Hanna had a veto power. Would it be more accurate to say he "opposed" it?
 * We've been told that Hanna was in charge of the convention throughout. Thus he had the power to bind and loose and refuse recesses.


 * Four "ands" in the sentence beginning: "McKinley was waiting with family and friends..."
 * Getting an opponent


 * Slightly odd section title (though I can't at the moment suggest a better alternative)
 * The words "which as chairman was his responsibility" seem a trifle unnecessary
 * possibly adding "RNC" before chairman will clarify


 * It should be possible to rephrase, so as to avoid repeating "Democratic opponent" in the first line of the second para – particularly as the meanings are different in the respective uses
 * The link on Richard Bland goes to an 18th century cousin of Thomas Jefferson! A somewhat elderly contender for the nom, I would have thought.
 * Fundraising and organization


 * I'd split the overlong final sentence of the second para, after "political travelers", ditching the following "and"
 * "day to day" is normally written "day-to-day"
 * Front porch campaign


 * No specific issues
 * Issues and tactics


 * "By early in August": suggest drop either "By" or "in", preferably the former since you have "by mid August in ther next line.
 * "mid-August" normally hyphenated
 * "many midwestern Republicans that supported silver" → "many midwestern Republicans who supported silver"
 * I'm not sure of the encyclopaedic credentials of "bigwigs"
 * On balance, I'm inclined to let it stand for now. If it is a consistent source of ire, I'll get rid of it.
 * Election


 * No prose issues, but my source gives different voting figures – see below
 * Appraisal


 * You need to lose the comma after "harm Americans", otherwise the meaning is ambiguous
 * "literatures"? As a mass noun, there is no "s" in the plural form
 * Results


 * My source gives slightly different figures:
 * McKinley 7,111,607
 * Bryan 6,731,635, being Dem 6,509,052, People's 222,583
 * Palmer 134,645
 * Levering 131,312
 * Matchett 36,373
 * Bentley 13,968

This source is a New York Times book, The Book of Presidents, published in 1972 and carrying apparently impressive research credentials. There's quite a difference between his Bryan tally and that given in the article. Does the article's source carry particular authority that can be confidently asserted over other figures? As a matter of interest, our WP article United States presidential election, 1896 gives different figures again for the McKinley and Bryan votes.

That's me done. Excellent, clear exposition of a fascinating era. Three of my grandpparents were alive in 1896, so it's not that long ago really. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One of mine was, though I doubt McKinley got much literature to Galicia ... regarding the results. I stole that box from the US election 1896 article before doing the Bryan campaign article.  Possibly the box has seen some edits.  I will go find a National Archives sort of source.  Thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding variant figures for Bryan. I suspect that it has to do with how to count the vote in states were "fusion" arrangements were not made but I will keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I've just been reading Paul F. Boller's account of the 1896 campaign (in Presidential Campaigns, OUP 1984). If this account is accurate, the Republicans went to extraordinary lengths to pressurise voters. Railroads put notices in pay envelopes warning of shutdowns if Bryan won; bankers promised extended low-interest mortgages if McKinley won. The head of Steinway, the piano manufacturers, warned his workers that if Bryan was elected, "the whistle will not blow" the next day; many New England employers made similar threats to shut down in the event of a Bryan victory. Makes Nixon's "dirty tricks" seems like pussyfooting; is it worthy of mention? Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

(By the way, Boller gives McKinley's vote as 7,111,607 (agrees with NYT) and Bryan's as 6,509,052, also agreeing with NYT's Democratic Party total. Boller doesn't give Bryan's People's total, nor the minor candidates' figures.) Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have info on such "dirty tricks". I had hesitated to add it as I can't show it was part of the McKinley campaign per se but I think we're tracking pretty broadly in this article, so I'll add something. Bryan's Populist total was very small as in most states, the Democrats and Populists agreed to a "fusion ticket", thus if a state had 11 electors, perhaps 8 would be Democrats (and vote for Sewall for VP) and 3 Populists (and vote for Watson).  I'll see what Rove, my most recent source, has to say on the question of totals.  I don't know why there is a difference but it is showing up online too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the numbers: there seem an infinite number of small variations in the vote totals. I've taken the National Archives as far as it goes and taken another source to go with on the rest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)