Talk:William Jennings Bryan 1896 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Brianboulton (talk · contribs) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

As I have said, my online access is very spasmodic at the moment (off all morning, on again now), so bear with me if my prose review is given in bits and pieces. Overall the article is reading well, and so far my comments are more by way of nitpicks. Here is my first chunk:-

Bryan

Sorry, we don't know what a stoop is over here. Is it a porch, front step, verandah etc?
"His oratory actually won him two rewards: the school prize in his junior year, and the affection of Mary Baird..." etc. I don't want to dampen a sweet story, but this is not really encyclopeadic style. I'd tone it down to something like: "His oratory won him the school prize in his junior year, and caught the attention of of Mary Baird..."
"A formative event in Bryan's life was his employment after college as a clerk from 1881 to 1883, while attending law school, in the Chicago office of his father's friend, former Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull." A bit clumsy. I'd try to simplify it, maybe: "A formative event in Bryan's life was his employment from 1881 to 1883, while attending law school, as a clerk in the Chicago office of his father's friend, former Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull."
" Bryan initially opened a law practice in Jacksonville, but while journeying to Kansas to collect a debt, he was greatly impressed by the potential of the West, and after visiting a friend in Lincoln, Nebraska, decided his future lay there." I've tweaked this, but it still seems longwinded and unnecessarily detailed.
Clarify that "the local seat" and the 1st Congressional District are one and the same.
"He introduced several proposals for the direct election of senators..." US senators, presumably. And you need to briefly say how they were elected at that time.
Clarify the party labels in the 1892 presidential elction (Cleveland & Harrison)

Economic depression; rise of free silver

Any reason available why Bryan, who initially had little interest in the free silver issue, had by 1893 become a strong supporter?

This will have to wait until Friday, when I'm home, but I believe that the reason is he came to see this, rather than the tariff, as the issue which was most material to improving the lot of poor people. He opposed the tariff, by the way. Also, he saw the political potential. I'll add something Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words "for a second time" are not really relevant
"required to the government" → "required the government"
"Rumors that Europeans were about to redeem a large sum for gold caused desperate selling on the stock market—the Panic of 1893 had begun." The phrasing, though vivid, is not truly encyclopaedic. I'd drop the mdash and conclude with something like, "triggering the Panic of 1893."
Are "the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890", "the silver purchase act" and "the purchase act" all the same? The last-named is a little uninformative.

Sherman Act always means the Anti-Trust law, which makes it difficult to describe this one. I'll work on it.--Wehwalt (talk)

Dark horse candidate - Preparation

Rephrase "he could apply ... he had applied"
Is there any indication as to how, in his 17-months campaign, Bryan was able to support himself (and finance the campaign)? Later you say: "He had no money which he could pour into his campaign..."

Yes, he received speaking fees, and also the World Herald paid him something. He always got his traveling expenses and usually got a fee of $50 to $100.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an observation, it is disappointing to learn that the famous Cross of Gold" lines were so thoroughly rehearsed. They must have soumded a bit stale when Bryan deployed them at the convention.

He probably said them in different ways, and no one expected an orator to be entirely original. Most of the delegates had heard him once or twice, I would think, at most, and few recently Parts of the speech were recorded by Bryan later, those sound stale.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He spoke at her funeral" → "Bryan spoke at her funeral"
" He was deeply moved..." This must be referring to Bryan, but it reads as though it was McKinley

Convention

"the Coliseum was located in a "dry" district of Chicago..." This is the first mention of the convention's venue apart from the caption, so I think a bit of description: "the Coliseum, the convention's main venue, was located in a "dry" district of Chicago..."
"The proposed platform was pro-silver; Senator Hill had offered an amendment backing the gold standard, which had been defeated by committee vote—Hill vowed to take the platform fight to the full convention." A semicolon and an mdash within one sentence destroys the prose flow. Suggest reorganise.

More on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work. I will deal with these, though some might take until I get home (it is a hot day here and I have retreated to the hotel for a bit).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these are done except for the how Bryan came to silver, that may have to wait until Friday.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More prose comments: -
Speech

It would be as well to clarify the start of Bryan's speech (e.g. "He began:"), since the previous blockquote is a quotation from a NYT article.
"...men of the East favored the gold standard" should end with colon rather than comma, to precede blockquote. Look for similiar punc details.
"Bryan soon left the convention" - redundant "soon"
Altgeld has twice previously been described as "Illinois Governor" so I think just "Altgeld" will do

Nomination

"He left the choice of a running mate to the convention, delegates selected Maine shipbuilder Arthur Sewall." There's a punc issue here (the comma).
Two "ands" in the nexy sentence
Can you clarify the date on which the nomination was effective? Are we still on July 10?

General election campaign

"...Charles G. Dawes, a McKinley adviser who had known Bryan when both lived in Lincoln, told McKinley..." Needs to be "had told" as you are reporting retrospectively

Populist endorsement

"They were correct in their reasoning" - such judgements need attribution

New York visit

Try to avoid "...the campaign.[101][102] The campaign..."
Colon after "organizations" should be semicolon
I don't know what to make of the "Father Knickerbocker" link. It provides no helpful information.
I don't know if a dinner can be properly described as "non-political". It might be better referred to as a private dinner.

Whistle-stop tour

Caption seems awkwardly phrased. As Mary is plainly the only woman in the group it's not necessary to indicate her position. I suggest: "Bryan (left) and his wife Mary on The Idler at Crestline, Ohio". Is it possible to date the image?
"some other town" → "another town" (maintaining encyclopaedic formality)
"The pamphlets which flooded the nation were read until they fell apart" - this, I take it, refers to McKinley's pamphlets mentioned earlier (no previous mention of Bryan pamphlets). Also, I think that "until they fell apart" is metaphorical, and shouldn't therefore be stated as fact.
In a quote, I know, but what is a "bowery"? (I've heard of "the Bowery" and the "Bowery Boys" but was unaware it existed independently of these).

this may, perhaps, shed some light. But read the story beginning on page 137 for a laugh.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final days and defeat

I think the phrase "symbolic of reconciliation" needs explaining for readers (younger Brits, maybe) unable to catch the reference to the opposing sides in the American Civil War. They may be thinking of reconciliation between silver and gold Democrats.

Appraisal and legacy

I believe the Scopes trial ended only days before Bryan died. To avoid confusion, perhaps say "in the last weeks of his life".
A nice touch, to end with the Lindsay poem. Oddly, the elegaic ending was written when Bryan, unlike Altgeld, was still very much alive.

Yes, Bryan was still alive in 1920, but he was no longer the Bryan of 1896, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That ends my detailed prose comments. I will look at and comment on sources and images, and should complete the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything except the one issue that will have to wait until I leaf through Bryan biographies. Thank you again. I followed generally the form of the later campaign articles, but had to do considerably more exposition due to the unfamiliarity people have with 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary: Subject to a couple of questions relating to images, I have completed my review.

Prose

The prose is in general excellent. I am happy to leave specific issues raised in the GA review to the judgement of the main editor.

Comprehensiveness

The article is long (c.8500w) and very comprehensive. Merely as a suggestion, perhaps consider in advance of a future FAC submission the conversion of some of the less essential details into footnotes.

Sourcing

Impeccable. No spotchecks done, but this can wait for the FAC

Images

I am pretty sure that all the images are PD, though in most cases the images descriptions could be improved, for example by including publisher details as well as links to online versions of the source. A couple of queries:-

File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg: Double licencing tag. There does not seem to be evidence within the LoC records as to when this image was published, so I wonder about 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

(I am not an expert on image copyrights so it is possible that other issues may be raised at the FAC.)

The article clearly meets the GA criteria, and I am accordingly closing the review. Please check the disambiguation tool for redirects and dabs. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the article has too much biography pre 1896 and should focus on that year. Rjensen (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're an expert. You need no introduction to 1896. While I've accepted your changes, as the article is too long and still reads OK with your cuts, the lay reader, the student, needs some background as to who William Jennings Bryan was, and on silver. I also use the bio section to establish Bryan's liberalism and to set up the fact that his positions were close to the Populists (and to set up the Populists, who have to be explained at some point). I am glad for your comments, but without saying who Bryan was and how it was the silver movement came about, the reader is going to be at something of a loss when plunged into 1896 without any context. All of my 1896 articles contain some degree of context, necessarily I think. In a biography, I can diffuse the explanation and gradually ease the reader to 1896, here I have no such luxury.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we have a long bio of Bryan that covers his biography. Was he "liberal" in 1896???? not the way he was in 1908. he talked free silver all the time -- that was a new idea for him that did not derive from pre-1894 era. As for the Populists, that part needs a rewrite too; there is a very large "cowbird" literature that is overlooked. The article is too much about BRYAN and not enough about his CAMPAIGN. The role of the Dem party, its state leaders, its newspapers, its ethnic groups, labor unions -- all deserve more coverage. The Silver Republican ticket needs coverage -- that's how he carried the mountain states. There are some good maps in First Battle that can be used. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Bryan of 1908 was different, he was competing with a Republican Party which was stealing his issues, for example on the trusts. But yes, I would say he was a liberal. We also have article size limitations you are aware of. A lot of what you mention is destined for the 1896 election article, which I will eventually get to, though how I can fit in a reasonable size I do not know. The Populists, you have a fair point, I don't talk about the middle-of-the-road, for example. This article is designed for the lay reader, lengthy digressions into Western fusion politics is going to bore the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits. You cannot simply change stuff which is cited to footnotes. You are a scholar. How would you feel if someone heedlessly altered your text, not even checking the sources to see if the material is in there or not? Is that proper practice? I am trying to respect you for your learning and accomplishments, please return to me at least some respect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"heedlessly altered your text" -- well that's what you just did. It's called an edit war to protect one person's ownership of the article. As I explained I am trying to add new material and reduce some of the duplication. There is a tendency to get ahead of the story (so in so is a future senator or future VP) and focus to much on Bryan's childhood and not enough on his 1896 campaign. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you expected to cite your text?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I own both Bensel and Horner, they are beside me as I speak. What text are you relying on in Bensel for your assertions about the Silver Republicans? I do not see either citation as supported.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing on page 117 of Harpine, which I also own, which relates to polls of labor workers. In my edition, it talks about a visit of workers from Homestead to Canton.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are generalizing from the fact that Hearst had more in gold than in silver, that all silver investors did. That is not warranted. That is very sloppy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]