Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rutherford B. Hayes/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:15, 26 December 2010 [1].

---

Rutherford B. Hayes

Rutherford B. Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Rutherford B. Hayes/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Rutherford B. Hayes/archive2

Nominator(s): Coemgenus 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After an extensive rewrite and expansion over the past month, I believe ol' Rutherford is ready for FA status. Coemgenus 15:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs John Pope, Reconstruction, Specie, William Allen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC) fixed all but specie; worked around by delinking, but plain gold will be just fine. East of Borschov 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• No dead links, but the Yale Law School url should be changed to avoid redirect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Coemgenus 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per 2a. The lead section needs work. These are likely to be easy fixes.

1. The lead claims that the 1876 election was "one of the most dishonest elections in American history", but this is a sweeping, unreferenced claim not made in the body of the article, a lead section faux pas.
2. The lead cites a quote that says Hayes was "a precursor of the Progressive movement". There's nothing about the Progressive movement in the body of the article; do we really want to mention it in the lead? This one is more of a judgement call, but personally I prefer such assessments to be fleshed out in the article. Also, Google Books tells me that elsewhere the biographer has written, "In retirement, Hayes was a precursor of the progressive movement." The omitted "in retirement" qualifier gives the passage a somewhat different meaning, suggesting that Hayes wasn't a "precursor" as president.
3. Personally I'd prefer just a bit more on his Civil War service in the lead. The text as it reads now is the kind of thing you'd write for any armchair general, not a hard-charging, oft-wounded combat veteran like Hayes. —Kevin Myers 17:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• You're right: the lead is weak. I tried to implement your suggestions. I changed "one of the most dishonest elections in American history" to "one of the most contentious and hotly disputed elections in American history", which I think the article establishes better that "most dishonest." I took out the bit about Progressivism and added more about his military service, which was indeed beyond the ordinary citizen-officer's. I also re-worded some of the stuff about his political career where it didn't read well. Let me know if you think it needs more work, and thanks for the comments. --Coemgenus 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• That all looks better. I tried a pass at copyediting the lede too. —Kevin Myers 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Is there a way to start the lead with more than a one-sentence paragraph? I like how (for example) Samuel Adams and Edwin P. Morrow start with a sentence or two summarizing their overall political impact, and then go into details. I think it helps set the tone for the article. Just a thought. —Designate (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I like the way those articles begin, too, so I gave it a a shot. Let me know if that captures what you're looking for. --Coemgenus 13:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That looks good. One more thing, the article is inconsistent with capitalizing "presidency". I think it should be lowercase throughout but I'm not sure. —Designate (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• According to WP:Job titles, it should be lowercase "president" and "presidency" throughout, except when part of the name, i.e. President Hayes. Many US publications do capitalize President, using it as a short form of the proper noun President of the United States, but our style guide frowns on that. —Kevin Myers 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think WP:Job titles is wrong, but I've already fought and lost that battle in the past. I made the changes to conform to the MOS. Coemgenus 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• The link in ref 172 wasn't working. Maybe the fault is temporary, but check.
• Otherwise, sources and citations seem OK. I was not able to spotcheck refs against sources as none are online. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 172 was working a few days ago. If it doesn't come back up, I'll find another source for it. Coemgenus 15:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It seems to be up and running again. Coemgenus 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question: There's seems to be surprisingly little in the article about Hayes as an educational reformer, but this was one of his greatest political interests. Someone might want to have a look at the article "Rutherford B Hayes: Educator" by Henry Swint for more on this. Sir Nils (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Education was definitely a concern of his. As president, however, Hayes had no control over education policies in the states. He did more in that field as an ex-president than as a president, so I mentioned it there. Coemgenus 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There's now a good deal more about education there. Coemgenus 18:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning opposeSupport:

• The article needs some (relatively light technical) copyediting; this begins with the extra period at the end of the first paragraph, and ends with "president-elect Grover Cleveland" starting a sentence near the bottom.
• There seems to be a connection between the Panic of 1873 and the currency business; this is not very clear here. Was the currency debate a consequence of the panic, the coinage act, or what?
• This my big concern: where is legacy or historical commentary? Here's a laundry-list of questions to consider:

• how are he and his presidency perceived by historians? where does he tend to rank in historical rankings of presidents?
• possibly a contentious topic, but was it perceived at that time that ending reconstruction was a good idea (it's presented as being somewhat inevitable), and how has his decision to promise and implement it been viewed over time?
• were there any long-term consequences to his gubernatorial/presidential foreign/domestic/economic policies?
• were the educational reforms he advocated post-presidency enacted? successful?

-- Magic♪piano 23:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address the issues you've raised. There is no direct connection between the silver issue and the Panic that I know of, other than that in bad economic times, people are more concerned about the debts they owe, and that inflation makes debts less onerous to the debtor (and less profitable to the creditor). I added some explanation of that. I also added a bit about flagging support for military Reconstruction in the North, to show that it was growing unpopular nationwide. Hayes's biographers don't mention any lasting effects of his educational policy, other than the continued existence of Ohio State University, which was founded while he was governor. The charities he was involved in granted some scholarships, including one to W. E. B. Du Bois -- do you think that's worth mentioning, or is it too tangential?

This sounds worth mentioning to me. Magic♪piano 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to add a separate "legacy" section. I added one to James II of England during that FAC, and it quickly became a quagmire of historiographical argument without adding much to the article. I also think those historians' rankings of presidents are pretty useless attempts to quantify what is really a matter of opinion. As in some of the other featured articles about presidents, I'd like to add historical impact to individual topic sections where applicable. Nils added a sentence or two at the end of the civil service section that sums up Hayes's legacy there nicely. In the currency section, his legacy seems to be the temporary truce in silverite agitation, as I've noted there, but it didn't last, so it's not much of a legacy. In civil rights, it's the end of Reconstruction and the failure to promote racial harmony in the South. In foreign policy, there's pretty much no legacy to speak of except that city in Paraguay being named after him. So, all in all, I'm not sure how much more to add.

I'll give it another pass on the copy-editing, but my earlier attempt was pretty fruitless. I've read the article so many times now that it's hard to see typographical errors.--Coemgenus 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did at least want to pose the questions about longer-term legacy, since I'm not a big student of the era. In looking into the silver issue, I got the impression (from sources that focus on economic or historic issues, not Hayes) that the 1873 act is seen as a contributing factor to the panic later that year, if not necessarily the 1878 act. By the way, several sources I found (here's one) point out that this act did not in fact "demonetize silver" (language used in the WP article on the act) or "stop the coinage of silver" (what the Hayes article currently says), and that it was wrongly accused of doing so. Silver was still used in fractional coinage; only the silver dollar was discontinued since its silver content was worth more than $1, and was thus in practice being taken out of circulation for its silver content. You might want to look for more nuanced wording, or a source that addresses this subject more directly. (I'd also add language more directly connecting the drop in global silver prices with the passage of the 1873 act; this ties into Hayes' reasoning in rejecting the 1878 act.)

On other unrelated topics:

• I think the means by which Hayes and Lucy get together (his mother's exertions, etc) is worthy of more words.
• The seemingly-contentious relationship he had with the Democratic Congress could be played up a bit. Some sources I saw implied that he wrote an unusually large number of vetoes, at least partly due to standard partisan legislative tactics also used today, like inserting riders he opposed into "necessary" spending bills. Magic♪piano 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple sentences about DuBois and the Slater Fund. I also tried to clarify the nature of the Coinage Act of 1873, but I don't want to explain too much about the nineteenth-century monetary debates in the Hayes article. Instead, I think we should just explain enough to understand the actions Hayes took -- this is a biographical article, after all, not an economics article. I elaborated on his early days with Lucy, too, as you suggested. As to the vetoes, I'm not sure you're right. In four years, Hayes vetoed thirteen bills, one of which was overridden. Chester Arthur vetoed twelve bills in three and a half years. Grant vetoed 95 bills in eight years, and Cleveland vetoed 414 in his first term alone! If anything, Hayes was closer to the Whig ideal of the passive president than any of his contemporaries. I did add a paragraph about the appropriation riders, which is a pretty interesting episode. --Coemgenus 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to add a treatise on monetary policy, just enough to help connect the dots. :) It all looks good to me now. Magic♪piano 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments! I don't know why I left out the part about the appropriations vetoes -- it was pretty important. The article is much improved now, I think. --Coemgenus 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Are there any other concerns I should address? --Coemgenus 13:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments - not ready to support, as I think the prose needs some serious flow work as well as some concerns with comprehensiveness.

• General comments -
  • Sourcing - I noted this article which states that the first presidential library was Hayes - perhaps this point needs to be brought out as a legacy?
  • Speaking of legacy, I'm not seeing any sort of viewpoint on his presidency so far. This might have some information of use. Likewise this article might be of use.
  • I'm not seeing a lot of sources on the era he was president during. I see a couple of books were used on the year 1877, but some more infuriation on Reconstruction and the Gilded Age would help to round out any possible biases in the other sources.
  • Overlinking - I see a lot of terms that probably don't need to be linked - gallows, mental institution, murder, currency, heart attack - as well as a lot of terms that are linked multiple times in short order. Republican is way overlooked in the article, as well as Democrat, brevet, as well as a number of states. An audit of all the links needs to be undertaken to make sure you're not duplicating links or linking to things that are of low-value for understanding the article.
  • A concern is that there isn't a lot of context for why things are happening in political matters. His career as a Congressman is not given any context on why he voted the way he did.
  • I strongly suggest a copyedit by someone not from the United States - not only are there a number of verbose sentence structures, finding someone who isn't familiar with U.S. history will make sure that you haven't left out context that's important for understanding the article.
  • There are unsightly white gaps in the article, probably caused by the {{-}} templates that appear to be used to keep pictures with sections. However, this causes large blank areas on some screen sizes, and should be considered a bad idea.
• Specific comments -
  • Education - What are "common schools"? needs explanation. Likewise "preparatory school"?
  • Education - what's meant by "where the curriculum was of a classical bent."?
  • Cincinnati - "Cincinnati, just across the Ohio River from Kentucky, a slave state, found many such cases in its courts." just sounds off, consider rewording this a bit to make it sounds less Victorian in its phrasing.
  • What does "running ahead of the ticket" mean?
  • Civil War - "The army spent the winter of 1862–1863 in winter quarters near Charleston, West Virginia. Hayes saw little action until July, when the division..." There is a disconnect between these two sentences, they don't flow well together.
  • Governor - I don't like the phrase "endorsed the impeachment and conviction of President Andrew Johnson." which implies that Johnson was both impeached AND convicted. Although he was impeached, he wasn't convicted. Perhaps a better phrasing is possible?
  • Governor - "Hayes was re-elected with an increased majority, …" just is clumsy - perhaps "Hayes was re-elected with a larger vote total than in 1867"?
  • private life - "That same year, the Panic of 1873 dashed business prospects across the nation…" dashed? perhaps rephrase to something less Victorian sounding…
  • Election of 1876 - "Because of fraud by both parties in the three disputed states, the results were uncertain, and the three states returned certificates of election for electors of both parties, with each claiming to be the only legitimate electors." I'm unclear what is meant here, as the phrasing is such that I'm lost in all the election/electors/etc.
  • Civil rights - okay, we had three states still under military government during the election but only two by the time he became president? How'd that happen?
  • "In his first year in office, Hayes contended with the largest labor disturbance to that time in American history…" awkward, consider rewording.
  • Consider culling some of the external links - is there really any need for the link to the Biographical directory of the US Congress or the Finda Grave link or the White House biography? Do any of those add anything additional to the understanding of the subject?
• My main concerns are comprehensiveness of the research and the prose. The prose is clunky in places and while I did a copyedit, I am no where near a copyediting genius. Strongly suggest an independent copyedit by a non-expert in U.S. history, and I can't really consider supporting until the prose issues are addressed. The above concerns are just the ones I noticed, and I cannot be sure of catching them all.
• I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool, and didn't get anything but Wikipedia mirrors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Eadglyth: Thanks very much for the copyediting you did. I'm embarrassed to have missed some of those things for so long. As to your comments, I'll address the general ones first. I've removed the {{-}} templates and it still looks OK. I've also dealt, I think, with the overlinking. I added a sentence about his library. I don't have JSTOR access just now, but I should be able to get it in the next few days, so I'll evaluate those articles you suggest (hopefully, this should be done before Christmas.) As to sourcing, I thought that the scholarly biographies of Hayes ought to form the backbone of the article, but I'll be glad to look for more general histories of the era to augment the biographical sources where necessary.

As to the specific issues: I think the revisions I made to his early education clarify the ambiguities there. I've tried to tread the line between "Victorian sounding" phrases and the "engaging, even brilliant" prose that the FA criteria call for. Unfortunately, I tend to sound high-fallutin and pompous when I write. I've toned down the sentences you pointed out into something more modern and prosaic. I think I fixed most of the problems you pointed out in that area, but I think "increased majority" is common enough phrasing to remain (I've run across it in lots of political histories and biographies.) I simplified the electors/election/electoral certificate detail in 1876 -- I think I had tried to cram too much minutia in one sentence. How it went from three to two states under reconstruction governments is actually explained in the footnote -- do you think I out to separate the substantive notes from the references like they did in this article? I also re-worded the sentence on the labor issues and further culled the external links (I agree that most external links in these types of articles are useless).

As I said, I'll look into more sources when JSTOR access happens, and I hope to resolve the rest of these issues quickly. Thanks again for your thorough review. --Coemgenus 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I separated the notes from the references. Still waiting on JSTOR access. Coemgenus 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...JSTOR access is harder to come by than I thought. I did find a copy of the Thelen article and added information and citations from it in the Post-presidency section. The Smith article is available for free here. Coemgenus 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've addressed your concerns. please let me know if there's anything I missed, or anything else you've thought of. Coemgenus 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

While I won't oppose, I don't feel comfortable supporting without someone independent going over the prose and doing some copyediting, it's still clunky at a number of points. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking at prose, am a little less than halfway through. It seems reasonable so far (I'm a science-minded Brit, so am definitely not an expert in American history) - I've made some tweaks and corrected the occasional error, but it was already in fairly good shape I felt. (I'm not an expert in copyediting either, but the acid test would seem to be whether one can easily follow the meaning and I've mostly been okay; some comments are below) I will try and a look through the rest sometime today or tomorrow. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. While going through, a few things I noticed:

• After a few months of training, Hayes and the 23rd Ohio set out for western Virginia in July 1861 - dates don't work if he only joined 23rd Ohio in June and had several months training.
• In November, Hayes was promoted to lieutenant colonel and led his troops deeper into western Virginia - was he now the overall leader? What about Stanley Matthews - was he not also lieutenant colonel?
• Following the rout, the Union forces destroyed Confederate supplies and engaged the enemy again successfully - "engaged the enemy again successfully" is a bit vague in my opinion - what happened to the enemy the second time?
• Early's army surprised them at Kernstown on July 24, where Hayes was slightly wounded and had a horse shot out from under him, and the army was defeated - This is unclear: was Hayes wounded because of the horse?

More comments probably coming when I look through the rest. I'm finding it interesting so far though. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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