Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wendell Willkie/archive1
- 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2015 [1].
This article is about... a man certainly best known for having lost to FDR in 1940, but there was much more to him than that. Had be been spared and given a full measure of years, he might have done quite a bit for the world. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- having read through I found one word duplicated(fixed) what I found is the term "Assessment" for the last section feels like it should be some WP:OR by the editors, the content isnt though. I did some looking through other republican leader articles and there they tend to use legacy, historical and memorial context which do seem a lot more neutral in tone and stay away from giving the appearance of making a judgement. Legacy memorial & monument lets the article appear to be complete. Gnangarra 12:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Suggest scaling up map size
- File:Wendell_Willkie_Plaque,_New_York_Public_Library_-_DSC06453.JPG: because this plaque has 3D elements, it also needs a tag for the photographer's copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, as always, for the review. I have requested Daderot, the photographer, to release it appropriately, see here They are at best only semi-active but if there is no action we have the precedent of Bobby131313 that uploading one's own work to Wikipedia or commons is consistent with a desire to release it via the four freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Did my heavy work on this at the peer review. If Willkie was running for the presidency this year I believe he would walk it, and quite right, too. He is a reminder of the times when politicians were more deservedly respected. I note that Willkie visited Liverpool in 1941, and is thus more than likely to have met Councillor Bessie Braddock; I bet they got on famously. Congratulations on a great article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'm sure they did, and I have no doubt they got on famously.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Meets all FA criteria, and is an enlightening article on an American politician whose name is deservedly known on the other side of the Atlantic. You never know with Wehwalt's remarkable series of biographies of politicians if you're going to get an article on an absolute shocker or on a good 'un, and I am pleased to find that Willkie is in the latter category. I enjoyed this extravagantly, and happily add my support. Tim riley talk 16:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that. I am glad he is well-remembered there, he is too little thought of here. Possibly that will change if a second businessperson gains the Republican nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Lingzhi
edit- Query: does the article intend to imply that Willkie switched parties solely because he wanted to run for president, and knew Roosevelt had the Dems nomination locked up? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added something on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder whether any details are available anywhere which explain exactly why he switched. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the most specific I could find offhand. I don't have all my sources anymore but can check if necessary at the library on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Google Books for "Wendell Willkie" and "switched" and found this, which I believe is a tertiary source. The key point here is one facet of Willkie's belief system is that he was perhaps nearly reflexively pro-business, and became suspicious of the New Deal from an instinctive (but moderate) anti-statist POV. [I.e., he was a social liberal, but right of center on business and economic issues]. Several details in the existing article text support this, but those details need to coalesce into a clear, concise, well-cited statement summarizing his (presumably) principled opposition to FDR and the New Deal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's this source. It's not exactly a historical journal, though. Relevant quote is "A Democrat in the early 30s, Willkie turned Republican because of what he felt to be unwise government restraints on business enterprise" If you think it's good enough, I'll use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That source ripped it from Encyclopedia Britannica (according to its references). What an incestuous little world academia is! Besides, that's still a bit too vague for my personal taste. I'll try to find a better source tomorrow; no time today. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as I said, I'm planning to go to the library on Tues and can review all my sources that I have now returned. If you think of anything else that might be usefully researched there, I'd be grateful. Thank you for your discerning comments..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That journal piece is still the best. I've added it for now as well as the other suggestion you made on my talk, but will start looking at contemporary news coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, the library was closed as they close for the university winter break, but I was able to view most of the sources on Google books. It is amazing how difficult this point is. They all either cite the political reason (Roosevelt gonna run, which really wasn't that clear) or pass over it. I saw a couple that discussed Willkie's nuanced beefs with the New Deal, but they never quite drew the connection. Willkie's views on the New Deal really weren't shared in the Republican Party either, but it was the only other game in town. So that journal is the best I have. I have no doubt they are correct, everything I've read points to it (if you disregard the political motive), but it's not an ideal source because it treats Willkie in passing and gets its info from the EB of some time ago. But at this point, I'm prepared to run with it as "best we have".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Found this in the NY Times, June 30, 1940. "Mr. Willkie blames the New Deal for the fact that he is not still a Democrat. He wanted to stay with the party of his first, or perhaps second, choice, but, as he says, it left him. He says he is not against Mr. Roosevelt, as a man. "What I am against is power" (the second bit was because they say he flirted with socialism at Indiana). Link is here, but unless you have an account ...here. But we can't say he switched because he opposed the New Deal as that isn't true, he supported much of it, and said so. Just parts he deemed anti-business, like the breakup of the utility holding companies. He had a point. Regulate them much or little, what utilities want is stability.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, the library was closed as they close for the university winter break, but I was able to view most of the sources on Google books. It is amazing how difficult this point is. They all either cite the political reason (Roosevelt gonna run, which really wasn't that clear) or pass over it. I saw a couple that discussed Willkie's nuanced beefs with the New Deal, but they never quite drew the connection. Willkie's views on the New Deal really weren't shared in the Republican Party either, but it was the only other game in town. So that journal is the best I have. I have no doubt they are correct, everything I've read points to it (if you disregard the political motive), but it's not an ideal source because it treats Willkie in passing and gets its info from the EB of some time ago. But at this point, I'm prepared to run with it as "best we have".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That journal piece is still the best. I've added it for now as well as the other suggestion you made on my talk, but will start looking at contemporary news coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as I said, I'm planning to go to the library on Tues and can review all my sources that I have now returned. If you think of anything else that might be usefully researched there, I'd be grateful. Thank you for your discerning comments..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That source ripped it from Encyclopedia Britannica (according to its references). What an incestuous little world academia is! Besides, that's still a bit too vague for my personal taste. I'll try to find a better source tomorrow; no time today. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's this source. It's not exactly a historical journal, though. Relevant quote is "A Democrat in the early 30s, Willkie turned Republican because of what he felt to be unwise government restraints on business enterprise" If you think it's good enough, I'll use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Google Books for "Wendell Willkie" and "switched" and found this, which I believe is a tertiary source. The key point here is one facet of Willkie's belief system is that he was perhaps nearly reflexively pro-business, and became suspicious of the New Deal from an instinctive (but moderate) anti-statist POV. [I.e., he was a social liberal, but right of center on business and economic issues]. Several details in the existing article text support this, but those details need to coalesce into a clear, concise, well-cited statement summarizing his (presumably) principled opposition to FDR and the New Deal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the most specific I could find offhand. I don't have all my sources anymore but can check if necessary at the library on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder whether any details are available anywhere which explain exactly why he switched. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added something on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if we have adequately emphasized and explained the influence/importance of One World?
- I've beefed this up in the Legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- [P.S. just noticed Zipp is too long for inline quote anyhow; should be blockquote]... Are Zipp's comments solely about One World, or about Willkie's whole career? If the former, suggest moving the Wells quote before Zipp as the setup for the spike; if the latter, well, can the Zipp quote be broken up and distributed into chunks, with the One World stuff preceded by Wells and the "whole career" stuff preceded by another laudatory quote? And then of course, does the lede adequately cover this new addition... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's One World but it's a bit unclear. The words "In the end, Willkie's legacy was ambiguous." precede the Zipp quote. I read that as talking specifically about One World (what the article is about, after all) as if Zipp was talking about Willkie's general legacy as a person, he'd be more likely to say "Willkie's legacy is ambiguous".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done more or less as you suggest, shortening the Zipp quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've beefed this up in the Legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of becoming odious and/or tedious (too late!), I should say that I am really not keen at all on the idea of ending sections (and in fact the whole article) with block quotes. I may be wrong, but IIRC the APA format casts disapproving glances in the general direction of anyone who does this. I know we don't adhere to any standard nor can any one standard be used as a guideline. My point is that there is a reason why the APA (again IIRC) says this: because ending with a block quote creates a dangling, distracting look and feel to the text... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's what I have found through experience works OK on Wikipedia, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nolo contendere, then. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lingzhi: Just checking whether you wanted to add to your comments above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ian Rose: On the one hand, I do wanna find the best possible support and wording for the points mentioned above, and have a lingering desire to re-check whether the lede adequately covers things. But on the other hand, I cannot imagine any alternate universe in which I will not Support this after tweaking. I haven't had quite as much time and (more importantly) haven't been in a mood to think hard/focus/concentrate because of Christmas. If there's some sort of a rush for some reason, you can Promote it. I can work on it later, with Wehwalt's blessings. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lingzhi: Just checking whether you wanted to add to your comments above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nolo contendere, then. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's what I have found through experience works OK on Wikipedia, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm always happy to work with anyone on article improvement at any time. I think everyone knows any suggestions brought up will be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading through, but leaning support. Have been reading about the FDR political era recently so this is of interest. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ceoil: Did you want to expand on your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Cas Liber
edit- aaaal-righty then....using this revision for stable referencing numbers....
- FN 37 has a formatting tag that needs tweaking.
- FN 146 - formatting
- Refs otherwise have consistent formatting.
- Fn 31 used 3 times - material faithful to source.
- FN 140 - material faithful to source.
Need to sleep now - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need the sleep more in a few days, I suspect ... thank you for the comments. I've done the first two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 37 checked via JSTOR - material faithful to source.
- FN 149 - material faithful to source.
Oops...almost forgot...Earwigs ok I'm happy - spot check all clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.