Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1899 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [1].

1899 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an election which lacked one of the usual things you find with elections, that is, a winner. Unimportant in itself, this election which elected no one set off a chain of events that helped make Theodore Roosevelt president.Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:History_of_Beaver_County,_Pennsylvania_and_its_centennial_celebration,_(1904)_(14804406853).jpg: is more specific tagging available?
  • File:George_A._Jenks.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:BenjaminFJones.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and what evidence is there this was published c. 1870? The source says only date and doesn't specify whether that was publication or only creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a more specific tag for the first one and swapped the two other images for (regrettably inferior) ones that are clearly PD. I'll keep looking, but this should do the trick for now. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see here.
  • "beginning on January 17, 1899 by the" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "until his 1904 death" — would be better is written as "until his death in 1904"
  • "Matthew Quay was born September 30, 1833 in" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "practicing in Beaver, Pennsylvania and" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • "He himself recognized the" — suggesting to remove 'himself'
  • "Quay had arranged for $1,000,000 of state funds" — suggesting to use {{Inflation}}, the figure would be much more significant now! Same with the $40,000 bribe.
  • "one in Gettysburg planted 50 and invited Quay to visit in a few years and shake all of them" — well, important to mention?
Maybe, but it shows something about what the common people were doing, not just the legislators.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boosted Quay, "rebuild[ing] his tarnished image in the Keystone State"." — The prose should specify where this quote comes from.

That is it! Great work on a very interesting election! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I'm interested in politics, and have written articles about this time period, but not American politics in Pennsylvania, so consider this a moderately-expert review?

  • "The members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in drafting the Constitution, chose state legislatures, not the people, to select United States Senators." Suggested reword: "In drafting the Constitution, the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed that United States Senators would be chosen by state legislatures, not the people." The use of "chose" and "select" in the sentence was a little confusing, and this reword removes some commas for flow.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the legislature which would be in place when the senatorial term expired first met and chose officers." I am re-reading this sentence several times and I cannot make sense of it. Perhaps, "after the legislature that was in place when the senatorial term expired first met and chose officers." I still don't know what the second part of the sentence is trying to tell me.
There were antebellum disputes about which session of the legislature got to pick a senator. This was intended to settle that. The intent was to impose a duty to vote once that session of the legislature a) convened and b) organized itself by, for example, choosing a speaker or the equivalent. The intent was to avoid a situation in which houses of the legislature refused to vote on the senatorship, which had also happened before the Civil War. I've struggled to make the language clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the timeline of picking a senator according to this legislation: when a senator's term ends, the vote to fill that senator's seat must start on the first Tuesday of that state's legislature's session, which is the same day that the state would choose its officers. Is that correct? Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, when the state legislature is elected that will be in place when the term ends, that is, there will be no more general elections before the senator's term ends, that's gonna be in most states the November before the term ends (in states like Ohio or Louisiana, it was longer than that. Then the legislator's terms start in January, the houses meet and choose officers (speaker of the state house, president of the state senate), that is, they organize, and then it's the second Tuesday after that that each house votes on senator.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a good discussion of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the constant comments on this point, but I'm trying to figure out how to best phrase this sentence so I would understand it. What about, "Federal law prescribed that the state legislature formed from the general election preceding the senatorial term's expiration would vote for a candidate to become a senator for that state. The voting would begin on the second Tuesday of that legislature's first session." Thoughts? I think dividing the sentence in two helps with understanding. I'm not thrilled with the phrasing, but I think this is better. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to dividing it but your phrasing is not accurate for two reasons: most likely that would be true of the lower house, but might not of the state Senate (which might be formed two elections before). Second, if there was a deadlock, the legislature might not be able to organize itself immediately (look at what happened to the federal House of Representatives in 1839 and 1849, both times it took weeks to elect a Speaker).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase this then. Any suggestions? Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is to directly quote from the statute. Or accept as it stands, sometimes the need to be exact makes stirring prose difficult. I should note that I used an almost identical explanation at 1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio and the phrasing you mention passed without comment at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is improved and I cannot find a better way to phrase it. Thanks for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wanamaker entered the race anyway, making speeches demonizing Quay. He made alliances with reformers in the legislature" Suggest combining these sentences as "Wanamaker entered the race anyway, making speeches demonizing Quay and made alliances with reformers in the legislature."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the funds be invested in the Metropolitan Traction Company of New York, sending a telegram:" Should MTC of NY wikilink to New York Railways Company?
Done, with a section link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On January 17, there was the initial voting, in the two houses of the legislature, sitting in the state capital of Harrisburg." -> "The initial voting in the two houses of the legislature took place in the state capital of Harrisburg on January 17." This removes the commas, which were interupting the flow.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which took the privilege of electing senators out of state legislators' hands and gave it to the people." Privilege might be a POV term, and I'm not sure if everyone would consider it a privlege. Also, "state legislators' hands" might be an MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps, "which transfered the responsibility of electing senators from state legislators to a public vote." or something similar.
I've removed possible idioms. But I prefer to say "people" because that is what the 17th Amendment prescribes, that senators from each state be "elected by the people thereof".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, addressed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on one bullet point above, but everything else is good. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. This is a clear and concise article, and my few suggestions about the prose are of precious little importance.

  • Opposition to Quay and indictment
  • "his choice of nominee was generally ratified" – I briefly wondered if a general ratification might be a technical term, and perhaps "usually" rather than "generally" might be clearer here.
  • "brought the issue of bossism home" – a European reader (e.g. me) can more or less deduce what "bossism" means, but it's not a familiar term in these parts, and if you can link to a WP or Wiktionary page that would be good, but if not, no matter. (Afterthought: I see the word is in the OED: "U.S. The system in which political parties are controlled by 'bosses' or 'wire-pullers' You might put that in a footnote if you felt inclined to humo(u)r English readers, but I do not press the point.)
  • Caucus and early balloting
  • "to choose a candidate for Senate" – is the omission of the definite article the idiomatic AmE form? Fine if so, though it looks a little odd to an English eye.
  • "109 Republicans showed up, of which 98 voted for Quay" – "of whom", perhaps, rather than "of which"? Possibly an Engvar point.
  • Appointment
  • "Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison … to vote against seating Quay" – This is a 45-word sentence, and it might be a good thing to break it up. Perhaps something on the lines of Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison, who had appointed him postmaster general, to use his influence to defeat Clay. Harrison convinced Republican senators from his home state, Indiana, as well as those former members of his administration who were in the Senate, to vote against seating Quay.

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've resolved everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. − Tim riley talk 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, formatting looks okay, I just have a query re. the thesis by Elizabeth Ann Chapman. I believe doctoral theses, or theses by published authors, are considered fine, but as the type of thesis isn't mentioned and I couldn't find works under this name at WorldCat, I'm not certain if either of these criteria apply -- can you enlighten me? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. Upon looking at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't think I can show the thesis has had a considerable effect on scholarship so I've eliminated it as a source. Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt action Wehwalt, no further issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1899_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania/archive1&oldid=1113939160"