Talk:Draft Eisenhower movement/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 19:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be updating this section as I review the article.
• Overall, very nice article.

Well written

• Article follows MOS:LAYOUT well.

Notes on lead

• I think that the first paragraph of the lead could be greatly improved by switching the sentence order (see MOS:FIRST). From:
  

The Draft Eisenhower movement was the only successful political draft of the 20th century to take a private citizen to the Oval Office. It was a widespread political movement that eventually persuaded Dwight D. Eisenhower, former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army to contest the presidency.

to:

The Draft Eisenhower movement was a widespread political movement that eventually persuaded Dwight D. Eisenhower, former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army to contest the presidency. It was the only successful political draft of the 20th century to take a private citizen to the Oval Office.

Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think the use of the word "persisted" here is incorrect. Perhaps "after being urged/asked repeatedly" would work much better.
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Confirmed.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes on background

• In the second paragraph, the first sentence has 3 and's. A comma without the and could probably do the trick here. See:
  

In November 1945, he was named Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, and in December 1950 was named supreme commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which gave him operational command of NATO forces in Europe.

However, I think it's best to divide this into two sentences and explain a bit more about what he did during those years.

Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes on "Eisenhower Boom"

• I believe this section needs a better introduction, either by expanding on the background section or adding more context to the first sentences. While the first sentence is fine, the second sentence seems to have two focuses. The first half mentions that support grew for his nomination, but does not detail in what sectors of the population (e.g. political establishment, civilian, military, news media) this was evident in. The second half mentions that some politicians were opposed to him or any other military figure running. This half is nice but since the previous half was specific and the second half more general, it's a bit counter-intuitive for the introduction sentences. Perhaps talking about a general trend of people wanting successful war generals to run, then this second half, and then mentioning there was particular support for Eisenhower would increase the clarity of the prose.
  • I agree, and I tried to clarify it further in the first introduction paragraph. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Confirmed.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• The last sentence is hanging by itself. I mention it below, but the topic of Truman's upset would require expansion (or being appended to the previous paragraph if you really do not believe the topic needs further expanding upon).
  • Well, I can surely expand it (few weeks ago, I wrote Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign), but I feel that it would be too off-topic. Truman's victory is mentioned just to provide an insight of what happened in the election, when Ike himself favored Dewey and columnists said "Truman will suffer one of the worst election defeats". It also helps the reader understand how Truman was still the president in 1952. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, I see your point. Confirming change.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Notes on "I like Ike"

• Very well written section.

Thanks – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• Correct

Broad in its coverage

• Mostly correct
• Eisenhower is described as an immensely popular figure in the U.S., and one would imagine this is due to his actions during the war and being considered somewhat of a 'war hero'. However, the article goes little into this. I think in order to truly get a sense of why he was so popular during these two election cycles, there should be more information on Eisenhower's actions during the war. For example, newspaper articles on the great success of the Normandy landings praising Eisenhower, etc. this front page from the LA times or this front page are two examples I can think of. I'm not necessarily suggesting you include them as images in the article, but there needs to be more depth on the information regarding public sentiment of him during the war.
  • @A. C. Santacruz – I have addressed all your concerns. I mentioned the popularity of Eisenhower among Americans, and his role in the war in 'Background' section. The introduction lines to the '"Eisenhower Boom" (1948)' section have been re-written, with some new information, hopefully benifiting to the reader. Please let me know if there is anything else to be addressed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Confirming changes.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Stable

• Yes

Illustrated

• Mostly.
• The Dewey picture in the 1952 section is not as relevant as some alternatives. Some suggestions (I think the video would be fantastic for the article, let me know what you think):
  • I have included the image (File:1952 Eisenhower Political Ad - I Like Ike - Presidential Campaign Ad.webm) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Confirming change. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall

• On hold
  • Approval pending one last typo and grammar check.

• Done! Congratulations Kavyansh.Singh. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further suggestions by Aboudaqn

Thank you for contacting me. Now that you mention it and looking back over the entry's history, I realize I am the single largest contributor (or largest single contributor?)... If you're asking for further improvements, here are my immediate thoughts:

1. Lede: I think ledes should not be longer than a paragraph, preferably with citations from the start, so I would move some content from the three opening paragraphs into the main text.
2. Dates: To me, one of the ingredients that can make Wikipedia historical entries particularly useful is carefully dated events – to the point that I now start with year, month, or date to begin many sentences, just to make chronology obvious. For example, I just added the a date to a caption for what turned out to be a 1944 photo of Eisenhower. I added a date for the James Roosevelt photo, too, which lets readers know he is younger in the photo by a decade.
3. 1952: To close the 1952 section, I would add a link to a longer entry that focuses on Eisenhower's 1952 presidential bid, which would parallel the earlier Background section's link from his WWII career.
4. References: Because the citations/references are so incredibly handy for readers, I try to document every single sentence these days, so I would add citations in the lead 3 paragraphs (whatever happens to them in terms of location in entry) and also in the Aftermath section.
5. Aftermath/Legacy: I would separate Aftermath from Legacy and see whether you could find a bit more information to flush each out - with citations, of course!
6. See also: I added two names to the See Also section because they seem the most important in terms of 1948 boom events -- to me, the crux of this entry.

I hope this is the kind of response you were looking for. Many thanks again for contacting me, a very polite thing to do (and too uncommon in Wiki-World). - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)