Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because... it meets the criteria in my view. The Cross of Gold speech is William Jennings Bryan's effort a the Democratic convention in 1896, which may have won him the nomination at the cost of the election. Though I think McKinley would have won regardless. While it is not a requirement to so state, I have reviewed the following articles which are at or have been at FAC, since my last nomination: John Tyler, Martha Layne Collins, Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Possibly others, I have not in the past kept track. Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Support: I think that this article is important enough and extremely well cited without a single citation needed tag that I can find. It is well written and appropriately illustrated as well. Zibart (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Support: Compelling stuff; the account of the Democratic Convention leading up to the speech, and the record of the speech itself, are particularly arresting. Naturally I have a few prose quibbles and minor queries:-
At least one too many commas in "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively been on since 1873, limited the money supply, but eased trade with other nations, such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold." Also "been on" jars - I'd make that "embraced". My version: "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively embraced in 1873, limited the money supply while easing trade with nations such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold."
California Gold Rush: I know there's a link, but the year should be given
Presumably the Coinage Act of 1873 preceded the Panic of 1873, but by how much?
Oxymoron watch: "a riveting three-hour address". Is the adjective yours, or was it described as such by someone who sat through it?
Kazin says (page 39) "It was a riveting performance". I assume he was not there, but the description convinces me it was justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"which was until 1913 not elected by the people, but instead by state legislatures". Slightly clumsy: "which until 1913 was elected by the state legislatures rather than the popular vote" would in my view be clearer.
When you say he "came up" with the phrase in 1894, do you mean he used it? It would be interesting to know exactly when and where.
Bryan lacked a seat at the start of the convention - but suddenly we have: "Bryan, once seated, was Nebraska's representative..." etc. How did he get to be seated?
It is mentioned in the quote from Barnes near the start of the "Silver advocates" section. The Credential Committees made two key rulings, they seated the pro-silver Nebraska and Michigan delegations, and their report was adopted by the convention. I felt that the Barnes quote adequately got us by something which would slow down the story to detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"an incendiary address" - yours, or source's?
The word is mine, but it is justified. Williams says, "Worse, he quickly lost the audience with an agitated speech which combined an appeal to sectionalism with rabid abuse of Grover Cleveland."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"The dissidents nominated their own ticket; the split in the vote would contribute to Bryan's defeat". The second part of this statement is questionable; the dissidents' candidate, John Palmer of Illinois, garnered only 0.95% of the vote. McKinley's margin over Bryan was over 4%. Thus it might be worth modifying the "would contribute" statement.
All in all, an article of the best quality. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the support. I need to doublecheck sources on a couple of those. I will say that Palmer/Buckner, while negligible on a national level, cost Bryan dearly in Kentucky.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I will address the remaining comments tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
All those things are done now, or else commented on. I'm content with the language on Palmer, he did hurt Bryan badly in the border states (Kentucky, where Buckner was from, and West Virginia, especially). I just say "contributing to" because the sources don't think the split was crucial, but it hurt him, along with many other things, the money advantage of the Republicans, the failure of the Democrats and Populists to fully fuse behind Bryan, and Bryan's failure to appeal to the urban vote. And other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Support - All of my concerns were addressed at the Peer Review. Excellent article on an interesting (and important) bit of American history. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and for the many comments at peer review, which led to a considerable improvement in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Added image also unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Cross_of_gold_speech_cartoon.jpg: source link returns 404 error, missing a US PD tag
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Be consistent in whether journal entries in Bibliography include complete page range or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoroughness; I will deal with these tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Those things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.