Wikipedia:Peer review/John Sherman/archive1

John Sherman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after a massive expansion, I'd like one of my fellow editors to tell me where it needs improvement. I'll likely submit it for FA afterwards.

Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing … comments tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Here is the first tranche, it is a fairly long article about a man with a long public career. Very well written, as always, some picky points:

Lede

• Somewhere in the opening paragraph should appear the word "Senate". Sherman was a six-term senator in an era when that meant something (if you read Jay Bybee's article on the 17th Amendment, it was actually harder to be re-elected senator before 1913.

• I linked it.

• In the infobox, why is the senatorial service wedged between the State and Treasury?

• That's how I found it. Do you think a better arrangement makes more sense?

On consideration, let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "He was one of several brothers prominent in the United States at that time, including " perhaps shorten to "His brothers included …"

• Done.

• "Republican party" Why the lower case?

• Fixed.

• "as a Senator". Probably should be lower case, per MOS, where you are not using it as as a title before a name "Senator John Sherman" or naming the office formally, i.e. "United States Senator"

• Fixed.

Early life

• "Sherman's grandfather" I think you have to disambiguate with a "John" here before Sherman.

• Done.

• The travel of the Sherman ancestors is stated a bit oddly. I am guessing the sequence is England to Massachusetts to Connecticut to Ohio, but it could use a rephrase.

• There was a lot of back-and-forth by Taylor and Charles before the rest of the family moved out. I think it's clearer now.

• " elected by a majority of 2823 votes." I would strike "a majority of", which feels more like a British usage. Same when used later.

• Done.

Kansas

• "the anti-administration" Who was president? And it might be worth mentioning they were for the most part Northerners.

• Done.

House leadership

• "As the Congress would not meet for another year, Sherman and his wife went on vacation to Europe" Didn't the old Congress, of which Sherman was a member, meet on the first Monday in December as per the Constitution?

• I think it's better explained now.

• The word "amendment" is used many more times than it should be in the final paragraph of this section.

• Fixed.

• Did being chairman of Ways and Means mean he controlled the House's agenda, like Thaddeus after him? Might be worth a mention if so.

• Not as far as I can tell. It could be, but the sources don't say so.

• "several weeks of indecisive balloting" Given Sherman was sworn in on the 23rd, it was at most two weeks

• "Several" is from the source but, yes, it's incorrect. Changed it.

Financing the Civil War

• It might be worth a mention that the national bank system survived until replaced by the Fed in 1913.

• Done.

Slavery

• "It passed with overwhelming support in Congress" They did go to some trouble to scrape up the two-thirds in the House.

• Rephrased.

• "Radical Republicans" Needs link and exposition. It should probably be mentioned at some point that Sherman was a Moderate.

• Linked radicals and mentioned Sherman's moderation. Explained radicalism briefly.

• The discussion of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 seems a bit confused. It wasn't an act until it was passed over Johnson's veto and before that point is just a bill.

• Fixed.

• "With Ulysses S. Grant elected to the Presidency in 1869" 1868

• Fixed.

• "The next year, they passed" They? Congress is generally an it. And there's no recent noun to point to anyway to which the pronoun appears to refer.

• Fixed.

End of Part I. More later or possibly the weekend.Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I look forward to the rest. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Next batch

Resuming:

Post war

• "wished that the greenbacks be withdrawn from circulation" Perhaps "wanted greenbacks to be withdrawn from circulation".

• Subjunctive is best avoided, yes.

• "bonds to bonds" ahem

• That's more complicated than a mistaken word, but it looks bad. I clarified. (McCullough wanted to issue interest-bearing notes redeemable in coin; basically bond, but it's better to not call them that.)

I think there's an article on that kind of currency, though it's not really my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• " but those still circulating would be redeemable for the high-interest bonds of the war years" this seems singularly opaque.

• I tried to clear it up, but it's a confusing topic. Greenbacks were redeemable for 6% bonds, not coin. Sherman wanted to change it to make them redeemable in 4% bonds, now that borrowing costs were down. Instead, Congress passed a bill for gradual withdrawal of the greenbacks, but those that still circulated were redeemable for the 6% bonds. I didn't want to name numbers, because it's more complex than what I've just said (some war bonds were 6.25% or 6.5%, etc.)

• You should make it clear, rather than just imply, that the Contraction Act passed.

• Done.

• It might also be helpful to mention that we are talking about whether interest on bonds paid for in gold should be in gold, or paper.

• Good point.

Coinage Act

• I am glad to see those coin images put to good use!

• I looked at your coin articles a lot for this one, and our McKinley collaboration.

• Might want to look at Foraker, and Hanna.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You might want to consult Seated Liberty dollar in the equivalent section (near the end). Some people recognized that silver was getting cheaper and that with the completion of the transcontinental railroad, that trend would continue.

• Will do. Some day, I'd like to do a big article on the gold-silver debate that we can direct all of these articles back to in a "see also".

We should do it together, probably.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's get together on it in November or December, I should have some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have about two dozen articles, on politics and coins, all referring the reader to Cross of Gold speech#Background. It would, I think, be better to have an article which treats the subject properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Sherman writes that "[a]lthough I was quite active in business ... I do not remember at that time to have ever seen a silver dollar."" Probably should be "wrote". I should also parenthetically add that the dollar coin circulated as little back then as it does today.

• Changed. I guess it was too heavy even then!

• Yup.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The list of legal coins duplicated that of the previous coinage act, leaving off only one: the silver dollar" That can't be right. The last big revisionary act was the act of 1837, at which time the three-cent nickel, nickel, gold dollar, three-dollar piece, and double eagle, all of which survived the 1873 act, had not yet been authorized. And there was no act between them that listed all the denominations being struck, see this very useful book I use a lot in my coinage articles. You can't even say that the 1873 act only eliminated the silver dollar, because that wouldn't be correct either, the two-cent piece and three-cent silver also fell to the 1873 act.

• I forgot the weird ones. I added some things to clarify. I got a new book in the mail this week that might help, too, so I'll check what I've written against that.

• "given the continued circulation of smaller silver coins at the same 16:1 ratio" Sherman's slightly bulshitting here. The half dollar and smaller silver coins were subsidiary, that is, one dollar of smaller coins contained less silver than a silver dollar did after 1853, when the content of those coins were decreased to deal because of high silver prices. Too much gold from California drove up the price of silver. So it wasn't 16 to one, it was a bit higher than that, just over 17 to one. And the seignorage on the silver went to the government, not to the silver producers. Sorry, too much time digging through those numismatic books. But I think the fact that there was an increased supply of silver from domestic sources should be mentioned as a factor alongside the increased demand because countries were going to the gold standard. It was a major factor in governments making that decision, regardless of whether it was in the US.

• I changed it a little to mention increased silver mining. I'm wary of adding too much to an already-long article, but I do want to be clear about this fairly opaque (to modern eyes) topic.

• At the risk of cluttering your article unduly with numismatic items, may I suggest this? I think it illustrates well the difference between what a dollar in silver was worth as a symbol of the government and as metal.

• Could be useful. I'll look at where I could squeeze it in.

• "the entire world to a silver standard" are you sure you don't mean bimetallic? He did not actually propose demonitizing gold?

• Fixed.

Bland-Allison Act

• I don't agree with the way you characterize the act. What the free silver people wanted was to sell the government silver at fifty or seventy cents which was returned to them in the form of a one-dollar coin. What the Bland-Allison Act gave them was a market for their bullion, sold to the government as silver, with the government getting the seignorage from monetizing that metal. Not quite the way you put it.

• I changed and added some to make this clear. This is why I'm glad you're doing the peer review!

:)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't the Tenure of Office Act have something to do with Hayes's inability to sack Arthur et al? Might be worth a mention if so.

• I don't think so, but I'll take a look.

Election of 1880

• There seems to be an implication that 28 ballots took place in one day at the Republican convention. That would be remarkably fast.

• Fixed.

• Finish tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And the last bit.

Resuming with "Further presidential ambitions". Which I think should be "Campaigns of 1884 and 1888"

• "Joseph B. Foraker". Perhaps introduce with "former Cincinnati judge" or "1883 Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate" and mention he was governor on next mention. It should be established he is an Ohioan prior to his 1892 senatorial bid.

• Done. You and I write about Ohioans a lot, considering neither of us lives there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "After 1888, Sherman resolved that from then on "no temptation of office will induce me to seek further political honors," and did not run for president again" While that is certainly true, the fact that Harrison, as an elected president of the party, would almost certainly be the Republican candidate in 1892 meant that Sherman would be 73 at the time of the next presidential election with the nomination open.

• Added.

Interstate Commerce

• A mention that the act established the ICC is in order, I think.

• Done.

Silver purchase act

• An additional factor in the rise of silver, even at that point, was a fall in the prices for agricultural commodities, making it difficult for farmers to repay debts.

• Done.

• It might be worth a mention that the Senate was more pro-silver because of the recent admission of several western states, most if not all of which elected pro-silver senators.

• Done.

• You will probably have to put in convert templates for the various quantities of silver.

• Ugh. For the ounces? I'll look into it.

• " The effect of the bill, however, was the increased depletion of the nation's gold supply." I'm not sure that the cause and effect is as clean as suggested.

• It's not, but it seems to be the main cause. This material resists summarization.

• "at the beginning of the year" March 4? Hmmm.

• There is a part of my brain that refuses to remember the Twentieth Amendment.

• " subsequent bond issues replenished supplies of gold" Again, I question whether the bond issues (which were highly controversial; some said they benefited only bankers) really did the trick. A lot of that gold went right back out the door through redemption of paper money or silver dollars, which under the Silver Purchase Act was permitted.

• I've added a sentences to note that, with cite, but not too much, since the Silver Purchase Act is the focus here.

Final years

• "Sherman was elected in 1892 to a sixth term, easily defeating the Democratic candidate in the state legislature, despite an effort to elect Foraker in his place" Given that it took a lot of effort (and, probably, money) for Hanna to get Sherman the endorsement by the Republican caucus, which was the true battle in 1892, I think the emphasis on the vote in the legislature is misplaced. Speaking of Hanna, given his role in securing Sherman's re-election, and as he was not mentioned in 1884 or 1888, he should certainly be introduced here (say "Cleveland businessman" or "industrialist"). It might be worth an explicit mention of Foraker's flirtation with Blaine at the 1888 convention, which divided the party and was a major part of the division of the Ohio Republican party into factions (which made things hot for Sherman in 1892).

• Made this change.

• Perhaps more could be said about Sherman's decision to leave the Senate for the Cabinet. He would have faced a very difficult re-election battle in 1898, even though he would not have faced Foraker (whose election is probably worth at least a footnote to the 1892 battle) and the Secretary of State position was considered very prestigious and a fitting capstone for Sherman's career. A mention of Sherman's age in 1896 might be appropriate, given what is to follow. And it was already well-known that Sherman's mind was starting to go. McKinley didn't believe it, somewhat to his cost.

I mentioned the upcoming campaign being difficult, and that McK thought Sherman sound.

SecState

• "McKinley's plans for Hanna were also troubled, with many would-be Senators also scrambling for Sherman's vacated seat." By the time Sherman vacated his seat on March 4, Bushnell had announced Hanna's prospective appointment which occurred the following day. I'm not sure who these many would-be senators (lower case) are, the only person I am aware of who was seriously considered besides Hanna was Burton, who did not accept it.

• Took out that sentence -- it's not even about Sherman, anyway.

• I think you are being too kind to Sherman. He showed he was no longer up to the job long before April 1898. A mention that Day was an old Canton crony of McKinley and was basically put there to get around Sherman might be in order, and with Aldee (as we said in McKinley) was running the State Department under Sherman's nose.

• It's hard, because the Sherman biographies are both so fawning. I added some more from Gould, who is less kind to the old-timer.

Death and legacy

• Surely the anti-trust act is part of his legacy? It is what he is best remembered for, though I doubt if one in fifty Americans who have heard of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act could give Sherman's first name (I would think the leading guess would be "William").

• Worth a mention.

That's it. Good job. I'll give another run through once you've dealt with these.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about overlength. Do you think there are some parts that can be removed without harming the article? I've debated the Chinese immigration section, since it wasn't his bill or anything, but I think it shows an interesting side of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me take another look at it. I'll respond later today, gotta go do some stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I am juggling things while preparing for a trip. I looked it over, I would consider cuts to the ancestry area, the 1859 speakership battle and the postwar financial situation. The rest of it looks appropriate in length. One thing. I would say "bimetallic" rather than "gold and silver" standard, I think the term's widely enough known to want to use.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. I'm going to leave this open for a few days to see if it attracts any other comments, then list it for FA. Enjoy your trip! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, let me know when you nom.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)