Template:Did you know nominations/1876 Prohibition National Convention

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

1876 Prohibition National Convention

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that at the 1876 Prohibition National Convention the platform not only supported prohibition, but also the direct election of Senators and presidents, and opposition to the death penalty?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KXJZ

Created by Jon698 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - All paragraphs are sourced, except for the lead
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The sources are all either WP:PRIMARY or in obscure local papers. I don't know if this is disqualifying for DYK, but hunting for better sources would improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Not the nominator, but depending on the sources, primary sources can be used for hook facts as long as the rest of the article has proper third-party sourcing. I vaguely recall the nominator discussing on Discord that sourcing for the Prohibition Party at the time can be rare and most information is known only from official material, though I'll have to ask him again if that's indeed the case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I do not believe that any non-primary sources or sources decades after the event can be found. This convention was held while the party was mostly irrelevant so there is little written about it besides as a short one sentence footnote in the party's history. I also shortened the length of the hook. - Jon698 Talk 4:14 17 April 2020

@Jon698: The link below is accessible from the Library of Congress, and lists the entire platform. You can enlarge the image with a mouse scroll. At the very top of the page, you will see options for doing other searches. Hope this helps you. — Maile (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"National Prohibition Platform". Perrysburg Journal. May 24, 1876. p. Image 4, col 2. Retrieved April 17, 2020.

I'm seeing quite a number of contemporaneous news reports via a newspapers.com search. Unfortunately, my subscription seems to have lapsed, so I can't get to the article details. I've got a renewal request pending. Maybe it would be a good idea to put this on hold until my renewal goes through, then I'll be happy to do some more detailed searching. I'm also seeing a few (minor) things in the NY Times archives this, for example). -- RoySmith (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I added a few clippings to Talk:1876 Prohibition National Convention. I'll add more if I find them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the hook, the platform not only support prohibition, fix support -> supported. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• RoySmith, Jon698, where does this nomination stand? It looks like RoySmith supplied a quartet of clipping links on the talk page; does the article still need these sources to avoid an over-reliance on primary sources? If so, is Jon698 willing to add these new secondary sources? It's been over three weeks; this nomination cannot remain in limbo much longer if it is to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I hope I wasn't the one holding this up. I'm not a DYK regular, so I figured my role was to do the quid-pro-quo review, supply some suggestions, and then leave the final decision to the folks who really make DYK work. I added some sources to the article, so I think we're good on that score. The only thing left on the checklist is that there's no references in the lede; I don't know if that's a problem or not, so again, somebody who's better versed in DYK should make that call. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Leads don't need references especially if they don't contain any information that isn't found and sourced in the body of the article. - Jon698 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) RoySmith, ledes do not have to have references unless for a quote or for a controversial statement; since a lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article, sourcing for the material in the body should be sufficient except for those special cases. (See MOS:LEADCITE for further information.) In this case, since the lede contains information not found elsewhere in the article, such as the city and venue (and does not summarize the article per MOS:LEAD), a cite would be in order. Jon698, I'm troubled by the lack of clarity in some of the writing: for example, the second ballot for the Presidential candidate was separate from the Vice Presidential selection (was that even done by ballot?), but the article makes it sound like the second ballot resulted in the selection of both Smith and Stewart even though they're separate sentences in the source. What I'll do is wait for Jon698's edits, and then call for a new reviewer to make a final determination. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I am not really interested in this article for a DYK anymore. I was really stretching it for a hook and I would rather use the QPQ on something more interesting. You can drop the nomination. - Jon698 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's your choice, but after having invested a fair bit of time finding better references for you, I'm kind of disappointed it won't see light of day. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just pulled the table from the article, since it wasn't adequately supported by the article's sources, and moved the first-round vote count into the text along with a few final vote-getters. I'm closing the nomination as withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References