Template:Did you know nominations/Winfield Hancock presidential campaign, 1880
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Winfield Hancock presidential campaign, 1880 edit
... that while it wasn't enough to win the election, a forged letter which suggested that his opponent favored unlimited Chinese immigration caused Winfield S. Hancock to win California & Nevada?(source: http://elections.harpweek.com/1880/Overview-1880-3.htm )
Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC).
- I have now reviewed this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernice C. Downing. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 Please revise the hook; at 219 characters, it's 19 over the maximum of 200. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done; indeed, it should be good enough now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- The new hook lacks enough context to make it understandable, especially for non-US readers. In particular, "the election": what election? May I suggest a small rewording:
ALT1: ... that while it wasn't enough to win the U.S. presidency, a forged letter suggesting that his opponent favored unlimited Chinese immigration caused Winfield Hancock to win California & Nevada?
- —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent advice! Indeed, let's use your re-worded hook here, shall we? Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- It could be shortened further. I suggest the following. Full review upcoming. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
ALT1b: ... that Winfield Hancock's presidential campaign won California and Nevada due to a forged letter suggesting that his opponent favored unlimited Chinese immigration?
@Futurist110: New and long enough, QPQ done, Earwig detects no copyvios. The entire article is based on a single source (plus a results map), which is probably accurate, but it's unclear what kind of editorial control they use. I'd like to see more reliable sources used to write the article.- Also, the hook fact doesn't check out. The source says "The fake letter... may have undermined support for Garfield in the Far West. He lost California and Nevada by slim margins and narrowly won Oregon." This is weaker than saying that the results were because of the fake letter.
- This is a great topic, but it will need some rewriting from additional reliable sources before it can go on the Main Page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have now added more sources to this article. Also, here is an alternate hook for this article:
- It could be shortened further. I suggest the following. Full review upcoming. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent advice! Indeed, let's use your re-worded hook here, shall we? Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- The new hook lacks enough context to make it understandable, especially for non-US readers. In particular, "the election": what election? May I suggest a small rewording:
- Done; indeed, it should be good enough now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 Please revise the hook; at 219 characters, it's 19 over the maximum of 200. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the forged Morey letter may have helped 1880 U.S. Presidential candidate Winfield S. Hancock win California and Nevada? (source: http://elections.harpweek.com/1880/Overview-1880-3.htm )
- Anyway, please let me know what you think. Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue over sources has been addressed. I'm approving ALT2, with the addition of the qualifying language "may have" to match the language used in the source. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
