Template:Did you know nominations/Horatio Seymour presidential campaign, 1868

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Horatio Seymour presidential campaign, 1868

(

)

... that Horatio Seymour did not want to be the 1868 Democratic presidential nominee, but was given the nomination anyway? Source: Harpweek

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

Hook is cited/interesting, neutral, no copyright violations, article is new/long enough, images check out, no edit warring/dispute tags, etc. Few things before we promote this:

(1): QPQ is needed.

(2): For the two sources used, please specify the pages (either 1 or 2). The sources seem identical when looking at them from Wikipedia and we don't want to confuse readers into thinking they are duplicate.

(3): Though not needed for DYK, I would recommend expanding the intro a bit more.

Please ping me when this is done! MX (✉ • ✎) 14:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please give me several days to fix all of these issues. Futurist110 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Futurist110: Hello. Do you think you can get these issues fixed before end of week? MX (✉ • ✎) 14:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Editor has not responded to inquiries in almost two weeks. Two header tags have been raised by other editors in the article. Closing nomination. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've left the nominator a talk page message requesting him to respond. If there's no response or a negative response within the next few days, this can be closed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now done my QPQ nomination for this: Template:Did you know nominations/Calais Conference. Now, please let me address the other issues here later today. Futurist110 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now distinguished the two pages in this article and also expanded the introductory paragraph in this article a bit. Futurist110 (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. I'm worried about the "single source" tag in the header and the "category" tag at the bottom. We generally do not promote articles that have tags, and removing them without consensus is not allowed. Now, I wasn't the one who added them (courtesy ping to Bbarmadillo and Rosguill, the two that added the tags).

Looks good to me and I think that "single source" tag could be removed. But I think that the lead section is too long and needs shortening. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Futurist110, do you think you can address these concerns in the following days? I'm open to give you more time, just as long as you can commit to a date so we can come back here and re-review. I really want to see this great piece of work on the main page.
Narutolovehinata5, do you have any further advice on how to proceed or any insight on what to do with tags raised in the middle of a review? MX (✉ • ✎) 23:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

From experience, I have removed orange tags without consensus before as long as the issue was resolved, like more footnotes (addressed by adding footnotes) or more references (resolved by adding more citations). I don't really have much experience with one source, but my suggestion could be to try to find another source that discusses the same subject matter, and use that to complement the original citation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I added the single source tag. I think it's somewhat self-explanatory: while the article has many footnotes and provides an in-depth overview of the subject, it has only two citations, to different pages of the same article on the website harpweek.com. Given the depth of coverage, it's going to take a considerable amount of work to add citations to other sources such that the article won't be dominated by this one source, although I have no reason to believe that this source is not reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now added several other sources to this article and also added several other categories to this article. What else do I need to do right now? Futurist110 (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't object to the {single source} tag being removed at this time, although I will point out that the sections on the 1868 DNC and the Campaign are still entirely reliant on content from HarpWeek. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OK; good. Also, maybe I'll add some additional sources to this article at some future point in time. However, I am glad that it is already good enough for this tag to be removed right now.

Basically, the HarpWeek source is just so incredibly detailed--which is why I have relied on it so much for this article. Futurist110 (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to sign-off on this one. Multiple sources have been added and Futurist110 has explained why he/she depended almost entirely on only two sources when this was first nominated. I do agree HarpWeek is incredibly detailed and I don't think relying on them a lot is a problem (though taking this to GA or FA if the editor so plans to do so means this might be brought up again). Categories were also added and the lead was expanded. QPQ is now done, and previous review details still stand (see first review comment for full DYK review). Thank you to everyone that collaborated! Off it goes. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)