Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph B. Foraker/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 Ian Rose 16:56, 17 August 2012 [1].

Joseph B. Foraker edit

Featured article candidates/Joseph B. Foraker/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Joseph Foraker was an Ohio senator of the Gilded Age, who butted heads, often, with such figures as William McKinley and Mark Hanna. But his greatest battle, and probably his finest, was with Theodore Roosevelt in the Brownsville Affair, which was definitely not Roosevelt's finest hour, when Roosevelt dismissed over 160 black soldiers on almost no evidence, and without court martial, and Foraker went to war against him.. A figure who deserves a bit more than his present obscurity. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check images check out. PumpkinSky talk 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I downloaded most of them mysefl! Foraker hasn't sold at a premium in years, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Be consistent in whether you abbreviate Ohio
Be consistent in whether you include retrieval dates for GBooks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Did my work at the peer review, where my more significant points were fully addressed - see here. We appear to have different views about how verbatim quotes should be cited from a secondary source (see my PR comment), but I'm not making this an issue. Wikipedia is building quite a reputation as a source for information on the Gilded Age; certainly these articles have informed me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

If you could go through it one more time before I copyedit, Wehwalt, that would help. I'm finding sentences with no period or two periods at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, subject to the usual faults of editing one's own prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for "which" throughout and saw a lot of problems ... I tackled them in various ways, and I see Coemgenus also replaced some occurrences with "that". Please check the diffs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of my weak spots in writing. I've looked over the diffs and made a couple of adjustments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo. Per WP:MOS, "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb". Chicago and Garner's agree. I removed one re-inserted hyphen.

"The Major is never behind-hand with his claims. I tell him he 'wants the earth' …": I don't understand what the quote means. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying McKinley's being greedy by asking for his candidate to be appointed. Due to the great effect both men had on Foraker, I felt it worth illustrating that Hanna and McKinley weren't always a team.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, makes sense ... I believe the quote's easier to understand without the "behind-hand'; feel free to revert.

Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take many days to show up on that page.) Wow ... fantastic work, Wehwalt. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both for the kind words and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I found no glaring issues and the article reads fluidly. You may want to consider establishing whom is whom from time to time (e.g. 'Walter' and 'Dick') as I found myself having to refer back to earlier sections to refresh my memory. Then again, it could just be my short-term memory playing tricks. Well done. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. Senator Dick's name causes problems for better historians than me. Thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a few language tweaks, but found nothing wrong with the substance. The article is well-written and comprehensive. I'll give it another going-over today, but I don't expect to find much to bother about. Nice work! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for the review and the kind words from one very knowledgable about the period.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Minor formatting point: under Bibliography you link two publishers, but it looks like there are other books listed whose publishers could also be linked; not certain of MOS requirement and not fussed personally but really should be all possible or none, for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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