Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate election in California, 1950/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 05:25, 12 August 2009 [1].

United States Senate election in California, 1950 edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. Please don't be put off by the rather dull title, it is the Richard Nixon-Helen Gahagan Douglas race, which was one of the nastiest ever. The article has been passed for GA by our local Nixon expert, Happyme22, and has received a peer review by Brianboulton. I briefly nominated it before but withdrew it after an objection was posed because I didn't have candidate percentages for the primaries. I now have those statistics, thanks to some very helpful people at the California State Archives. Enjoy the article! I'm proud of it.Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text, sliced note 120, alternated sides on the images (not perfectly because I don't want the images looking offscreen), and swapped two images, plus added a youtube link to the Ninotchka trailer to the Melvyn Douglas article. That leaves the Douglas photo, and given [3] it is not in the public domain. Since the only Douglas photo on commons is clearly unsuitable (showing her 27 years before the Senate race in a costume), I'm going to go with a fair use image. I'm looking through the available ones, it will be swapped shortly. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about Eleanor Roosevelt :) NW (Talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's been changed for an image taken from the FDR Library site. They aver that all their images are public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link to the .html page for File:Eleanorbel.gif rather than the .jpg link? Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. They don't have that. See here--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Updated with library ID number. NW (Talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is present, thanks; but it needs work. It's pretty much a copy of the caption, which is even worse than no alt text at all, since a screen reader will read both the alt text and the caption to a visually impaired reader. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example #4, and then give it another try. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's new for me. Check it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still needs quite a bit of work. To a first approximation, the alt text should not contain any proper names, because proper names do not convey any visual information to a non-expert reader (unless you already know what Nixon looks like, which most readers don't these days). Another rule of thumb: no info should be in both the caption and the alt text. If it's about visual appearance, it should be in alt text (the caption can assume people can see the image); if it's not about visual appearance, it should be in the caption (as the alt text should be only about visual appearance). Again, please see WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples. Two more things. First, several images still lack alt text; you can easily find them by visiting the "alt text" part of the toolbox at the top left of this review page. Second, the phrase "Photographic portrait of" is not that helpful can can be (twice) removed. Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've tried again. Can I ask that you suggest some language for those that you find less than satisfactory? This is something new to me, despite a bit of experience on this page. I fear that if you just keep saying "needs work", I may accidentally make things worse. Using the alt function still leaves the template photos of the Great Seal of California and of Nixon as a much older man, but as those are purely decorative and in templates, not in the article, I don't think they need alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Of the images with alt text, the only one I see a problem with now is the campaign thimble, where the alt text specifies text that cannot be seen in the image. I suggest changing that to 'Beige thimble with red lettering, the visible part of which says "Safeguard the A..." and "NIXON for U..."'. I modified the templates to put "|link=|" in the purely-decorative images, which should fix that problem; please see the diffs ([4][5]) in case you run into similar problems in the future. Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I peer-reviewed this last month, in the happy pre-alt days (O tempora! O mores!), and most of my concerns were addressed there. So it's down to a few quibbles and final polishing for a comprehensive, involving account.

  • War in the Pacific: "Nixon angrily objected..." At present the adverb reads like interpretation. If it's in the source, maybe the sentence could be rephrased to make this clear.
  • Debut of the Pink Sheet
    • In the second line we have "Roosevelt" and "Mrs Roosevelt", both referring to the same person, I think – though as James is a candidate in the election I can't be sure. Later we have "Delegate Roosevelt", again referring to Mrs R. These forms can cause confusion; I've had a go at resolving it, but please amend if you have a better idea.
    • Barkley: "...the best he could say" again reads like your interpretation, and should be reworded
  • Name-calling
    • Virtually no British readers, and perhaps not that many contemporary Americans, will know that "the future chief justice" refers to Warren, so I wouldn't use that description. It reads just as well with "Warren"
    • Clarify who "Joe Holt" is (the reporter, I assume, but it's not totally clear).
  • Aftermath
    • Style issue: it may be just me, but beginning a sentence "Mused an aide" doesn't seem encyclopedic in style, more like reporting, or literature?
    • "In 1956, though,..." I don't see the purpose of "though"
    • Long, scruffy sentence with two "ands"; suggest it is rephrased/split: "When the alleged statements were reported, Nixon denied them, and issued press releases defending his campaign, and stating that any impression that Douglas was pro-communist was 'justified by her own record'."
  • General: No-break space lapses, specifically "160 acres" but there may be more.

The tabulations are excellent. A fine article overall. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, I've made some changes. As a note, disambiguating two Eleanor Roosevelts in the article, plus James, plus the shadow of FDR hanging over things, led to some judgment calls. I called her "Delegate Roosevelt" as an effort to give her a title she had earned, rather than one through marriage. I see that's been changed to "Mrs." and that's fine. I've added in an extra "James" and the first bare "Roosevelt" is now three paragraphs away from the last mention of Eleanor, and I think it is pretty clear from context that James Roosevelt is being referred to. The Barkley anecdote was added very recently, and I've rephrased for a direct quote from Time. I've changed "future chief justice" to "him". Joe Holt is mentioned earlier in the paragraph; he's the Young Republican (and future congressman) who pestered Douglas into the statement, but I've added an extra "Holt" for clarity. The tabulations took me hours last night; I got the official returns yesterday afternoon, glad you like them. I think I caught all the nonbreaking spaces, but if anyone sees one I missed, please let me know. I've cleared up the other things you mentioned. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support -- a very strong support at that. It's a fabulous article about one of the most fascinating and captivating Senate races in U.S. history. I gave this article a detailed GA review a few months back and quickly passed it, as Wehwalt had completed all that was necessary to do so. And Brianboulton, an editor whom I have worked with well in the past on Pat Nixon's article, gave it a peer review; his suggestions were readily implemented by Wehwalt. I give my full support to the article. My only hope is for a public domain image of Helen Douglas, though I'm sure that one can be found somewhere. Excellent job to all parties involved, especially Wehwalt! My best, Happyme22 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't given up on the public domain photo of Douglas, I've looked through the photo listing in the Douglas archives and there is nothing that looks pd. I'm planning to call the LBJ archives in Texas, LBJ appointed her to the US delegation to Liberia President Tubman's inauguration. That failing, I'm hopeful there will be a group shot of the committees she served on but I really need to go personally to the Library of Congress on that and I can't do that for two weeks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Strong oppose: Significant problems in the prose, unlikely to be overcome given the nominator's objection to being told about them. I think this one is going to make it, but more work is needed by an independent copy-editor, throughout. The following observations from the top show a few issues that recur throughout. Careful auditing of comma usage, for example, would improve the text. But that's not all.

  • "Communistic" is not a word I've seen before; what about plain "communist"?
  • Small point: "Nixon's attacks were far more effective, and he won the election by almost 20 percentage points, winning 53 of California's 58 counties and all metropolitan areas." Avoid repetition by using "carrying 53"?
  • "Nixon–Douglas race"—an opposition, so en dash required, not hyphen.
  • "to reluctance of voters in 1950 to vote for a woman"—nope: where there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left.
  • "The campaign gave rise to two memorable political nicknames, both either coined by Boddy or making their first appearance in his newspaper: "the Pink Lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" for Nixon." I'm trying to determine whether the "either" means we just don't know which. See the ambiguity?
  • "and had been elected to the Senate as a liberal, but as senator his stances gradually began to favor corporate interests."—the turning angle is enough to require a semicolon, not a comma.
  • This sentence turns to porridge towards the end: "Douglas, a former actress and opera singer, and the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, had represented the 14th congressional district, which combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles, since 1945, compiling a liberal record in the House of Representatives."
  • When we first hit "House of Representatives", then "House", do we know whether this is in Sacramento or Washington DC? Foreigners, even Americans, may need to have this clarified.
  • Remove comma after "1946" for better flow?

As a meta-comment, most of the reasons provided in the previous review in support of the declaration "Strong support" do not appear to be relevant. Please address the criteria. Tony (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way to get out of saying good things about the article, Tony. Obviously your oppose is not motivated by the prose, but by our disagreement. I tried to apologize, you respond by switching from comments to strong oppose. I guess your oppose is not actionable. It's also contrary to the truth, as you know, Tony, I've asked for a copyedit, and have made most suggested changes. I'll leave it at that, I'm starting to get hot under the collar.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I'm not 100% sure it needs another copyedit, as two editors (including Happyme22, by the way) have gone through it pretty thorougly. However, I'll see if I can get someone to take a look. Communistic is a word, see here, though I've taken it out of the lede, Douglas uses the word later in the article and I was echoing that in the lede, but not much either way, I guess. I've changed "House of Representatives" to "United States House of Representatives". If Boddy didn't coin the terms, he certainly approved them, the Daily News became his campaign newspaper, I'll strike the word "either", but it is a subtle point. I'll rephrase the paragraph on Douglas and use the alternative word you suggest, and carry out your other fine points. I split up the Downey sentence, mooting the need for the semicolon. Thanks again!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect to Tony, I really don't think the article needs a third copyedit. It has not substantially changed since it went to GAN, and both Happyme22 and BrianBoulton went through it pretty carefully. I'm going to wait and see what the community thinks of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think Tony is quite right, the prose is still a bit clunky in places, and it does need a proper copyedit. For instance:
  • "Buoyed by polls in early April giving Nixon some chance of winning the Democratic nomination, thus effectively securing his election, Nixon sent out mailings to Democratic voters in the hope of winning that party's poll."
  • "Nixon was born of a working class family, growing up in Whittier ...".
  • "Douglas leased the craft from a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto, which hoped her influence would lead to a defense contract."
  • "While debates did not take place among the candidates ...". "While" implies simultaneity.
  • "... he held a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt". "Gubernatorial" is a word unlikely to be familiar to anyone outside of the US.
  • "Nixon assailed Douglas for advocating giving Taiwan's Security Council seat ..."
  • "... the former actress called for the President's ouster once the Watergate scandal broke". "Ouster" is a legal term to do with the eviction from freehold property.

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll make a few of those changes. While ouster is indeed a legal term, please see here "ouster from office" is a common term, and I'll modify to that. I will amend to "Democratic candidate for governor" and I've changed that debate thing. I don't know who to ask about a copyedit. Suggestions? Volunteers?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, I've provided ample evidence, at random, of why a copy-edit is required. I note that the nominator has taken it upon himself to bad-mouth me elsewhere, in a rather nasty, irrelevant, unexplained way: "Could I get you to hold your nose and at least take a look at this? Tony1 is saying it needs a copyediting, and I think it's garbage and he is showing why he's on editing restriction." I believe this is unacceptable bullying of a reviewer; if this kind of behaviour starts cropping up, no one will dare to make comments, let alone oppose. I must ask you to read WP:CIVILITY very carefully. I'm watching this nomination to see what is done about the prose. Tony (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your place to lecture me about how to complain about your attempts to intimidate a reviewer. I'm entirely satisfied with the course of action I've thus far taken. In addition, you might take a look through WP:ADMIN: see the bit about setting an example for all WPians? Tony (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, at this point, you are plainly allowing your anger to rule what you are doing on this page. I suggest you calm down, you are not helping anyone. Do you remember these examples cited here? You are doing the same thing again, and it is not benefitting you or anyone. Let's have a truce, OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Agree with Tony that a copyedit is required, and I've undertaken one [6]. I think at least one more good copyedit would be helpful. I definitely think that there's an FA in here, though, and expect to support before this process is complete. Besides the copyediting I've done, here are some issues:

  • The lead's not in great shape. The first paragraph almost functions as a lead to the lead, summarizing the next three paragraphs, which results in a great deal of repetition.
  • I'm having some trouble reconciling that Marcantonio rarely discussed communism but was known for opposing restrictions on communists. This may not be a problem - I need to think about it some more.
  • "...hoping her influence would lead to a defense contract for the company." This looks like a possible dangling modifier. As it reads now, Douglas hoped that the company would get a defense contract. It seems more likely to me that the company hoped that.
  • "Northern California" - is this a clearly-defined area? If not, the N should be lowercase.
  • Some of the organization seems less than intuitive: for example, one paragraph begins by talking about Knight deciding not to run and then veers off into talking about Nixon's speaking tour. Another starts off by talking about Nixon's abilities as a fundraiser and then abruptly switches to talking about Alger Hiss. With the nominator's permission, I'd be willing to try some reorganization.
  • I really dislike "War in the Pacific" as a section header, first because a great deal of the material below it isn't about the Korean War at all and second because it makes me think of World War II, not of Korea.
  • "According to Tipton, "They fell for it." Tipton was confident that Nixon "couldn't keep up the red smear indefinitely"." Some elaboration is required here; I don't really understand what there was to "fall" for.
  • I'm not clear on how this whisper campaign took aim at Melvyn Douglas's Jewish heritage if it was about his being a communist. Is there some kind of Jew-communist connection I'm missing?
  • "...and Humphrey Bogart introduced Melvyn Douglas on radio." The relevance of this isn't immediately apparent.
  • "Chotiner publicized this response as an endorsement of Nixon, which Warren could not deny..." Why couldn't he deny it?
  • There's considerable inconsistency in the article over whether positions are capitalized (lieutenant-governor, senator, vice president, etc.) and I have no been able to glean the rule that is being applied. Can you explain it to me?
  • There's considerable discussion in the final section about the Korean War costing Democrats' support, but I can't find anything in the account of the campaign itself that would suggest that. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting pretty close now. I think the prose is pretty close at this point (though I'll go over it one more time), and I've struck most of my concerns above (particular kudos for the lead, which is miles better than it was when I last looked at this). Two of the remaining three should be easy enough to address, though I still think that the "trap" that Douglas was apparently trying to set by accusing Nixon of voting with Marcantonio is unclear. I'd suggest clarifying or, if the sources don't allow this, just deleting language referring to it being a ploy and leaving only the bare factual details (Douglas made this allegation in her opening speech, Nixon responded as he did). But as I said, I think we're very close; thanks for your patience. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I capitalize when it is part of a title, as in Senator Nixon, but I would not capitalize "Nixon, the senator". However, I always capitalize President or Vice President when it is referring to the then-incumbent. I think that is MOS. Am I a deviationist? I will expand the Bogie bit, he was a Douglas supporter. Can you come back to my talk page for discussion on the Tipton issue? I'd like your thoughts but I don't want to make this page longer than I have to.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He voted against contempt citations for people hauled before HUAC who took the fifth or kept silent. "War in the Pacific" is a reference both to Korea, and to California, if you don't like it, I can easily substitute "early campaign". I'll strike the Warren language. Celebrity endorsements are often well thought of. I'll rephrase a bit on Melvyn Douglas. I'll link to Northern California, and all five counties fall into that category. If you are willing to do a complete copyediting, Steve, I have no objection to a reorganization. I just don't want people to do part and then say "please get another copyediting". I'm happy to have one person do it. Be bold. Just let me know. I spent the day hard at work in the library researching images for this article and right now I'm not feeling very enthusiastic, forgive me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there was an error in the whispering campaign sentence introduced by an editor trying to be helpful in this process, but I wasn't clear about what was being said before she made the change, and I've rephrased. Sorry about he confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think we're finally there; good work to all involved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There isn't really a proper first sentence in this article, as per the WP:LEAD guidelines. It just kinda jumps in with talking about the campaign. The rocky start to the article might be what's setting a problem elsewhere. It just needs a "The 1950 United States Senate election in California..." Wizardman 03:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, in the effort to repeat the name of the article, the first sentence becomes more abrupt. I like the way it is currently. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If others are fine with it I won't push, I'm just saying it feels like it goes too deep into what the article is about for a first sentence. Wizardman 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it intentionally that way. It's famous for three things, Nixon, Douglas, and nastiness. May as well tell the reader that right up front.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Tony. To me the tone of the way the article is generally written doesn't seem right, a lot of it, particularly the Democratic contest section reads like a magazine or a narrative rather than an encyclopedic account. I think it needs major copyediting and to reword many of the gossip-sounding sentences into ones which read as more encyclopedic.

Hi, thanks for the thought, but I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give one or two examples for my benefit and that of those who may copyedit, plus how you would like to see them? I should add that I really don't see what you mean about "gossip", the 1950 Senate race has been extensively written about, and these are all incidents from major historical books about the candidates. And for my guidance, you say "Per Tony". Tony has opposed on the ground that I won't agree to a copyedit. Is that the basis for your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I think it needs a copy edit. I'll find some examples shortly. It is mostly in regard to quotes I think. A lot of them don't seem to help the articles. E.g "You don't know anyone who has any money, do you? We have a campaign on and no money—and I mean no money". I think it could just be plainly written in prose that they had no money, plain and simple, I don't think the quote really adds anything. This is what I mean when I say a copy edit and taking out unnecessary quotes which don't enchance an understanding or if they do they beat around the bush so to speak. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what other concerns you come up with, and I'll take a look at them. I will admit that I went to some length to give Douglas' perspective, thus the quotes. I'd really like to be able to say more about Boddy, but he left no archives that I can discover and has had no biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the section I mean, Boddy versus Douglas. I think you should cut down on the quotes and write more in prose and do so in a way where the section doesn't read as if its literally a verbal face off. I know politics is a nasty business and I know this is what the section is about but I just think there is an encyclopedic way you can present both sides and write more of an account of it in your own words rather than somebody said this, he responded with saying ......, he laughed off etc. You see what I mean? A few quotes provinding they further an understanding is good but not to the extent where is starts to read as a narrative. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Is it just that section? I don't see it as much in the rest of the article, personally. Thank you, that is very constructive. I'd value feedback on the rest of the article. I'm going to try to keep this FAC going.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on the quotes and combined two of the paragraphs, and taken out the interaction between the two. I think the remaining quotes are justified. Possibly the paragraph about Pepper could be taken out, but as the Pepper race and the Nixon/Douglas race are closely linked, I think it is best to keep it in. Let me know your thoughts please.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better already. I feel that the article needs a final copy edit."The laughter recurred as Nixon, sitting behind Douglas as she spoke, fidgeted to show his disapproval of what she was saying, while Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter. After Douglas finished her remarks, Nixon rose to speak again, but Douglas left rather than listen to him." I think this could be reworded, also "Douglas appeared bewildered at the laughter" looks like original research. "After Douglas finished her remarks" ? After Douglas finished her remarks? I don't follow. "Finished remarks" seems a little clumsy, maybe "completed her speech"? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that change, thanks. Douglas appearing bewildered at the laughter is straight out of the book, but I didn't want to do it as a quote, because it wouldn't be improved by making it a quote. Obviously it stems from Bill Arnold's perspective, since he is a Nixon partisan I mention inline that it's his story, but the fact that it was put into the book makes it an appropriate secondary source. Both of these events were officially "off the record" events, so there is no contemporary news coverage to appeal to. Please feel free to let me know anything else you see that needs improving. Malleus is going to do a copyedit. I can certainly drop a note on your talk page once that has been done and hopefully you'll reconsider your oppose. Thanks! Very constructive.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support This has improved considerably thanks to the copyediting by Matisse. I now think it is almost there. Keep up the good work. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I'd welcome further feedback either here or better yet on the article talk page since this is getting to be very long and that can be a turnoff to reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review part 2 - Three new images have been added. Let us check those out.
    • File:Meyercard.jpg - This is the one that I was most unsure about. This is a pretty unfancy envelope, but it still might be eligible for copyright; I don't know if {{pd-ineligible}} would apply here. However, I would like a third opinion on this one please. (Also, could you categorize it)
    • File:Nixonmatch.jpg - Looks good.
    • File:Douglasenv.jpg - This doesn't seem like something that would be part of the House of Representatives, but the House does seem to claim that it is part of the Congressional Record, which would make it PD. That looks good.
  • NW (Talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meyercard.jpg is a business card, containing his name, degrees, address, and phone numbers. None of which are subject to copyright. It's like a telephone directory. I'm pretty pleased with myself for finding it in the Nixon archives, didn't expect to have anything relating to Meyer in this article, but apparently he came to Nixon hq and left his card (after reciting his campaign speech to the receptionist). I think it's PD, but can you get someone to doublecheck?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's note on my talk page, as well as your explanation, convinces me as to the copyright ineligibility of that image. So, images all look good now. NW (Talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A newly-added image lacks alt text; please add it. In general, when an image is added, alt text for it should be added too. In reviewing the altviewer output, could someone please make a pass through the alt text and punctuate it properly? Some entries are sentences but lack initial cap and/or final period; other entries are not sentences but lack a final period. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. Mattisse has spent much of the day copyediting the article, when she is done I'll take care of that punctuation. When I run the viewer, all entries have alt text. Is there a particular image that you see as not having it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse has done a wonderful copyedit of the article, keeping the article compelling yet smoothing out the little quirks of my writing style! I think the article is much improved, and I'd ask those who indicated that it needed a copyedit to take a second look and see if it is good. Incidentally, I did change that "War in the Pacific" heading.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Joint appearances - I'm a little confused here, exactly which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the letter? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • TR's daughter in law, not FDR's widow. I've made that clearer. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support After reading the article, and other reviewer's comments, it is my opinion that this article meets the four criteria. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that at the time of his frenzied campaign to discredit me as a reviewer, aided by Ottava Rima, the nominator went so far as to try to smeer me on the talk page of one of the ArbCom arbtirators, here, accusing me of incivility. I think this attempt to intimidate, humiliate, and damage a reviewer—for what was and remains a very straightforward review that contains not a jot of incivility—needs to be taken into account when this person has anything to do with future FA nominations. Above all, it is critical that reviewers feel they are free to provide feedback and assessment without fear that a nominator will run amok trying to damage them. All of this, and I didn't even oppose. I do not understand it. It's like "How dare you say anything critical about my article." Tony (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with Wehwalt's behavior completely, but I think it's best if you leave this matter Tony. It's run its course, and no need to open old wounds. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect Tony's position, but will not reply; anyone wishing to have a discussion is free to approach me off wiki. I should add that Tony did oppose, on the ground that a copyedit was needed and that I was unlikely to allow it, the article has been copyedited twice by Mattisse and Steve Smith, and those changes stand; I asked Tony to reconsider his oppose, here is the diff he did not choose to reply, as he did not choose to reply to my apology to him which Sandy applauded when she saw it. I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead. Tony himself noted that there was an FA in there when he made his original comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per Steve Smith and others. The article is thoroughly referenced from multiple sources. It has also been intensively copyedited for prose issues, and all the problems noted above have been addressed and more. The last copyedit by Steve Smith upped the quality another notch. This is an in depth treatment of a controversial event, and the editor has done an excellent job of providing the differing views on the subject. The prose allows the article to retains the flavor of the times through descriptions of the incidents characterizing the campaign, which adds interest and dimension to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has five six supports, including the GA reviewer, the peer reviewer, and three reviewers here who have gone through the article in considerable detail subsequent to Tony's oppose, which despite my request, he has not revisited, but we've done what he asked. Image and technical checks have been completed. I would submit it meets standards for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What date style is the article using ? This citation mixes two date formats:

WP:MOSNUM query, why thirty, not 30 ?

  • thirty years later she mentioned Reagan

Also, on the lead infobox, it looks huge. I tried to read the template code, but I don't speak that language. Is it within the 300px size? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date formatting fixed.
  • MOSNUM permits text expression of numerals of one or two words, and "thirty" falls into that category. I have never been able to get beyond eighth grade English class, and so generally prefer text where possible and permissible. Note that in the Pink Sheet section, though, I do use a number for 64. But for a one word numeral, I tend to go with text.
  • I've simply used the infobox formats used in all California Senate election articles. See, for example United States Senate election in California, 1994. This article is careful to follow the practices established by those, since it is one of a series, and I don't want to vary from the standardized layout, and so this article uses similar infoboxes, templates, tables, etc. I would advise against shrinking the infobox, even if we could figure out how. It looks fine, includes three nice images, and gives the reader important summary information.
  • Hope this helps. Thanks for the catch on the dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Republican-owned helicopter company in Palo Alto"—The party is in the helicopter business?
  • The business card image is just a brown blop. No one could ever read a word on it. Please enlarge the pic so it's functional on the page. Other images contain details that suggest a larger size is required; thumbnails default to 180px for our readers, which is rather small. See Eleanor R., envelope, opera house ... Tony (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meta-comment: " I think at this point, we should view Tony's concern regarding the article as acted upon, and move ahead." Ah, no, you presume far too much. I have not changed my "Strong oppose". Tony (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony: I've made those changes. Please let us know if you have any more concerns. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Tony's ongoing strong oppose, I looked at two sections and left notes on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Sandy. I am not home until late tonight, but will make the suggested changes and additional referencing then. I've already adjusted the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've carefully (I hope) spellchecked the article (for some reason, my browser doesn't seem to like "fundraising"), checked the lede to make sure that everything in there is supported in the article, and been proactive in looking at the rest of the article for the glitches Sandy was kind enough to point out. I think it's all done. All comments made by reviewers have been responded to and in most cases addressed (or explained why it shouldn't be so). Six supports, with an oppose whose stated concerns have been addressed. I think it meets the criteria for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has been kind enough to strike his strong oppose, for which I thank him.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we're at six supports, no opposes, technical check done, image check done, everything in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (with a couple of comments). I'm here somewhat at random after having a quick interaction with Wehwalt and deciding to read through this article. I've never done one of these reviews before, and I gather this comes a little late in the game, but as someone with a decent amount of historical knowledge with respect to this topic I figured it's worthwhile to weigh in, since most of the other reviewers are commenting on issues of prose, sources, logic of argument, etc. From a purely historical perspective I think this is rather well done. I don't see any errors of fact and I checked up on a number of things. For example I was surprised by the fact that Douglas apparently mentioned Marcantonio and Nixon vote similarities before Nixon ever got into a Douglas-Marcantonio connection, but the 1950 NYT article (which I read on ProQuest) at least partially bears that out. On the whole I think the topic is covered quite fairly (though I have one general quibble - see below) and the "history and legend" section is particularly effective as an overall evaluation. A few small concerns follow, but they do not alter my support for this being promoted to FA status.
    • Quite trivial, but the wording in footnote 52 is rather imprecise, particularly references to an "explanation" (obviously referring to an explanation for why "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent Nixon a check). Perhaps, for example, instead of saying, "Morris does not mention an explanation of "which Eleanor Roosevelt"... you could say "Morris does not mention a clarification by Nixon as to which "Eleanor Roosevelt" sent the check..." (or something similar).
    • On two occasions you cite Murray Chotiner's view of a particular situation where we might have reason to doubt his reliability as a source. First you note that "Chotiner stated twenty years later that Marcantonio suggested the comparison of voting records, as he disliked Douglas for failing to support his beliefs fully." It would be really nice to have backup for that (I can't access the original article but in historian (not Wikipedian) parlance it would be considered a "primary source"), though the suggestion is not completely unbelievable. The second instance, where you say, "Chotiner later stated that the color choice was made at the print shop when campaign officials approved the final copy, as the color appealed to them" is more problematic. Your footnote points out that Chotiner told multiple versions of the story, and it's a highly self-serving account (making what many would view as a Machiavellian move by a political operator schooled in red-baiting tactics seem to be little more than a random aesthetic choice). Though an interesting detail, you might want to remove it unless you can also include a historian's evaluation of its reliability or an alternative view suggesting that the color selection was not a matter of mere chance. Personally given the circumstances I don't find Chotiner's claim particularly credible.
    • One-third of numbered footnotes come from Gellman's book (and actually probably a higher percentage of the inline citations). Academic and non-academic reviews of the book (though I only found one of the former on America: History and Life) praise Gellman for his archival diligence, but at the same time view the book as a bit of an apologetic for Nixon (Gellman obviously cast it as a "revisionist" account). I've hunted around and I'm guessing it might be the most well-researched book that discussed the 1950 campaign in great detail but I'm curious if other (more recent) books or articles have taken different views of the campaign using the same sources Gellman first gained access to in the mid-1990s. Thi s is more something to think about for the future though as improvements are made after the article is (hopefully) promoted, and in general I think you did an excellent job keeping the article NPOV.
  • Again, none of that precludes me from supporting the promotion of this to featured status—just a couple of suggestions. Props to Wehwalt for all the effort on this article, particularly given the importance of this election to post-WWII American political history. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are several versions of each Chotiner story out there. Most Nixon bios mention that Nixon and Marcantonio were at least cordial, if not friends. A couple of them do have Marcantonio saying words to the effect of "Tell Dicky to get in on this thing" when he heard of Boddy's attacks during the primary. As for the Pink Sheet, most bios mention some version of Chotiner's story, but don't pass judgment on his truthfulness (though the man was a compulsive exaggerator, in my view, which explains why all the clients he was hailed before Congress for supposedly influence peddling lost their cases!) The reader will have to make his own judgment, I'm afraid. It's worth including, but it is not fully credible, I agree. Gellman writes the most lucid account of the 1950 campaign, which is why I relied heavily on him, but I'm careful to cite to him for facts, and given the wealth of legend surrounding the 1950 campaign, I cited little that was not in at least two accounts. Where he strays into opinion, however, that is clearly labeled in the article! I was talking with the archivist at the Nixon Library about him, it seems the second part of his bio about Nixon was greatly delayed due to illness, but is now just about done. I would say that Gellman and Black take a slight apologist view, but Morris and Mitchell take the opposite view, and Ambrose takes a neutral view, but his view is relatively early and he doesn't go into 1950 in great detail (Ambrose is writing about the first fifty years of Nixon's life in one volume, so it is less detailed) I also have an additional book, which I read part of while waiting for material at the Nixon Library, by Jonathan Aicken coming, perhaps I'll portion out some of the cites to him. I'll clean up that footnote, it became less precise in the course of copyeditiong of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Chotiner's actual comment on the Pink Sheet, "it just seemed to appeal to us, for the moment" is decidedly more ambiguous. I was asked to take as many quotes as possible out, because I tend to overinclude them, as an attorney, but that one I think I will put back in. It is unclear, and I think intentionally so, whether he's talking about aesthetic choice or whether they had a great idea at the print shop and had a The Prince moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2009 (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/United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_1950/archive2&oldid=1138474771"