This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ThaddeusB ( talk · contribs) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I will be conducting this review. I am reading the article now, and will post my initial comments sometime tomorrow. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has several strong points, and will likely meet GA standards after a little work, but right now I have some concerns. On the positive side, the article is well researched and cited. It is interesting and mostly well written. However, it is also confusing at parts. I admit that my confusion is partially due to my own minimal background knowledge, but I feel one shouldn't require much background knowledge to be able to follow an article on an election. This is a general use encyclopedia, not a scholarly study on elections.
A small part of the confusion arise from the use of several that contain 3+ grammatical clauses that are only loosely connected. These should be broken down into two smaller sentences whe possible. However, that is only a minor issue. I think the main source of confusion is the background section. You provide a lot of information which is good and useful in this section, but doesn't really belong in this article. It feels like you are trying to give a summary of a large chunk of the history of senate election procedures and the entirety of Hanna's political career. As a result, instead of supplying the knowledge necessary to understand the article the section only causes confusion. It would be much better to focus on information that actually plays into 1898 election. In other words, use your editorial judgement and "guide" the reader to what they need to know as background material in order to understand the events of 1897-8. Everything else should be removed (or moved to another article).
The rest of the article is more focused and thus until needs some minor tweaks. I'll do a more formal review with more specific comments after an attempt to address the "big picture" problem of lack of focus that leads to confusion. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made some edits to (hopefully) reduce potential confusion. I added adjectives in a few places where the sentence seemed ambiguous to me and deleted a few sentences which seemed to be needless asides. Please make sure the edits are factually accurate and agreeable to you.
A few sentences, highlighted below, I was unsure of:
Let me know if you have any disagreements with my changes and/or questions. It is entirely possible I got something wrong or was unclear somewhere. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pretty much all my concerns have been addressed, but see above for my last comment on suggested (optional) ref format for quotes of quotes.
-- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Article exceeds GA standards now, so I am passing it. I have a couple suggestions for work towards FA status, since that seems to be your aim:
That's all - the article is very close to FA status already, IMO. Keep up the good work. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Our article on John Sherman states:
"In 1897, newly elected President William McKinley appointed Sherman Secretary of State. Selected more for his high standing inside the Republican Party than any diplomatic experience, Sherman proved to be ineffective in the position and in 1898, McKinley replaced Sherman with Assistant Secretary of State William R. Day." (emphasis mine).
While Sherman of course had no previous experience in the state department, he did serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and therefore must have been at least slightly knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Since this article is active and on a related subject, I thought I would ask my question here: is the quoted statement accurate? Could we improve it somehow? NW ( Talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Elections in Ohio" sidebar is an unnecessary distraction near the top of the article. Should not navigation templates like this appear at the foot of the page? It is not necessary, in this well-focused article, to put before the text links to lists of (for example) municipal elections in three large cities. Kablammo ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=0079138.html&StartPage=138&EndPage=151&volume=79¬es=&newtitle=Volume%2079%20Page%20138When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection. This is a relatively minor adjustment, but as a section this title is usually placed first in the appendixes related to biographies or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography", per MOS:BIB. Using a separate source related "Bibliography" section is out of place, confusing, and not consistent with a majority of other articles. We commonly practice placing relate subjects in a subsection so it seems appropriate to follow this with source links (generally listed), and links providing inline text-source integrity, that combined form the citations. Otr500 ( talk) 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Should the flag of Ohio in the infobox be removed as it is not historically accurate to the date, as the flag was adopted in 1902, 4 years after the election took place? Politicsfan4 ( talk) 18:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: ThaddeusB ( talk · contribs) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I will be conducting this review. I am reading the article now, and will post my initial comments sometime tomorrow. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The article has several strong points, and will likely meet GA standards after a little work, but right now I have some concerns. On the positive side, the article is well researched and cited. It is interesting and mostly well written. However, it is also confusing at parts. I admit that my confusion is partially due to my own minimal background knowledge, but I feel one shouldn't require much background knowledge to be able to follow an article on an election. This is a general use encyclopedia, not a scholarly study on elections.
A small part of the confusion arise from the use of several that contain 3+ grammatical clauses that are only loosely connected. These should be broken down into two smaller sentences whe possible. However, that is only a minor issue. I think the main source of confusion is the background section. You provide a lot of information which is good and useful in this section, but doesn't really belong in this article. It feels like you are trying to give a summary of a large chunk of the history of senate election procedures and the entirety of Hanna's political career. As a result, instead of supplying the knowledge necessary to understand the article the section only causes confusion. It would be much better to focus on information that actually plays into 1898 election. In other words, use your editorial judgement and "guide" the reader to what they need to know as background material in order to understand the events of 1897-8. Everything else should be removed (or moved to another article).
The rest of the article is more focused and thus until needs some minor tweaks. I'll do a more formal review with more specific comments after an attempt to address the "big picture" problem of lack of focus that leads to confusion. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made some edits to (hopefully) reduce potential confusion. I added adjectives in a few places where the sentence seemed ambiguous to me and deleted a few sentences which seemed to be needless asides. Please make sure the edits are factually accurate and agreeable to you.
A few sentences, highlighted below, I was unsure of:
Let me know if you have any disagreements with my changes and/or questions. It is entirely possible I got something wrong or was unclear somewhere. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Pretty much all my concerns have been addressed, but see above for my last comment on suggested (optional) ref format for quotes of quotes.
-- ThaddeusB ( talk) 21:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Article exceeds GA standards now, so I am passing it. I have a couple suggestions for work towards FA status, since that seems to be your aim:
That's all - the article is very close to FA status already, IMO. Keep up the good work. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Our article on John Sherman states:
"In 1897, newly elected President William McKinley appointed Sherman Secretary of State. Selected more for his high standing inside the Republican Party than any diplomatic experience, Sherman proved to be ineffective in the position and in 1898, McKinley replaced Sherman with Assistant Secretary of State William R. Day." (emphasis mine).
While Sherman of course had no previous experience in the state department, he did serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and therefore must have been at least slightly knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Since this article is active and on a related subject, I thought I would ask my question here: is the quoted statement accurate? Could we improve it somehow? NW ( Talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Elections in Ohio" sidebar is an unnecessary distraction near the top of the article. Should not navigation templates like this appear at the foot of the page? It is not necessary, in this well-focused article, to put before the text links to lists of (for example) municipal elections in three large cities. Kablammo ( talk) 11:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Ohio, 1898. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohstemplate.cfm?action=detail&Page=0079138.html&StartPage=138&EndPage=151&volume=79¬es=&newtitle=Volume%2079%20Page%20138When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I changed the "Bibliography" section to a subsection. This is a relatively minor adjustment, but as a section this title is usually placed first in the appendixes related to biographies or named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography", per MOS:BIB. Using a separate source related "Bibliography" section is out of place, confusing, and not consistent with a majority of other articles. We commonly practice placing relate subjects in a subsection so it seems appropriate to follow this with source links (generally listed), and links providing inline text-source integrity, that combined form the citations. Otr500 ( talk) 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Should the flag of Ohio in the infobox be removed as it is not historically accurate to the date, as the flag was adopted in 1902, 4 years after the election took place? Politicsfan4 ( talk) 18:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)