Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896/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 12:24, 14 May 2012 [1].

---

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it's time to advance Wikipedia's coverage of presidential election campaigns into the 19th century. William Jennings Bryan. While Bryan may not have been the longest long shot to gain a nomination, he certainly was among the most dramatic, taking it after his Cross of Gold speech electrified the Democratic National Convention. One of an ongoing series revolving around the 1896 presidential election, but probably the last for a while.Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Source and images - spotchecks not done.

• FN 80: page?
• Some grammatical problems in captions - for example "tours...was unprecedented"
• File:Bryan-Sewall.jpg is tagged as lacking author information. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are fixed, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Support: I did the GA review earlier this month; I reviewed the article against FA standards, and the issues I brought forward were mainly dealt with promptly. A couple of questions I raised about image licences were not however addressed:-

• File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg: I asked why the licence tag was doubled, and also suggested that there does not seem to be evidence within the LoC records as to when this image was published. So I queried the basis for the "published before 1923" claim.
• File:Bryan1899.jpg: Again, no details of first publication provided, and the artist died only in 1949, so is the licencing tag correct? There's an additional factor with this image: the handwritten caption refers to "Bryan in 1899", so the cartoon is not contemporary with the subject of this article.

I'd like these image questions to be resolved. I have not otherwise carried out a detailed image review, and as always my support is conditional on this being carried out successfully. Otherwise, this an educative and (to me at any rate) fascinating glimpse of politics in another time, another place, and forms part of an important series on presidential history which I shall follow with great interest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. Thank you for the support and it is good to see you back. Regarding the first, the LOC states that it was copyrighted. It does not state when it was copyrighted, indeed, and I see online no obvious means of getting a copyright date online, but I assume in good faith that were the copyright date late enough to be significant, the page would not say that it knows of no known restrictions on reproduction. I see nothing in the other data on the page which would lead me to contradict this. Regarding the 1899 image: The National Archives states that it was drawn in response to a speech by Bryan "I stand where I stood three years ago." I can't find anything authoritative that says it was actually printed at the time, but surely if it was prepared and saved, it was not rejected, and there are a fair number of websites which have printed it and credited the National Archives. It is not perfect in either case, but it strikes me as close enough not to deprive our users of content.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to pursue these points, as my knowledge of the finer points of US copyright law is limited. Your explanations seem entirely reasonable to me; I am simply aware, through experience and the tutelege of the great Jappalang, that snares exist in this area and that it is best to be mindful of them. Brianboulton (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Having checked these images and their sources myself, I'm inclined to accept that they may be used here. However I'm also curious as to why we have the duplicated PD-1923 tag in the first one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now fixed that. Thank you for pointing it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Credit where it's due, Brian pointed it out above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Minor quibbles that don't affect my support:

• "Bryan's old teacher, former senator Trumbull passed away" – he didn't pass away, pass over or pass out – he died: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms
• "Neither candidate had much money to spend on their campaigns" – Neither candidate had much money to spend on his campaign
• "he had three reasons: … and because"
• "advisor" or "adviser"? – you have both
• "Deep South and Rocky Mountain states" – non-American readers will probably know about the Deep South but will possibly not know which the Rocky Mountain states are

That's my lot. A fine and comprehensive article; the text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. I take the same view as Brianboulton about the images. Tim riley (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the supports and for the useful comments which I will take pains to implement.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Those things are fixed. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to take a deeper look at this article tomorrow. But for now, I have a few issues with the lead:
  • The first sentence places too much emphasis on the other presidential campaigns. Saying "each was unsuccessful" doesn't seem necessary or take into account campaign success outside of an outright election to the presidency.
  • In the second paragraph, I feel the first sentence is awkward and can be broken into two sentences with the last part merged with the first of the next sentence. With this, the whole paragraph can be rewritten. Suggestion: "Born in 1860, Bryan grew up in rural Illinois and in 1887 moved to Nebraska, where he practiced law and entered politics. He won election to U.S. House of Representatives in 1890, and was re-elected once, before mounting an unsuccessful Senate run. Despite the loss, he set his sights on higher office, believing he could be elected president in 1896 even though he remained a relatively minor figure in the Democratic Party. In anticipation of a presidential run, he spent much of 1895 and early 1896 making speeches across the United States, displaying his oratory skills, which increased his popularity in his party."
  • In the third paragraph, the passive sentence should be rewritten. I suggest: "Bryan went to the Democratic convention in Chicago as an undeclared candidate, whom the press had given a small chance of becoming the Democratic nominee."
  • The last sentence in the lead reads awkwardly with the semicolon. I suggest: "Although defeated in the election, Bryan's campaign made him a national figure, which he remained until his death in 1925."

More to come. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and for your continuing work. I have implemented your suggestions, though making tweaks in the proposed language to avoid duplicated words, etc.

• In the section "Bryan", I did some copy-editing and rearranged some things for better flow (please make sure I didn't mess up anything). I see the note as to why you used the "Jacksonville in that state" phrasing, but it reads very awkwardly. Is there another way to phrase it? I also think the sentence, "who influenced him in a dislike for wealth and business monopolies" should be reworded.

All reference to Jacksonville stricken. Thanks for the touch-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Economic depression; rise of free silver

• The second and third sentences are way too wordy and hard to read. I suggest rewording in some way or breaking them down into shorter sentences.
• The 1878 Bland-Allison Act and the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had been passed as compromises." What was the nature of the compromise?

Fixed. I'm trying to keep the example of the $10 in silver bullion as part of that sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Preparation

• I see that in the quote from Historian James Barnes, term "democracy" is used, which you interpret to refer to the Democratic Party. Might he just be referring to the nation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when Barnes uses Democracy with a capital letter, he seems to be referring to the Democratic Party. One, he uses democracy lower case, and is referring to the concept, that the convention was "democracy at work"; he may in fact be making a pun. Example of his usage: "The letters of Grover Cleveland, William D. Bynum, Don M. Dickinson, Daniel Lamont, Richard Olney, John G. Carlisle, Henry Watterson, Lambert Tree, William E. Curtis, Charles S. Hamlin, and others show the despondency of the eastern Democrats; the depth of that despondency is indicated by the plan to send nondelegates to Chicago merely to demonstrate that the gold Democracy was not dead." --Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Convention

• "Cleveland's inability to affect events" What caused this inability?

Well, the silver delegates didn't like him or his policies, and they had a majority. Thus, anything Cleveland said would fall on deaf ears. It's all part of that effort to take over the Democratic Party the article talks about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What about "loss of influence" instead of "inability to affect events"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the semicolon used so often? It seems to me that in some places a semicolon is used, a period will suffice.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my writing style, it helps avoid short sentences which I feel don't serve the reader well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Speech and Nomination sections

• I very much enjoyed those sections. You did an excellent job there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wrote "Speech" last, because I wanted to see how it fit the whole article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

General election campaign

• I suggest that for clarity the last sentence in the third paragraph be rephrased: "However, Bryan's endorsement by the Populists soon after Chicago, his statement that he would undertake a nationwide tour on an unprecedented scale, and word from local activists of the strong silver sentiment in areas Republicans had to win, jarred McKinley's party from its complacency."

I realize that 'however' is contentious, but I don't think this use is editorializing. Rather, it shows how the list of items affected the Republican's outlook. I assume that is what the source reveals.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. While I borrow from a few different bits here and there in Morgan, the key sentence is "However, the Democrats' fusion with the Populists, Bryan's announcement that he would campaign in a national campaign, and reports that boarded on hysteria from Republican weather vanes moved Hanna into action by mid-July."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Populist nominee

• Who is Williams? We have not been introduced to this individual, and do not know why his opinion matters.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the prior usage got deleted somewhere along the line. He is R. Hal Williams who wrote the most recent book on 1896. I will go through these and fix them this evening. This is a very enjoyable review, knowing your knowledge of presidential campaigns.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph, "an question foreign to Populism laid in its nest to the exclusion of all other issues" doesn't make sense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A cowbird lays its eggs in other birds' nests, sometimes destroying the other eggs. It's a phrase which I think has to be in the article. I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on and hopefully fixed all of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I notice that you removed the part about Bryan's "gifted oratory" from the lead. Since his oratory pusedh him to the nomination, I definitely think that is something that should be emphasized. Nevertheless, I am satisfied this article meets the FA criteria, and so give my Support.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support; I have restored Bryan's oratory to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note/spotcheck -- looks like it's been quite a few FAC noms since your last source spotcheck, Wehwalt, so I've take the liberty...

• FN078 -- no issues.
• FN083 -- Hill's quote rendered accurately but I didn't spot anything on the cited page (or immediately before/after) clearly suggesting Gold Democrats were considering forming their own party.
• FN131 -- minor quibble, your statement suggests the Hearsts (were thought to have) made direct financial contributions to Bryan, whereas the source seems to indicate that they supported his candidacy in their papers only.
• FN132 -- accurate but I added the last few words of the sentence to the quote, else it strictly should've had ellipses to indicate it was incomplete.
• FN133 -- no issues.
• FN135 -- no issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the second one with additional citation from Jones, the key passage is "The big question for conservative Democrats was whether they should stay in the party or organize an independent third party movement." and goes on to discuss that. This is in Jones' chapter "Democratic Convention: Bryan". Regarding 131, I have struck that language in its entirety, it was added by Rjensen during the FAC (as was 132, which should say something about the much ballyhooed SME's), and perhaps I should have checked it more closely. I will now check the other stuff he added. Thanks for the check, and let me know if you need more done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All looks good, tks. Let me know here when you've completed your check on the "other stuff" you mentioned above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I cut all of it that you hadn't already checked. So hopefully it is good.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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