Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grover Cleveland

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 20:18, 8 March 2008.

Grover Cleveland edit

Check external links

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States. After a peer review and an extensive re-write and expansion, I think old Grover is ready to be featured. Coemgenus 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC), self-nom.[reply]

Support Looks good to me! RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've long been meaning to learn about this period of American history, so I read the article to educate myself. It did not let me down: I found it an absorbing and comprehensive read, well written and sourced (though I would advise more consistency in the bibliography, with some publication details further filled out). Congratulations to the main editor for the hard work that has clearly gone into this. qp10qp (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book template discussion moved to talk. PMA, please conduct off-topic discussion of FACs on the talk page, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support My main comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Grover Cleveland are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbles
- I doubt the popularity of Cleveland's action on the Pullman Strike is known, or knowable; acclaim from editorial pages is not the same thing. Rephrase?
  - I reworded it. Nevins says the leading Democratic and Republican newspapers praised him, so I used that instead. Coemgenus 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence on Princeton could use rethinking. Cleveland, like most of the Trustees, opposed Wilson on one major issue (which came up in several forms); this is not what the present sentence suggests. A good tertiary source (which is, despite its location, independent of the University) is scanned here. If you use it, cite as Alexander Leitch, A Princeton Companion, PUPress, 1978, "Grover Cleveland". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the change I just made should clarify the nature of their dispute. Coemgenus 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Took a stab at it myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- debasing the currency? Inflating would be preferable, and there may well be a better term. That's a Goldbug POV, surely? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Debasing may be incorrect, because they weren't adding base metals to the currency, just augmenting it with another (less) precious metal. I'll change it. I can just imagine if Wiki was around in those days, how we'd be inundated with silverite POV-pushers. Thank goodness people nowadays find bimetallism boring! Coemgenus 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should we note that the currency of Cleveland's time was in fact deflating? Price indices for the 1880's are not that hard to find, and they are fairly consistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering that it's a biogrpahical article, I think there's already a lot of explaining about 19th century currency politics. Maybe we should put something about it in the bimetallism or gold standard article. Coemgenus 02:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of them have something already, although gold standard could be clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The boxed quote in this section overlaps the photo of Randall. I'm sure that this is computer-dependent, but it can be avoided by moving to the end of the section, next to the tariff (to which it appears to refer). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reduced the width a bit, that might help, although I can't tell. On two different monitors (one standard running IE, one wide screen running Firefox) it looks ok to me. Coemgenus 02:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Works for me; I'm using IE. Other views? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe these quibbles are resolved, and they were never opposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: WP:PUNC review needed, I spotted some punctuation on quotes that was incorrect. Review endashes, I saw this: formed a 48-37 majority ... and others in the "Supreme Court appointments" section. Unformatted citation, raw URL: http://groverclevelandlibrary.org/ The external link checker (see top of the FAC) identifies a dead link, and there are some missing last accessdates on citations and sources (see WP:CITE/ES). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the vote tallies where they were hyphens. The rest should be ok, since I asked Brighterorange to go over it with his script, and I've tried to be careful in things I've added since then. I'll take a look at the rest of the punctuation and that source that needs formatting. Coemgenus 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think these puncuation and formatting issues are resolved. Coemgenus 20:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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