Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 1880/archive1

United States presidential election, 1880

United States presidential election, 1880 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 1880/archive1

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a presidential election in the United States. By the popular vote, it was the closest in American history, but by the electoral vote (the one that actually determines the election) the Republican, James A. Garfield, was elected by a comfortable majority. The election was the first after the end of Reconstruction, and reflected what would become a pattern in the U.S. for a generation: the Democrats dominating the South, the Republicans holding most of the North, and a few close states (New York, Indiana, and New Jersey, among others) determining victory. Some of the issues, like immigration, continue to be debated in our own time. Others, like the tariff and the gold standard, have faded from the political scene. I hope you'll find it interesting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am a Wikicup competitor, but will probably be eliminated by August 31, so this article is not likely to matter in that competition. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Just want to say, I'm waiting this for so long... Only thing is 1880 Republican National Convention is not as good as 1880 Democratic National Convention & 1880 Greenback National Convention (I don't think that one could pass FA today), or else I think this could be another FT. Only one suggestion: I think section "Conventions" should had some short summary first, then goes to sub-section "Republicans", "Democrats", "Others", something like "...each party choose their candidate by national convention...", also the same as "Campaign". Just a thought.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good idea, I'll work on some language for that introduction to the conventions section. You're right about the RNC. I improved some of the references a few months ago, but the prose could still use some help. I hope to get to it before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I went with this: "The parties agreed on their respective platforms and nominees at conventions, which met in the summer before the election." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• For some reason the title of the last image is appearing in the caption
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I can't reproduce this problem on Chrome or Internet Explorer. Does still look that way to you? If it persists, I can replace the image and see if that helps. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Still that way in Firefox; full caption is "File:ARTHUR, Chester A-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg Chester Arthur served as President after Garfield's 1881 assassination." Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Weird. I swapped it for a normal image, so that should be fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• By-county map could stand to be larger
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• What is the source for File:ElectoralCollege1880.svg?
  • I don't know what the original uploader used. He hasn't edited since 2009. Would it be improper to attribute it to some source that does match the data there, even if we don't know that the author used that particular source? The data are widely available. I could source to the National Archives website. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png/File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that tag is the wrong one, anyway. I've swapped it for {{PD-US}}. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's a campaign poster, than how is not publication?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Nicely done, just my usual nitpicks.

• I hate to say anything negative regarding what is possibly the best short explanation of the silver question I've read, but " when both major parties nominated hard money men (candidates who favored the gold-backed currency were called "hard money" supporters, while the policy of encouraging inflation was known as "soft money")" could probably be compacted in a way that
• " in the most hotly contested presidential election to that time in the nation's history" 1800? 1824? The Corrupt Bargain?
• "the last election" I think you can get away with "it", so to speak. Maybe change the first word of the sentence from "The" to "That".
• In the sentence "still others", I'd avoid one of the uses of "representatives" either by switching to "congressmen" or shortening the Speaker's title.
• You have two people being flocked to. I suggest you select one, and as for the other, get the flock out of there (apologies to Porky's).
• "in his formal letter to party accepting ... most likely a "the" missing?
• You might want to make it clearer that Garfield made speeches from his front porch. A pipe for "his home" perhaps?
• "he was noted in particular for his personal leadership at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863" what's 'personal leadership' in this context?
• "New York harbor" I would cap and link the three words.
• " After several unsuccessful attempts at Republican nominations to various offices, and growing dissatisfied with the conservative wing of the party," I would add "making" before "unsuccessful".
• "the length of the campaign" suggest "duration" for "length"
• "As the Greenbackers had the only ticket that included a Southerner, he hoped to make inroads in the South." Southerner/South. Surely this can be avoided?
• "also suggested difficulty " hmm. Maybe "presaged" for "suggested"?
• "Confederate veterans pensions" this needs an apostrophe. Also veterans/veterans.
• " Democrats never made clear what about their victory would improve the nation;" maybe "how" for "what about". Did they attack Garfield for being a member of the Electoral Commission?
• "Garfield's success being centered in the more populous North " maybe "Garfield's triumphs in the more populous North"
• "but without evidence" maybe "but had no evidence"
• "served under him and Arthur without incident" maybe "served loyalty under him and Arthur"

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt, I'll get to these tonight or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

These are all done, except the first. I'm still not sure what to do with that, but I'll think about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: for the coordinators' sake, I just wanted to make sure that is a support (unless there's something I've missed, in which case I'd be glad to remedy it.) Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Hurricanehink

Support now! As a minor political junkie, I was happy to stumble from my FAC to here.

• How come the opening sentence is different? Most election articles start with "was the nth quadrennial presidential election". This just says that it was a contest. Was that a conscious decision?
  • I just thought it made more sense to mention first who contested the election, leaving the 24th quadrennial thing to the next sentence. More people know American elections the candidates than by whether it was the nth election. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Voter turnout was among the highest in the nation's history." - what was the ranking? Just curious. You say it was the highest at the time, but did any since then surpass it? Under the results section, you say "The voters showed their interest in the election by turning out in record numbers; 78 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot, the largest percentage to that date." But the article on Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections says 1876 surpassed it, as did 1860 and 1840.
  • My source there, Peskin, calls it the largest turnout to date, but as I read it again, it seems like it could mean largest percentage or largest number. I changed it to "among largest percentages in American history" just to be safe. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Weaver combined with two other minor candidates, Neal S. Dow and John W. Phelps" - I don't think "combined" is the best term here. Perhaps "in conjunction"?
  • I tweaked it, but I'm still not fully satisfied. I'll fiddle with it some more. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "a position Allan Peskin, a 20th-century biographer, called "inconsistent"." - this could probably be rewritten without commas. Perhaps "a position that 20th-century biographer Allan Peskin called "inconsistent"?
  • Yes, fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Garfield appointed a civil service reform supporter to the most lucrative government post in New York" - who was the supporter, and what was the post?
  • William H. Robertson. I added his name. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All in all a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Sounds great, I'm happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I can't really see anything I would change here, quite well done. Especially good intro lede sect, and Background sect. In addition, the graphics used are most impressive -- especially the Election Results by County !!! That graphic is quite something. Good job overall, — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I wish I could take credit for the map, but it was there when I started editing this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Source check All sources are of high quality, though I've never been a fan of the image of Garfield on the cover of Peskin. Not much you can do about that. References appear consistent, but 80 and 81 are identical.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ha! Thanks for the source review, and I agree about the Peskin cover. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)