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 GrahamColm 10:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

John Sherman[edit]

John Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/John Sherman/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a total rewrite and a peer review, I believe it meets the standards. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have a few more, though the article is quite good, but I've got one issue: again as at PR, it's the Bland-Allison Act. The way you phrase it, you seem to say that the Act did authorize the free coinage of silver, but up to a limit. That is not the case. There was no free coinage of silver. The government simply purchased silver bullion on the open market, and struck it into silver dollars. The producer did not receive a premium for the bullion, as he would under a system of free coinage of silver with silver valued at less than $1.2929 per ounce. The nub of the matter is who gets the seignorage, that is the difference between the one-dollar coin and the value of the metal contained within it. Under free coinage, it's the producer, or whoever deposits the bullion at the mint or assay office. Under the Bland-Allison Act, it's the government.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd fixed that at the PR but, yes, the phrase "free coinage" seems to still be there. I took it out, but I'm not sure we're on the same page yet. The problem is that many historians and primary sources describe Bland's plan as free coinage, as the Sherman quote in that section does. Maybe it's a goldbug's way of denigrating it, or equating a moderate proposal with a more radical one, but it makes for difficulty in describing it accurately. --Coemgenus (talk)

Bland was certainly a free silver advocate, after all, he was a leading Democratic contender in 1896, so "Silver Dick" had to be. However, his bill did not pass the Senate without the amendment by Senator Allison which took out the free coinage of silver.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in agreement. Does the Bland-Allison section look right now? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still got quibbles. First, and more minor, under Bland's proposal, the government wouldn't "buy" the metal from miners, really. What was going on was that the depositors were getting back the bullion they put in (by then not the identical metal) now in coin form. Second, your description of Allison's amendment. It did more than just limit the amount. It changed it from a free-silver bill, one where depositors put in as much silver as they wanted and got it back as silver dollars (more likely as silver certificates, easier to carry). Allison's amendment eliminated the free-silver provision, but as a sop to the miners, required the government to buy on the open market from domestic producers a very large amount of bullion and strike it into silver dollars and issue silver certificate on that backing. So the miners didn't get the high profit from getting ninety cents in silver struck into a dollar coin, but they'd get a lot of silver used up, thus raising the price by supply/demand principles. Want me to take a shot at editing it directly? This is all fairly weird economics by today's standards.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to edit it yourself. It's complicated stuff, and I want to be sure it's right. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I played with it. How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Accurate and concise. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose and comprehensiveness. Had my say at the PR, as may be apparent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• All of the currency captions should not end in periods, nor should the Senate office
  • Done.
• File:John_Sherman_age_19.png: page?
  • Done.
• File:Demand_Legal_Comparison.jpg: tag parameter should indicate whether this is in circulation
  • Not sure what you want me to do here. The notes are not seen any more in circulation, but are legal tender. What should I write and where?
    • Fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• File:100_USD,_1890_series.jpg: source link is dead
  • Fixed.
• File:President_Pro_Tempore_US_Senate_Seal.svg: should include a licensing tag for the design; same with File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought there was one here for Pres Pro Tem and here. I don't understand what's missing. I didn't add these templates, I don't know anything about them. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably works of the government. I'd check around, you may be able to find out a bit. If you use it, even in a template, they call you on it at FAC. It can be irritating :) --Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always forget about the template crap at the bottom of the page. If we can't resolve it, I'd just as soon remove it. No sense letting it sink the whole article when it doesn't add that much. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These shood have the correct license now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

This is an excellent article, and I am strongly leaning towards supporting. It is comprehensive and well-balanced, complete and organized appropriately. The writing is excellent. I have found a few minor issues I'd like to see resolved before supporting, however.

• The lead is good, but it feels a bit short for an article of this size. Could it be lengthened a bit?
  • I had the opposite reaction when I finished writing: the lead is good, but the article's too long! I'll take a look, though, and see if I've left anything out. Is there anything in particular you think I ought to add?
    • Oh, something on his work in the House, Kansas, something more on his time as Secretary of the Treasury... he had a long and varied career. Many of his minor claims to fame would each make him notable enough for his own article, if they were the only things he ever did. So you have a lot to choose from. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I expanded it along those lines.
        • I have one new issue with the new material in the lead, which I'll describe below. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The grammar is excellent throughout, leaving me very little to nitpick. Still, I found a few peccadilloes. A comma is needed after "Sherman moved north to Cleveland, Ohio". (See bullet 2 at MOS:COMMA.) One is also needed after "Representative Winfield S. Kerr of Mansfield, Ohio".
  • Done.
• For a very similar reason, a comma is needed after "was born in Lancaster, Ohio, May 10, 1823" and "Cleveland signed it into law on February 4, 1887".
  • These already have them, don't they?
    • No, the year is a parenthetic and needs commas both before and after. It can look odd if you're not used to it, but this is "The September 26, 2013, review" and not "The September 26, 2013 review".
      • Got it. Fixed.

• Similarly, one is needed after "the April 9, 1870" in the first cartoon caption. In addition, that caption either needs the period removed (as it's not a complete sentence), or it needs the word "which" removed (my preference).
  • Removed "which".
    • Still needs the comma after the year. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got it.

• The caption that begins "An 1889 cartoon" either needs the period omitted, or needs "suggests" instead of "suggesting" (my preference).
  • Fixed.

• Most style guides agree that comma is needed to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction. So a comma is needed after "adjourned" in the second sentence of "House leadership". (See how hard I have to work to find a grammar issue?)
  • Fixed.

• The wording "made him overmatched in the job" in the lead feels awkward.
  • I wrote most of the lead in one "take" and that just came to mind as I wrote it. I kind of like the phrase, but I've been accused of using Victorian language in the past. What do you think would be better? The point was that Sherman was past his prime and growing forgetful, if not senile, by the time he served as Sec. of State. I substituted a new phrase.
    • Eloquent and sympathetic. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I question whether "The first Sherman in the New World, Samuel Sherman, emigrated in 1634" is relevant information. His relation is not specified, and the fact feel abrupt and intrusive.
  • I removed it. Old-time biographers loved to trace a man's ancestors, especially patrilinially. I think it's interesting, but it's not terribly relevant.

• I'm not sure who you mean when you say "Sherman's cousin intended", since they're all Sherman. Do you mean "Sherman's father's cousin (also named John Sherman)" here? Or someone else?
  • That's who I meant. I think I clarified it, but it may just be more convoluted now.
    • I think it's fine now. As my grandmother often says, when past generations chose names for their children, they were selfishly not thinking at all about the hassles they would cause future genealogists. :) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This may just be my preference, but it feels incorrect to me to use parentheses in this way: "Complete sentence (complete sentence)." The parenthetical complete sentence bugs me when it does not begin with a capital letter. So I think "...coins of that metal would disappear from circulation (this phenomenon is known as Gresham's law)" would be better as "...coins of that metal would disappear from circulation (in a phenomenon is known as Gresham's law)" or "coins of that metal would disappear from circulation. (This phenomenon is known as Gresham's law.)" Similarly, "...what was then called the Opposition Party (it would become the Republican Party.)" would be better as "...what was then called the Opposition Party (later to become the Republican Party)" or "...what was then called the Opposition Party. (It would become the Republican Party.)" There is one more: "...number of votes on the first ballot (no candidate received a majority)".
  • I changed those three. It reads fine to me either way, so I'm happy to oblige.
    • Thanks. I made the "L" lower-case here because it was bugging me; I hope that's fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as we're discussing trivial opportunities for improvement, the use of the word "quickly" in both of the first two sentences of "Secretary of State" feels a little awkward.
  • Good catch. Changed.

• Note [a] starts with "In those days...", which feels a tad folksy and unencyclopedic. (Besides that, the notes are excellent.)
  • Fixed? Changed "in those days" to "at that time."
    • Thanks. I can't put my finger on why that feels more professional, but it does (to me). – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Notes, References, Sources, and External links sections are paragons of the way these sections should be formatted and structured. It's really a thing of beauty. But don't capitalize "By" in " By Thomas Townsend Sherman".
  • Thanks. That stuff is actually important to me, and I try to make that part of an article look its best. As to the T.T. Sherman book, I actually had intended to delete that. It's scarcely relevant. Done!

• Late addition: The lead now says "As a member of the House, Sherman traveled to investigate the turmoil there", and it isn't clear what you mean by "there", or what turmoil you mean. The phrase "the turmoil there" links to Bleeding Kansas, but it's not immediately obvious whether he traveled to Kansas to investigate the turmoil in Kansas, or traveled to the House to investigate the turmoil in the House, or what. I'm not going to delay supporting this excellent article, but I think it would be an improvement to make this sentence clearer.

That's all I could find to criticize, which is remarkable in an article of this size. I look forward to your responses. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the through review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All that's left is expanding the lead a tad, plus a few minor comma issues. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By any measure, this article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer. It's complete, thorough, balanced, well-written, will-illustrated, and impeccably sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - taking a look now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Senate Finance Committee members had no objection, and Sherman found himself "alone in opposition to it," - any reason why this last segment is in quotes (which I find a little jarring to read) and not "Most Senate Finance Committee members had no objection, and Sherman found himself alone in opposing it," ?

NB: next two quotes in section are ok as they are more emphatic and specific.

financial conditions in the country improved as they already had been --> " financial conditions in the country continued to improve" ? (funny wording)

Both good suggestions. I've made the changes as you suggested. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a fine read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three supports and an image review, I think we're good to go, aren't we? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. A few minor issues:

• Refs 9, 182 and 203 require "pp." rather than "p."
• The two legal refs, 195 and 196, should be fully formatted as web citations. In particular the "See..." prefix is non-standard
• For the older, pre-ISBN books it's worth showing the OCLC numbers, which can be obtained from the Worldcat site. To save you time this once, I've looked them up:

• Burton 2693291
• Kerr 823261
• Muzzey 656771
• Nevins 1373564
• Sherman J. 5438111

No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check and especially for looking up the OCLC numbers. I've added them and corrected the p/pp issues. I moved the U.S. Code cites to the Notes section, and removed the "See". I think they belong there, but I'd be happy to move them back. Is there anything else I should do with those two cites? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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