Talk:1880 Republican National Convention

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 1880 Republican National Convention is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star 1880 Republican National Convention is part of the United States presidential election, 1880 series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2007.

GA Nomination Success[edit]

Okay, this seems very easy for me, this passes on all fronts. It is written extremely well and complies with manual of style. It is fully referenced inline from reliable academic sources. It has a good broad coverage while staying on topic. Is presented in a neutral, factual, manner and seems largely stable being primarily written by a single editor with only limited activity since nomination. All images are PD with appropriate captions.

In terms of improvement, there isn't much I can say. Some areas could be made a bit smoother and double checked. For example, the last paragraph of Presenting the nominees uses "Garfield" over and over and over which I think impedes the flow a bit. Other than such minor points, I hope you take it up to FA. -- J Logan t/c: 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation, JLogan. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayes[edit]

According to this article, "Hayes knew that he was not likely to win in the 1880 election, so he chose not to seek re-election."

I remember reading in several places (although I cannot find a source at the moment) that Hayes had pledged long before that he would only serve one term, effectively making him a lame-duck president from the start of his only term. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Seleucus (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism?[edit]

I removed a banner pointing to the WikiProject Conservatism which was placed by Lionelt in February 2011. The banner was restored by Toa Nidhiki05.

I do not see any connection to conservatism in this article. It cannot be the Republican Party which was progressive in 1880. Please prove a connection to conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Still no connection demonstrated between this article and the topic of conservatism. No improvements have been made by any member of the WikiProject Conservatism. I am once again removing the project banner. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The 306 Stalwarts.[edit]

It is perhaps not known to editors of this article that the Three Hundred and Six Guard society included among themselves items of distinction, items that identified one member to another. It happens that one such item was a pocket watch, manufactured by the Elgin National Watched Company. The case of each watch was engraved with a commemoration, reading in one example as follows:

"THE NEW YORK FRIENDS OF Genl Grant to John M. Moltz of Fredricksburg Va Chicago Ills June 2nd 1880"

I will provide later set of photographs of this watch. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

source problem[edit]

  1. footnote NO. 17, "Cleveland Herald, May 31, 1880.", what's the title for the source, who's the author?
  2. footnote NO. 21, "Grant (1975), p321.", what's this stand for?
  3. footnotes NO. 23 & 79, "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 23, 1880." & "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 25, 1880.", where could I found those diary entries?
  4. footnotes NO. 131 & 132 seems exactly the same, but they're actually two different books when you open edit page, still don't know how's this happened.

--Jarodalien (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This article was featured a few years ago, and the sourcing is probably not up to today's FA standards. Let me look it over this week and see what I can do. I've got tons of books on the period already. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There's more, I'm thinking maybe needs a FAR.--Jarodalien (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I edited all six problem footnotes -- 17, 21, 23, 79, 131 and 132. If someone has suggestions for additions, deletions or edits, please let me know.
Billmckern (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Footnotes 126: "The exact majority in the popular vote is known to be below 10,000 votes, but the exact number is disputed. One election results source puts the number at 9,457 votes. Another puts at 7,368, and another has it at 1,898 votes." This needs to be clarify, which source indicate which number, and footnotes 131 & 132 seems still had same problem.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I've started re-citing it and doing some clean-up. Most of the newspaper citations actually come from Ackerman, who cites those newspapers in his book. I've changed them to cite the book directly, which is more in line with our policies. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks much better now, thanks. Meantime, I feel that if "those newspapers" were cited at Ackerman's book, and editor could verify them directly, it should still remain in this article, cause looks now, the whole article is a little bit, too much depended on this one book. My English is not well, hope you can understand what's my talking about here.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I became clear to me during the editing that he editor who wrote this almost certainly was just reading Ackerman's book, not tracking down the newspapers on microfilm or something. I've added in a couple of other sources, as Billmckern did, so it's less unbalanced now. Still needs some work, but I think it's a lot closer to the current FA standard now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)