Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark Hanna/archive1

Mark Hanna

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA as the first in my McKinley project. Feedback welcome.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: One very minor thing i noticed is that you have no links at all to the Panama Canal. Iusethis (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about a main template to History of the Panama Canal at the top of the section that deals with Hanna's involvement? He died, after all, before the HBV treaty was ratified ...--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks good. Iusethis (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please feel free to leave other comments; it is always good to get a fresh perspective!--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• An interesting article. A few ideas below:
• " Dr. Leonard Hanna and the former Samantha Converse" - would née be more accurate than former? (Which could otherwise imply that she'd changed her name, rather than - I'm guessing - marrying.

How would you phrase it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Marcus Alonzo Hanna was born on September 24, 1837 in New Lisbon, Ohio (in 1895 renamed Lisbon) to Dr. Leonard and Samantha Hanna. Leonard's father, Benjamin Hanna, a Quaker of Scotch-Irish descent, was a wealthy store owner in New Lisbon. Dr. Hanna practiced in Columbiana County, where New Lisbon was located, until he suffered a spinal injury while riding. After the accident, he joined the family business, B., L., and T. Hanna, by now a major grocery and goods brokering firm. Samantha, née Converse, and her parents had journeyed west from Vermont when she was 11; she was of English, possibly Irish, and French Huguenot descent." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Suits me, and I'll implement shortly once I get some coffee in me. I neglected to look up the OCLC, will do that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Mark's uncle Kersey Hanna, who survived him by several years, described Mark as a boy as "short, strong and rugged, with a full round figure" - not sure what the survival bit is telling us - unless the intent is to suggest that the quote is given after Mark's death?

Yes, they got a lot of statements from people who know Mark Hanna and Croly wrote the autobio from those and from Hanna's papers. Kersey died I think about five years after Mark.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• " he went to at the same time as John D. Rockefeller—the two were close in age" I'm not sure you need the last clause, as if they weren't close in age, they wouldn't have gone to school together.
• "Mark Hanna could not be spared from business to join the war, hiring a substitute to enlist in his place. " - spared by who?
• "Rhodes disliked the fact..." - not clear which Rhodes, as you've two here.
• "His father-in-law, appreciating Hanna’s talents..." - you might want to specify what these talents were, as so far in the article text he hasn't shown many of them! :)
• Equivalent financial sums - it would be worth giving modern equivalents where you're citing contemporary financial sums.

I have in the past, it has generally been more trouble than it's worth. See here for an example.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've cited [1] in the past, using its academic advice as an external standard. Don't know if that would help you at all? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we have a template for that ... let me look.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

NB: the template will only do one kind of conversion (by retail price index if memory serves - for larger sums, you may need to use a different a measure and then cite something like measuringworth as the rationale). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the bibliography, it's worth giving books without an ISBN number an OCLC reference instead. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. All good points, if I haven't responded, it means I agree and will implement. Do you think the amount of exposition is about right? I tried to give enough background in the article to help the reader understand what was going on. Bimetallism isn't big these days, so I assumed I had to explain it in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Except where I questioned, those are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I've had the same issue on the gold standard at the Klondike Gold Rush, and agree it needs to be explained in exposition. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: It's a rather long (12000 word) article and will take a while to get through. Here are a few random observations to be getting on with:-

• Excellent illustrations. I'm sure that Hanna must be more than eleven years old in the "boy" pic, though. He looks roughly twice that.

I would guess about thirteen. I recall reading that kids reached puberty later in the 19th century than today, because of nutrition and so forth.

• Advice: avoid so-called present-day values. They are not a FAC requirement, their reliability is questionable and they always cause arguments about method, etc. If pressed, stick any such figures in a footnote and add a health warning, but don't sully your text with the information
• Section heading: "Nomination of Bryan". This event is the last that occurs in a long section which deals with many events, and perhaps should have a more inclusive title.
• In that section, the caption for the File:McKinley straddle.jpg image should specify the convention year.
• From time to time he is referred to as "Senator Hanna", rather than the more general "Hanna". Any reason for this?

Just breaking it up. People have complained about endless recitation of the same last name from time to time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the section recording Hanna's death, the following sentence looks unnecessarily convoluted: "The 1903 convention also endorsed Hanna for re-election, and nominated Hanna's friend Myron Herrick for governor, with the Foraker faction allowed the nomination for lieutenant governor, given to Warren G. Harding, who later became president." Five bits of info is too many for one sentence, so: "The 1903 convention also endorsed Hanna for re-election, and nominated Hanna's friend Myron Herrick for governor. The Foraker faction was allowed the nomination for lieutenant governor, given to future president Warren G. Harding."
• One or two "p." and "pp." in the refs need attention.

I didn't mean for it to be so long, but I have to write at a certain level of detail so a modern-day audience used to an elected Senate and a central bank that can just print money on demand (except in the eurozone, of course), and it would look odd to change the level of detail for other matters. Thanks for the review. I'll wait on your other comments. I think this is going to be my next FAC nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

More anon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes on a couple of the early sections:-

Early life and business career

• The third paragraph suddenly jumps back in time, to three years before Mark's birth. Also the information given doesn't seem consistent with what's in the first paragraph, in which Leonard Hanna joins the family business after a riding accident ended his medical career. Here, he starts a business with his brother after a financial failure.

Both events happened, and the investment was continuous after 1834, as they sought to connect New Lisbon to the Ohio River and the Ohio Canal, which were in opposite directions. Of course, the railroad came through and made the canals uneconomic.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• "By the start of the Civil War, however..." Redundant "however"
• "With an ill father and many business responsibilities, Mark Hanna could not be spared from business by his family to join the war, hiring a substitute to enlist in his place." The words "from business" are repetitive and unnecessary. When you say he could not be spared to "join the war", I think you mean "join the Union army", since in the next sentence he does indeed "join the war", albeit in a National Guard role, and goes on to see active service.
• "Even before..."? No need for "even".
• It's a bit confusing to mention the renaming of the business at this point, since this occurred 20 years later - and you continue to refer to the business by the old name.
• "...he and other Republicans abandoned the party to elect a Democrat running on a reform agenda." Elected a Democrat to what?

Aspiring kingmaker (1880–1888)

• "According to Cowles, Hanna was trying to dictate who should be elected" There is no election context in this paragraph, so dictating who should be elected to what office?
• It would be useful to mention when Hanna became reconciled with the Republican party, since the last we heard, he was supporting a Democrat.
• "According to Charles Dick, who succeeded Hanna in the Senate..." Future tense required, thus "who was to succeed Hanna..."
• I don't want to add even more content to the article, but there should be a brief mention of the reason why, in 1880, the Republican Party was split into the two factions Stalwarts and Half-breeds, rather than requiring readers to use links to discover this information.
• If you are looking for ways to reduce the length of text, then I suggest that the tangential information related to unsupported allegations of vote buying at the 1884 convention could be omitted.
• "Hanna had ample opportunity to observe a man with whom he would become associated, sharing an apartment with Ohio Congressman William McKinley" I suggest "another man" rather than "a man", and "closely associated". The use of "sharing" to begin the second clause is grammatically dubious; actually, I would prefer to see the whole sentence recast: "At the convention Hanna shared an appartment with Ohio Congressman William McKinley, with whom he would become closely associated."
• It might be useful to explain earlier than you do that Arthur was not seeking reelection.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take out the "sharing an apartment" or else move it to the partisan section. All other comments I can't disagree with, and willmake changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I took it out. Too trivial. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit more (I'll try harder tomorrow):-

McKinley partisan

• "With Cowles' emnity ended by Hanna’s sale of the newspaper..." Name the newspaper?
• "In the end, the nomination fell to Indiana Governor Benjamin Harrison, successful after Foraker threw his support at first to Blaine, and then when the New Englander did not run, to Governor Harrison." Just "Harrison", second time round
• Is there any reason why 1889 was such a bad year for Ohio Republicans?

I'm going to cut that phrase. Croly says that some of Foraker's ticket mates were elected. He says that the Dems ran against Foraker on the basis of him breaking the two-term rule.

• "Hanna spent much of his time working to secure Sherman’s re-election by the Ohio Legislature". I think this is the first, rather indirect, indication that at the time, US senators were elected by legislatures rather than by popular vote. I think this should be made clearer, perhapd by a short parenthetical note.

Very well.

• "Hanna hired detectives to find legislators who had gone into hiding and were believed to be Foraker supporters, and saw to it they supported Sherman." Fascinating, but what does "saw to it" imply here?

Croly: "Three of the Cleveland representatives, who had gone into hiding, were unearthed and forced into line." As a source cited by Horner states that some of the Republicans who actually voted for Foraker were "ruined by their perfidy", odds are Hanna threatened them with financial ruin. However, I don't feel the sources are solid enough on this point to say much more. Hanna took his politics seriously.

• The "Panic of 1893" is mentioned without introduction apart from the link. At least introduce it as the "financial" panic.
• "no McKinley property was expended..." Is that some legal word meaning "sold"?

I preferred to use a more vague word in case there was cash money being held for Ida.

• "McKinley was easily re-elected in 1893..." Perhaps remind us: "re-elected as Governor in 1893"

Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Next chunk:-

Campaign of 1896

• "waited to make it clear...": Suggest "waited before making it clear", or "delayed making it clear"
• "McKinley's public hesitation did not mean that Hanna was waiting to lay the groundwork for the nomination". Suggest "McKinley's public hesitation did not prevent Hanna from laying the groundwork for the nomination".
• "McKinley's public hesitation did not mean that Hanna was waiting to lay the groundwork for the nomination". A stylistic issue, but my preference would be to delete these commas.
• "Missouri Representative Richard Bland was deemed likely to be the nominee". Deemed likely by whom?

Everyone expect Bryan. However, I will check the source and see if I can say something like "according to contemporary newspapers. Bland was first, Senator Boies was second (don't worry about who he was unitl I get to Cross of Gold speech, third on my list), Bryan was definitely a third-tier candidate.

A source I haven't used yet, Richard Bensel's book on Bryan's nomination says "Richard Bland of Missouri, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination" (page 31) He had in fact duly repaired to his farm that week waiting for the Call of Cincinnatus, which did not come.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest you "upright" the Bryan image, whoch is otherwise a little too large.
• The description "the Clevelander" momentarily threw me. I know you are trying to avoid repetitive use of Hanna's name; a little rewording should make this possible. Thus: "Being relatively unknown on the national scene, Hanna initially had little success, despite Wall Street’s fear of Bryan. Some Wall Street titans, although disliking Bryan's positions, did not take him seriously as a candidate and refused to contribute to the McKinley campaign. Those who did know Hanna, such as his old schoolmate Rockefeller—the magnate’s Standard Oil gave $250,000—vouched for him".
• "Delegations ranged up to thousands of people; if possible, the leader was brought to Canton..." This reads awkwardly; I think it's "the leader" (as though this were one particular person) that's the problem. Try to rephrase.
• "The delegation then marched through the streets..." To maintain tense consistency, "would then march..."
• "The delegations led behind gifts" Presumably "left"?
• "Among those who visited were Bryan himself..." In this construction it should be "was Bryan..." (you don't need "himself"). You could rephrase: "Among those who revisited were Bryan and his defeated rival, Bland"

The paragraph is one exotic image after another, I really need that paragraph to end on a high note, and omitting "himself" plays it too low key. I'd rather keep it. Just want to explain my rationale.

• "He’s talking Silver all the time..." Why the capital, if this is something Hanna said (pounding his desk) rather than wrote?

That is how it is in the quote, and I feared it might be short for "Free Silver" rather than just the metal.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• "He proved correct" → "He was proved correct" - and later, "had waned by September"
• "The Clevelander was often depicted as “Dollar Mark”, in a suit decorated with dollar signs, a term for which "dollar mark" was a common alternative." Sorry, I'm lost; what is the term for which "dollar mark" was a common alternative?
• My knowledge of US political geography is uncertain, but is Delaware really a "border state" in relation to the South?

Yes. Pipe inserted. Probably not today.

I'll try and finish in one step, either later today or tomorrow. This is a fascinating article, filling in numerous gaps in my somewhat scanty knowledege of late 19th century American presidential politics. Very readable. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will confess to have had a lot of fun writing about the front porch campaign. I will get to these later on today, in between finishing the fishers.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Senator (1897–1904)

• "Hanna stated that he would accept no office in the McKinley administration, fearing it would be seen as a reward for his political efforts". I wonder if that is worded quite rightly. I imagine he simply stated "I will accept no office" rather than: "I will accept no office because I fear this would be seen as a reward..." etc. So I would say something like "Hanna decided he would..." etc
• "as early as 1892": Five years ago is "as early as"?

In terms of Hanna's political career, yes. Even though he had had some political success with Sherman and McKinley by then, I don't think anyone would have taken him seriously as a Senate candidate yet. His support of Sherman was a two-edged sword, since he had failed to get Sherman the nomination, twice.

• "Sherman, who was then grateful for the appointment..." Clarify, e.g. "Sherman, who was at that time grateful for his Cabinet appointment..." or some such
• Another clarification: to whom was McKinley offering the Postmaster position?
• "a referendum on McKinley's term of office" - surely, you mean "a referendum on McKinley's first year in office"?
• "The Republicans won the election": earlier in the paragraph you refer to "legislative elections" (plural). Can we be clear on exactly what election or elections the Republicans won?
• "Cleveland Mayor" → "Cleveland mayor"
• "and had been elected in 1895" → "and had been elected to the mayoralty in 1895..."
• "He and McKinley decided on a system where many southern candidates..." etc. Do you mean "posts" rather than "candidates", which doesn't make a lot of sense.
• The torpedo story seems to be more about McKinley's relationship with Herrick than Hanna. If you're looking to lower the wordcount...
• "Hanna hinted that he might not want to run McKinley's re-election campaign" - followed almost immediately by "The senator did want to run the campaign again". This causes confusion. I suggest you change the earlier phrasing to "Hanna hinted that he might be unable to run..." etc. And drop the word "again" from the second phrase.
• There are three "ands" in the sentence beginning "This was a great source of stress..."
• The words "that might be incurred" are unnecessary

{review down to beginning of "Campaign of 1900") Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit behind you but striving I hope valiantly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Last tranche!

Campaign of 1900

• "President McKinley was content to leave the choice of a vice presidential candidate to the convention." For clarifiacetion I suggest: "President McKinley was content to leave the choice of a vice presidential candidate for 1900 to the upcoming Republican convention".
• "New York Senator Platt hoped to diplace his governor " - I assume this should be "displace"? You should say "his state governor" (Governor is a general term for "boss" in BritEng). And I doubt that many of us benighted Brits will know that "in Albany" is shorthand for in office as governor of New York; suggest replace "in Albany" with "in office".
• Roosevelt's "well-publicized wartime service": Identify the war (Roosevelt's military service was not mentioned in the dection on the Spanish-American war, so clarifiction needed.
• "The senator": In this case the alternative label is unnecessary if you combine the sentences: "Hanna, who felt Roosevelt was overly impulsive, did not want him on the ticket, and did not realize that the efforts were serious until he was already at the convention in Philadelphia".
• "Hanna spent much of his time based in at the campaign's New York office, renting a seaside cottage in Elberon, New Jersey". This reads ambiguously. Perhaps " while living in a rented seaside cottage..." etc

Panama Canal involvement

• "a treaty was signed but rejected by Colombia" Can you explain? Did Colombia sign and reject the treaty?

Yes, Herran signed it, but it was rejected by the Colombian Senate. Really a negotiating ploy which backfired big time. I will clarify a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-election, rumors of a presidential run, and death

• "The 1903 convention also endorsed Hanna for re-election..." I would add "to the Senate".

Views and legacy

• "Hanna always did his best to foster good relations with his worker;" - surely that should be "workers"?
• According to its Wikipedia article, Hanna was the first president of the NCF. If this is so, is it worth mentioning?

I will consult the article and see. Picked it up in Canton.

Public image today

• "Despite his condemnation of Hanna, Bradley wrote that he regretted that he could not find a Hanna-like figure who could play an analogous role in advancing his political career". There is a slight uncertainty about the final "his". I know it refers to Bradley, and I can't offhand think of a solution, but it niggles slightly
• second paragraph: it should be possible to lose one, even two, of the proliferating Roves

I think that is it. A monumental piece of work, absorbing pretty well throughout, even to those like myself with only a passing acquaintance with US political history. I am pleased to have learned more about these interesting times (the stuff on the Spanish-American War was particularly fascinating; I must read a book on it) And I look forward to the further progress of this article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It came out longer than I intended, as most of it was written piecemeal (I have two pages full of rejected material) on a cruise ship. Thank you for bearing with the length. But I don't see much to cut, really, a lot of it is exposition necessary for a modern audience.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)