Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Hanna/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 [1].

---

Mark Hanna

Mark Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Mark Hanna/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Mark Hanna. Political advisor, senator from Ohio, power behind the throne (maybe) in the McKinley administration. Perhaps more to the point entering this campaign season, his 1896 campaign for McKinley was in many ways the first modern political campaign. Come and lose yourself in the strange but familiar politics of the 1890s.Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The sources all appear to be of high quality. I assume Croly's still good 100 years on. I hope you don't mind if I list comments here and add to them day-by-day as I work through the article. I'm afraid I don't have the time for one sitting. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• "In 1869, he was elected to the Cleveland Board of Education, but he attended less than half the meetings at a time when he was traveling for business a great deal." This is a rather ugly sentence in an otherwise pretty section. I've already changed "less" to "fewer".
• There's a gaping hole between the first two paragraphs of the "Aspiring kingmaker (1880–1888)" section, as if the second paragraph is missing an opening sentence.
• "Congressman Garfield, who ran a front porch campaign". Is "Congressman" necessary?
• "Hanna, according to his biographer Croly..." Should this and the following two sentences have an inline cite to Croly?
• "Hanna supported Sherman because the candidate favored the gold standard, understood and acted to solve the problems of business, and because he was from Ohio." A couple of comments: (1) did Sherman actually understand and act to solve the problems of business, or was that merely Hanna's belief; (2) the second "because" seems out of place.

I would not throw a 1912 biography past the community without being comfortable with it. There is a discussion of Croly's book in Horner at pages 23 to 26. Croly was selected by Hanna's family, but he was a reputable biographer and it was written as part of an overall biographical series of major figures. I link to the discussion here. As Hanna's family destroyed his papers after Croly was done, Croly is the biographer who had the most information about Hanna. Croly is cited by Horner and other more modern works on Hanna, such as Stern's book. Yes, please feel free to work as you feel comfortable, it is a long article, but there is no alternative to considerable exposition if the reader is to understand why Hanna acted as he did. And there is no way to avoid talking about McKinley's actions as he sought the presidency, because you can't disconnect from Hanna, he was right there. I will look at your specific points. I do tend to overuse titles in an article like this, because it is difficult, but important to keep straight the changing titles of people who were advancing in life and politics just like Hanna was.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Sherman, from page 32 of Horner: "The presidential candidates he [Hanna] supported most energetically, Senator John Sherman and William McKinley, felt similarly to Hanna on the business issues he wanted the Republican Party to adopt." Horner is contrasting the Republican practice of "waving the bloody flag", which was the standard technique in late 19th century elections, blaming the Democrats for the Civil War. Hanna got tired of it sooner than many.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the other things as well. If I don't reply to something, it means I've accepted your point. However, there is sometimes a slip between cup and lip so you might want to keep track of my changes. Thank you for your comments; I look forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• "With McKinley’s candidacy needing little of his attention, Hanna spent much of his time working to secure..." Very picky, but this sentence says "secure" twice.
• "They observed McKinley as the Ohio governor presided over.." presiding?
• Some quotes are curly, others are straight, sometimes in the same quote (eg. “If Mr. Hanna has covered every district in the United States...). The same goes for apostrophes. The things that matter :)

I wrote part of this on board the cruise ship, and since they charge for internet by the minute, in my word processor. I did not realize that it was coming across as curly quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• "a nomination the Populist Party soon joined in." placement of preposition (end of sentence)?
• "Among those who visited were Bryan himself, accompanied by his defeated rival, Bland" should "were" be "was"?
• "Silver Republicans" who had bolted the party at the convention or later received nothing. This isn't a complete sentence.
• "Although Hanna was reputed to have control of the administration's patronage". would "reputed to control" suffice?
• "Over 250 officers and men were killed." Officers aren't men?

Short for enlisted men. If I just said men, readers with military knowledge would wonder why I did not include the officers.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• "With no drama, Hanna was re-elected in January 1904 for the term 1905—1911" en dash?

Support Good interesting read; high-quality sources; comprehensive and detailed; the right balance between coverage of Hanna's life and coverage of the political history of which he was so intimately a part. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not notice your final comments and will work through them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

They are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your removing the spaces from between the punctuation and the reference. I will know in the future to look out for those.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Missing citation info for Hobson
• There appears to be a formatting problem with FN 173
• Page number for File:Hanna_1877.png? File:Man_of_Mark.png?
• File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg: verify date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough comments; I thought I would get away clean this time! I don't have a page number on the Man of Mark image. Just the 8/4/1896 date for the Journal. The rest are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I did a long peer review for this impressive article, which provided me with a useful seminar on late 19th century political history. No doubt a few more tweaks around the edges will benefit it, but as it stands I am confident that it meets the criteria. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Very interesting, detailed and well-written article on a subject I am not overly familiar with. As Brian says above it is probably over the line already, but I had a quick flick through anyway and made two very minor edits to the prose, which you can see in the article history (I have – for a change, some would say – given care to leave detailed edit summaries). Very good work, which meets the criteria and more. I am very happy to support. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Alt text: Good thing I checked. There was none. To save you the bother I have written alt text for all of the images; I hope it meets with your approval. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Perfect amount of detail, very informative and well cited. Meets all of the FA criteria. A model article, and a great read! Happyme22 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would some of the folks who reviewed prose here please explain the use of "in around" to me?

Taken in around 1877

Wouldn't that be better phrased as "Taken about 1877"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fallen behind a little on my Milhist FACs while I'm putting energy into WP:FACG, the Guild's FAQ request page, but I'll get to this one today. "Mark Hanna, around 1877" is more common than "Mark Hanna, taken around 1877", and I made the edit. On the question of whether to put a preposition in front of "about", which I've struggled with myself, Garner's says: "at about. This phrase is sometimes criticized as a Redundancy, the argument being that about can often do the work by itself. It often can, but in many contexts, especially those involving expressions of time, the phrase at about is common, idiomatic, and unimpeachable." - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am content either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen "at about" followed by a year, or by anything other than a specific time, e.g "at about 10 o'clock". "At about 1877" seems like an aberration; can you cite any such thing in respectable prose? Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "around 1877" (as I mentioned above), but "at about 10 o'clock". My only point was that prepositions are sometimes permitted before "about". - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support:

• In "Nominating McKinley," you say that "McKinley was nominated easily." Does that mean on the first ballot? Did any other candidates receive votes?
• "Currency question": I think you explain the question well, except for the point that the gold standard actually resulted in deflation from about 1875 to 1900. It wasn't just that debtors wanted cheap money, but that they wanted money to stop getting more expensive. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

McKinley was nominated on the first ballot. The people I mentioned all received votes (Quay, Morton, Reed), as did Senator Allison of Iowa. It wasn't particularly close. McKinley was in full control of the convention, except for the 22 delegates who walked out. As for the money question, I'd prefer to avoid getting into the whole question of deflation. Just give the thumbnail and move on, I would say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've been forced down that path (usually by FA reviewers) and it does no one any good. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. Yes, boiling an economics that no one understands today down to a few sentences makes me want to make sure it is bulletproof and avoid side issues. If you feel strongly on either point please engage me on article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.