Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James B. Weaver/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

James B. Weaver edit

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about James B. Weaver, a Civil War general and populist politician. From Republican to Greenback to Populist to Democrat, Weaver moved around the political parties of Gilded Age America, always in support of a fair shake for farmers and laborers. Or, that's how he'd tell it. Opponents might call him a chronic office-seeker and grabber of Indian lands. Either way, he's a figure I've found fascinating, and I hope you do, too.Coemgenus (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Coemgenus, could you let us know if this a Wikicup entry? The bot that used to highlight this is down, so we're on manual for the moment as far as checking goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ian: No, I did 99.5% of the work in 2014, so it's ineligible, as I understand it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The caption on the home identifies it as being in Bloomfield, but the text in that section says Bloomington - can you verify?
  • File:JBWeaver_signature.jpg: signatures typically aren't copyrightable in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the Bloomington error—don't know how I missed that one! And I didn't know that about signatures. Changed the license tag to {{PD-signature|USA}}. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey edit

  • I'm not a subject expert—I'm not even American. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or to revert any of my copyedits.
  • WP:ALT text for images would be nice — Curly Turkey 03:22, January 7, 2015 — continues after insertion below
    • I usually don't, because I think it largely duplicates the captions and very few people use it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • along the Chequest Creek: is it normal to call it the Chequest Creek?
    • I think so. Would you not use "the"? It just sounds natural to me that way.
      • Maybe it's a regional thing. I just wanted to make sure it was intentional. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clara gave birth to the couple's second child and first son: no word on their first child? I'd've thought that'd be a momentous occasion
    • My daughter's birth was certainly momentous to me, but none of Weaver's biographers saw fit to mention his. This older biography, which I didnt use, mentions his eldest daughter's married name, but not her given name nor her birthdate. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prohibition" is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not
    • Fixed.
  • "As one author put it": who? This requires in-text attribution
    • That's fine with me, I added his name to the sentence.
      • I replied on this point in my section below, too. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sell out the party at any time to the Democrats": requires attribution
    • I object to a couple of your edits along this line, though. Where there's a citation at the end of the sentence, I don't see the need to cite the same source again in mid-sentence just because there's a direct quotation there. Maybe there's a policy reason I don't know about, but if not, I'd like to undo that, if you don't mind.
      • Hmmm ... I've been told this is a requirement, but I can't find it in the MoS. Perhaps someone like SandyGeorgia could clarify? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trying to sort out who said what here, it appears that I'm being asked if direct quotes need to be cited where they occur, even if there is a citation provided later on ? WP:CITE says inline citation (and attribution) is required for quotations, and if you don't place the citation right after the quote, it a) could appear uncited, and b) it could get separated from its source if text is added or moved around. It is good practice to place the citation directly after the quote rather than later in the same paragraph (and I can't think of any reason not to). I haven't looked at the text in question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying it's a good idea, but not required? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's semantic; I'm not aware of a guideline that says you must place the citation immediately after the close quote mark, because that is common sense. I've never seen it done otherwise, and can't think of a good reason not to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you think it accords better with the rules to do it that way, I'm glad to leave it. I just always thought citing the same source twice in the same sentence was worthless clutter. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agree that it is clutter. I believed the rule was that a sentence having quoted material in it must have a ref. Not that the cite should immediately follow the quote.—indopug (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • receive more than 12% of the vote: where did he receive so much of the vote?
    • He got 11.7% in Texas. I added a note about it
  • Their candidate, John F. Lacey, was elected by 828 votes.: total, or more than the opponent?
    • I changed it to "an 828-vote majority".
  • threat to [[Jim Crow laws|the established order there]]: if "established order there" means "Jim Crow laws", I'd state so explicitly.
    • The established order wasn't the laws, but the people in power who passed and enforced them. Maybe Redeemers is a better link. I changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Curly Turkey, I'm happy to agree to leave the double cites in the article, unless some consensus emerges against them. Are there any other changes you think are needed? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. I wouldn't oppose over such a thing if it's not explicitly in the MoS. Either way, I hereby pledge my support to this worthy article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Curly's request above for in-text attribution ... WP:CITE says that's needed (at WP:INTEXT), and Chicago recommends that too, but AFAIK, generalized attribution is fine. One of the sentences in this article (after my tweak) is: "Pomeroy's faction, called the "Union Greenback Labor Party", was more radical and emphasized its independence, and suggested that Eastern Greenbackers were likely to "sell out the party at any time to the Democrats"." So, we can assume it was someone speaking on behalf of the party that made the "sell out" comment, and this is enough to avoid the ambiguity that usually results when you don't give the readers even a clue in the text who said what. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dank, those edits all look fine to me. Much appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did the good article review for this work, and found it to be well written, well researched, balanced, and interesting, and worthy of featured status.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Excellent work. A few quibbles:
  • I'm a bit concerned about the pipe of "anti-slavery" referring to the Republicans in 1856 to the abolitionism article. The Republicans were not abolitionists at that time. They opposed the spread of slavery.
  • Rephrased it.
  • Done.
  • "but Weaver moved on" informal?
  • Changed to "shrugged off the defeat". That still may be too informal, but I think it works.
  • "wanted to return the nation's currency to a gold standard as soon as possible" Well, if you want to be technical about it, the US had not yet been on the gold standard, at least formally. Until 1873, it was (at least technically) bimetallic. Perhaps rephrase around it?
  • True. I rephrased.
  • "Ezekiel S. Sampson, the incumbent Republican" must he be introduced at such length? As you've mentioned him, perhaps "Republican Congressman Sampson" would be sufficient, or possibly even "Sampson".
  • OK. I worried people may have forgotten him.
  • "Cutts died before taking office, and the Republicans offered to let Weaver run unopposed in the special election if he rejoined their party; he declined, and John C. Cook, a Democrat, won the seat." Would it have been unopposed or was Cook running anyway?
  • Neither Mitchell nor Haynes say so clearly, but it seems Cook was running regardless. The only question was whether the Republicans would field a candidate.
  • "an 828-vote majority" To avoid any ambiguity, perhaps change majority to margin
  • Done.
  • Why was Weaver claiming land? As I understand the Homestead Act, you had to improve it to get title to it, and I think live on it.
  • He didn't make a big announcement of it, but according to one biographer Weaver "had made it known to a few of his Oklahoma friends his intention to locate in Oklahoma and grow up with the territory." (Colbert 2008, p.191) There was also suspicion that he aimed at the eventual U.S. Senate seat there. I added a bit to suggest his motives.
  • "unlimited coinage of silver" Not linked on first use.
  • Fixed.
  • I note you make nouns that are groups of people (party, for example), plural. I understood this to be more a British practice.
  • I try to avoid it, but it does happen. Not proper American English, and I'm an American, so I should know better!
  • "As in 1880, the issue of race hurt the Populists " Well no, it hurt the Greenbacks in 1880. Perhaps make it in terms of Weaver.
  • Yes, done.
  • "President Cleveland convinced Congress to repeal the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which ensured the government would coin less silver" ambiguous whether the act or the repeal ensured this. I would say "purchase less silver for coining" to be accurate, the mints kept coining the accumulation from Bland-Allison and Sherman until 1904.
  • I missed that. Fixed.
  • "1894 saw pay cuts" I have an old fashioned prejudice against starting sentences with a numeral. "The year 1894"? Also, I'd move this sentence to start the next paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to move the sentence and tweak the language. Thanks for the review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review All sources are of high quality and appropriately and consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_B._Weaver/archive1&oldid=1077423341"