Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spiro Agnew/archive1

< 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 [1].

Spiro Agnew

edit
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC) and Wehwalt[reply]

Largely forgotten today, this is the tale of the corrupt former vice president Spiro T. Agnew, who served from 1969 to 1973. His rise was meteoric, from almost nowhere to VP in just two years, and he was an early standard-bearer for what became known as the New Right – the "John the Baptist" of the movement, some said. His rhetoric of the "forgotten Americans", his avid cultivation of the politics of resentment, and his attacks on the elitist liberal establishment, have a strong contemporary feel. A controversial and divisive figure, with Nixon in deep Watergate stews, only Agnew's venality stopped him from becoming the 38th president. What might have been... Co-written by myself and Wehwalt, with sturdy help from our peer reviewers to whom many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comment

Source review

  • Ref #2: Does it need page numbers? Should "American National Biography" be removed, and if not should it be italicized?
  • Ref #11: The author is Douglas Martin.
  • Ref #46: Seems to misspell Csicsek.
  • Consider bringing the wiki-links for The New York Times and The Washington Post to their first instance in the References section. Consider wiki-linking other newspaper names there for consistency.

Those are all the issues I could find. Moisejp (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done those things. I've avoided the question of the ANB page numbers by using the online edition, which probably the majority of people do anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was among the peer reviewers and was v. satisfied with the outcome. One (I think) BrE spelling – "mould" – has subsequently crept in (third para of Campaign section). That apart, no further quibbles, and though Agnew is arguably more fortunate than he deserves in having two of our leading editors working together on this biographical article, I'm pleased to support its promotion to FA, as it seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 23:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help throughout. I've modified to avoid that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

This article about an important public figure is excellent. I have only a small number of minor suggestions and questions.
General
  • Alt text for the images would be nice.
Political awakening
  • ¶3 "With Symington's defeat in the congressional election, Agnew became the highest-ranking Republican in Maryland." – I got slightly confused in this paragraph by the juxtaposition of two different elections. It might be helpful here to say "When Symington lost to Democrat Clarence Long in the congressional election...".
Election 1966
  • ¶2 "Your Home is your Castle" – Should the second "your" have an uppercase Y?
  • ¶3 "Agnew had failed to report three alleged attempts to bribe him, made on behalf of the slot-machine industry..." – What did the slot-machine people want from Agnew?
In office
  • ¶3 "Several cities exploded into violence..." – Maybe just "in" rather than "into"?
Republican National Convention
  • ¶2 "In the discussions that followed about a running mate, Nixon kept his counsel while various party factions thought they could influence his choice - Strom Thurmond, the senator from South Carolina, told a party meeting that he held a veto on the vice presidency." – The hyphen doesn't work here. Should it be a terminal period? A semi-colon?
I've tried a colon..--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transition and early days
  • ¶5 "many of the commission assignments Nixon gave Agnew were sinecures" – Link sinecures?
"Nixon's Nixon": attacking the left
  • ¶2 "while himself remaining above the fray." – A little smoother might be "while remaining above the fray himself."
1970: Protesters and midterm elections
  • ¶2 "increasing Viet Cong control of parts of Cambodia, which they used as sanctuaries" – I think "it" would work better than "they" here. The Viet Cong was an organization.
  • ¶2 "Feeling that Nixon was getting overly dovish advice..." – Link dovish?
I think it can stand without it. Rogers and Laird were not pacifists.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "Nixon decided to attack the Viet Cong positions in Cambodia, a decision that had Agnew's vigorous support, and that he remained convinced was correct after his resignation." – For clarity, remove the comma between "support" and "and"?
Since we're jumping in time a bit, I think the comma is useful and should stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal investigation and resignation
  • ¶4 "Under increasing pressure to resign, Agnew took the position a sitting vice president could not be indicted..." – Insert "that" between "position" and "a"?
  • ¶5 "recalled that he heard the news while on the House floor and his first reaction was disbelief..." - Insert "that" between "and" and "his"?
I don't think it's necessary, it's close enough to the "recalled that".
Citations
  • Some of the citations to newspapers are in title case, and some are in sentence case. You might want to choose one over the other and make them all the same.
Thank you for the review. I've changed all of that except the alt text, which I hope to get to tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The alt text is done now too.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Switching to support, as noted above. Impressive article, easy to read. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
<My thanks added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tonystewart14

  • I'm curious if there's a reason you add "He died in 1996." at the end of the lead when this is already mentioned at the beginning of the lead.
I just think it rounds out the lede well, finishes telling the story.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another nitpick is on the "Post resignation" section: Should this have a hyphen instead of a space? Perhaps it's different in a section heading versus in text.
  • Final years and death, 2nd PP: Comma after Wednesday
  • Legacy, 2nd/3rd PP: Levy is used in second paragraph, then Peter Levy in the third. Perhaps this should be consistent as he was introduced quite a bit earlier.
  • Legacy, 3rd PP: "heartbeat away from the presidency" is cliche and not encyclopedic IMO.
  • Ref 3: Change 1966 to 1996. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those. Except where I commented, those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I went through this article in peer review, and found it very satisfactory. My opinion is unchanged. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I lack any expertise to comment on Agnew's life, but would like to offer the following comments on the section on World War II:

  • "He remained on standby in Birmingham until late in the year" - he would have been assigned to an officer replacement holding depot or similar (which by all accounts were soul-destroying places) - saying he was 'on standby' makes things sound a bit more interesting and glamorous than they probably were.
  • The source that deals with Agnew's military career (Witcover 1972) describes him as a "casual officer" in Birmingham before his posting to the 54th as a replacement. I can't say that "standby" suggests anything interesting or glamorous to me, rather the reverse. It's a pretty trivial point, not really worth changing, I feel. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Standby' suggests that he was something more than one of thousands of officers cooling their heels and waiting the fill the shoes of a dead or wounded officer. I'd suggest changing this to 'he remained in Birmingham'. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the following months, as commander of a supply and maintenance company, Agnew saw intense action" - how? The commander of a maintenance unit would have been behind the front line and have seen relatively little combat for members of these hard-fighting units (especially compared to his equivalent in one of the battalion's infantry companies). Did he go out of his way to get into action?
  • At the risk of being a bit nit-picky, the US Army's armored infantry battalions each had a single 'service company', not a 'supply and maintenance company' (see page 2 of [2], for instance)
  • Source refers to "service (supply and maintenance) company". Witcover is not a military historian so occasionally his choice of wording might be imperfect. I've changed it to "service company".Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his company was pinned down during the siege of Bastogne" - his company was part of a large US force besieged in the town: this wording makes it sound like it was only this unit. The garrison wasn't really 'pinned down' either - it gave as good as it got, with the armored and armored infantry battalions being used in a mobile role.
  • ""thirty-nine days in the hole of the doughnut", as one of his men put it" - the Seige of Bastogne only lasted for about a week
  • If one of his men said it, then it is worth hearing about because it was how they viewed it, and helps to show that Agnew was not an armchair warrior, given the hard line on Vietnam he would later take.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these observations. I've taken your points on board I think. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

edit

Who could forget the enemy of pusillanimous pussyfooting? :-) The article looks good overall, so only a few comments from me:

  • Last week an IP editor tried to add to the lead the fact that there was a third-candidate in the 66 governor's race. The add was quite clumsy and I reverted it, but the point does seem relevant enough to mention in the lead, considering that he won with less than a majority.
  • Speaking of that election, shouldn't the section on it have a "main article" note to Maryland gubernatorial election, 1966?
  • The lead and body say he helped win "border states", and the body lists South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. What definition of "border states" is this? It doesn't match Border states (American Civil War) or International border states of the United States.
I've made it less specific ("key states") in one case, and added a bit to the other. Definition of where states are has varied over time, North and South once met at the Mason-Dixon, not really true today.
  • I noticed some MOS:LQ issues -- "for a thousand years." is an obvious example of a phrase with the period inside the quotes, but there are also cases where what appear to be full sentences have the period outside the quotes, such as "I have one utility, and that's the ability to penetrate to the top people". I could fix the former type of case myself, but the latter should probably be looked at by someone more familiar with whether the quotes are full sentence or not.
I've gone through them and made what changes were called for.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the article is over 10,000 words, I wonder if there are opportunities to trim. Some possibilities to consider (I'm not saying any of these are wrong or offensive, just looking for opportunities to shorten the read without losing anything important -- there may be more opportunities that I didn't spot):
    • Do we need to know the specific address where Agnew's parents lived?
    • Or his salary on the Zoning Board?
    • "though he did not immediately become involved in politics" -- isn't that obvious enough from the subsequent narrative?
    • "as was customary, he sat down immediately after being sworn in, and did not make a speech" -- if it is typical, is it really significant enough to mention?

I don't want to be a nattering nabob of negativism, so that's it for now. --RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnew lived at his parents' house there too ... and people may not be aware of what the VP does at the inauguration. When the VP's inauguration took place in the Senate chamber, he did sometimes make a speech, so I'm inclined to keep it. The specific ones you cite, I'm inclined to keep, but I'll look through for cutting opportunities.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of these now. Further to cutting, I find from experience that cutting detail doesn't cut many words, it's only when you chop out paragraphs and subsections that these things add up. Thank you for the detailed review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all the changes made look good. Regarding the suggestions to trim, I'm still not clear on why his specific address is a significant point that should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. That said, I understand it will be a long article regardless of a few specific points that I may consider unnecessary. I didn't spot any other concerns in my standard review checks, so I support this for FA. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It allows you at least to check where it is on google maps, perhaps ... thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

edit

It looks great! I tool out some howevers and some hemisphere-dependent time referents, and formatted some images. I am minded to support after another pass. Good work. --John (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Just wanted to check if John, Tonystewart14 or Nick-D have anything to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nudge. Maybe, let me have a few more hours please. --John (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took a further hack at the prose. I think it's generally ok. I have qualms about finishing on the laudatory block quote from Levy; is that essential? I'm thinking of 1d here. --John (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article as a whole is negative to Agnew, since of course the facts are, and I'm inclined to keep it. It's not that laudatory and to the extent it is, it's useful balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, John. As to the final quote, not laudatory at all, I'd say, but more a caution as to how close Agnew came to inheriting the presidency given Nixon's straits, and also a useful reminder that politically Agnew was ahead of his time. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you've convinced me. I now support. --John (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for support and for earlier ce. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and support. The only other comment I have is that section headers 5 and 6 are a bit inconsistent with capitalization (Vice presidential vs. Vice Presidency). I'm assuming this is because Agnew is a candidate in the former case and the VP in the latter, but want to make sure. You could even throw in an Oxford comma in "Childhood, education and early career" while you're at it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

edit

I also chipped in with some, meagre, suggestions at PR. It was a great article then and fully merits support now. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks echoed. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There are one or two dablinks, which may well be justified given their distance apart, but I'd appreciate someone checking them after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2017 (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/Spiro_Agnew/archive1&oldid=1138471948"