Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898/archive1

United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I plan to nominate for FA, and would be grateful for feedback.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: In the main a gripping tale of power politics with a whiff of chicanery. Some of the technical or procedural issues may need clarifying for the benefit of those unfamiliar with US electoral practices past and present;; I have mentioned a few such points in my review.

Lead

The last phrase raises a couple of issues: " McKisson failed of re-election in 1899." It may be a question of AmEng idiom, though I have never encountered "failed of" in a considerable amount of American prose reading, and it does not sound right. People fail things (examinations, job interviews, to get elected, to get laid – I know of that which I speak) but they do not fail "of" these things. Also, clarify that McKisson's failure was to be re-elected as mayor, which I assume is the case.

Background

"...on the second Tuesday after the organization of the legislature..." What does "organization" mean in this context?

To elect a speaker or president, and other officers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Senator-elect" implies that Foraker had been selected by the legislature; can this be made more specific?
I'm not fond of the practice of placing key words in parentheses, in this case "(accurate)". Better to integrate the term into the main prose flow, e.g. "did not believe the rumors, later proved accurate,..."
"Hanna was commissioned by Governor Bushnell..." The term "appointed" rather than "commissioned" has been used previously.
I'm a little confused as to timings and the reasons for such long delays in the process. Why was Foraker a senator-elect for 13 months, and why, following his appointment on 5 March 1897, did Hanna have to wait nearly a year before he could be elected by the legislature? Dis the legislature have the year 1897 off? A few more exolanations may be necessary for the uninitiated.

At that time, the Ohio legislature was elected every two years. As the term Foraker was elected for began on March 4, 1897, that meant that the legislature which would be in office on that date would get to fill the seat. The 1895 elections went Republican, which meant that Calvin Brice was not re-elected, and the Republican-dominated legislature chose Foraker soon after it convened in January 1896. Ohio switched in even numbered years in 1905, btw, so when Foraker lost re-election after his second term (expiring in 1909), that legislature met in January 1909. According to Bybee, there were legislatures that had four-year terms, and sometimes someone would be a senator-elect for three years! As for the legislature, it met only briefly in the second year of the term, so had adjourned before Hanna was appointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1897 state legislative campaign

The first sentence refers to Hanna's "re-election", but he hadn't at that point been elected, only appointed.
"Democrats hoped that by defeating Hanna..." But, as I understand it, Hanna wasn't a candidate in the elections for the state legislature. I presume the Democrats were hoping to secure a majority in the legislature so that they could then defeat Hanna, but this is not really clear in the first paragraph.

Contest in Columbus

"They also tried to negotiate for a Democrat to be elected at least for the short term expiring in 1899". I think it needs to be made explicit, before now, that Hanna's election would only be valid for a year (the balance of Sherman's term) and that he would have to be separately elected for a full term. (I hope I am understanding this correctly).
"The legislature voted twice, once for the remainder of Sherman's term, once for the new term. There was no requirement the same person be elected for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the two Cincinnati Silver Republicans who changed sides and supported Hanna. You say taht "by one rumor, each had separately been offered the Senate seat in exchange for switching sides". I can't make any sense of that. How could they be offered the Senate seat in return for supporting Hanna's candidature for the seat?

The main idea was to defeat Hanna, who was the successful candidate was less important to the insurgents. Anyone But Hanna.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"McKisson ran for a third term as mayor in 1899. He was successful after a bitter battle in the Republican primary, but failed of re-election,..." I would reword this slightly. Saying that McKisson ran for a third term followed immediately by "He was successful..." gives the impression that he was re-elected. I'd say: " Although he won the Republican primary after a bitter battle, he failed..." etc
Dubious "as well" in third paragraph
"The amount to which money or patronage..." I'd change "amount" to "extent"

Nothing else: fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very grateful. I will work through these today.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of those now, and tried to clarify in the article even where I commented above. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]