Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Checkers speech/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Checkers speech

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm intending to nominate it for FA and would like some feedback. It recently passed its GAN. I'd especially like advice as to whether the level of detail is appropriate, and as to whether they think the article is in any way POV.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I intend to add some review comments for this article, but as I have only just passed it at GA, I'd like someone else's input first if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing... (with my little dog too) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. I'd also add as an issue I'd like feedback on, is the justification for the two images from the speech, that I believe are free use. I asked Fasach Nua if he could look at it, but he deleted my request from his talk page unanswered.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jappalang reviews photos / images at FAC and may be helpful here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He says they are public domain. That's good.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only respond where I have something to say, otherwise I'll just implement them over the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks quite good to me, pretty much ready for FAC. Here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I will satrt now and come back later for more...

  • In the lead could it be confusing to refer to Nixon as a future President here: With his place on the Republican ticket in doubt, the future President flew to Los Angeles... If someone knows little about Nixon, I am not sure they would get this. It might be better to put this fact after ...Eisenhower and Nixon swept to victory in November 1952. something like "Nixon was elected President in 1968"
  • Would These contributions went to reimburse the senator for postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, travel costs, and similar expenses. read better with the order changed, perhaps These contributions went to reimburse the senator for travel costs, postage for political mailings which he did not have franked, and similar expenses.?
  • The lead has two paragraphs with only one link - could some more be added?
  • Could something about the legality of the fund be added to the lead?
  • WP:HEAD says not to repeat all or part of the name of the article in a header - could "Events before the speech" be something like "Prelude"? Not sure how to change "Idea for a speech" - just "Idea"? "Idea for an address"?
I'll try to think of something, but I agree with the latter point, I can't think of how to change it to something as good or better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one or two exceptions are OK, especially here. {{WP:IAR]] and all that Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add California to In 1950, Congressman Richard Nixon was elected to the Senate... (say what state he represented)
  • Trim this a bit? With the election to a six-year term secured, Nixon campaign officials discussed how to further his career.
  • I would say "senator" not "representative" here While Nixon received an expense allowance of over $75,000 as a representative of one of the most populous states...
I guess the point is that it is California's high population, even then, which got him a larger office expense (more consituents to reply to, etc.) I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was more since he was in the House of Representatives and then became a Senator, both from California, it might be confusing to use "representative" here (as opposed to "senator"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the start of the Development of the story section I would mention the Republican convention (had he already been nominated and approved by the convention - assume so).
  • I would say what newspaper reporter Peter Edson worked for, who would see his column (was it local or syndicated)?
I researched writing an article on him but couldn't find much. When I'm on my own computer, with the NYTimes access to his obit, I remember it mentioned his news organization. Not a problem, in other words.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article said Nixon was touring several states and Pomona was identified as being in California, I would add CA to Bakersfield too (they seem about equally well known to me)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about Nixon called two professors of his acquaintance [he knew?] at his alma mater, Whittier College,
  • Missing article? The candidates waved at the crowd of 3,000 which had come to meet the plane, and rode together, with Nixon in [a? the?] place of honor...
No, it is correct as written. The right hand side of the back seat is where the person of superior rank/prestige sits, it is a protocol thing, if you want an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "earned" or "won" be clearer than "gave" in According to Nixon biographer Conrad Black, the speech gave Nixon supporters throughout Middle America which he would keep through the rest of his life...?
  • I think there should be some mention that Nixon is the only US President to ever have resigned before things like Nixon critics, however, would see the address as the "ultimate expression" of the resigned President's "phoniness".[85]
That might be overkill. All I am trying to do is paint Nixon, for that one brief sentence, in a mild negative POV, as his critics might see him. I originally had "disgraced" but felt that was too much. Suggestions welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could it even be something like Nixon critics, however, would see the address as the "ultimate expression" of the "phoniness" of the only President to have resigned the office.[85] or something like that?
I'll just change "resigned" to "controversial". God knows that is the truth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a {{inflation}} template which might be useful
  • In general, there are a few places that could benefit from providing context, even a sentence.
    • For example, there seem to have been no or few campaign fincance laws at the time and a sentence early on explaining the existing laws would help. It might also be useful to mention later campaign fincance laws in the legacy section.
Maybe better at the time that we mention the arrival of the Gibson Dunn legal report would be better? Then the reader will be, so to speak, "thinking" legal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, wherever you think best Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also would state early on the members of the Democratic presidential ticket - I did not know who Adlai Stevenson's running mate was and the first mention or two of Senator ___ (forgot it already) I wondered who he was / why he was being mentioned.
Good point, I'll do it. Honestly, I always thought Kefauver ran both times with Adlai.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also think it would help to specifically say what would have been covered by his Senate office (postage?) and what would not (extra flights to CA?). Would the expansion of congressional benefits (even a sentence or two) be useful in the Legacy section too?
As far as I know, no changes to congressional salary or benefits or campaign laws happened because of the Checkers speech, so I'd rather keep that out of the legacy section. There was a lot of talk afterwards, but no action. He could not have paid for more than the single flight and back to CA for him and his family out of the office account. I'll see if I can squeeze in a couple more mention of what it covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. All good points, and I will implement them when I am back on my own computer tomorrow (no time right now I fear). Thanks again. I welcome suggestions or persuasion on all points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, thanks. I'll get on it.
Glad to help - let me know when this is at FAC and I will be glad to support Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure will. I've implemented most of what you said. On the campaign finance laws, I just got more specific about what the legal report said. Too easy to ge bogged down. Everything else is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

Some good stuff added since GA, notably the Earl Warren angle and extra info about Stevenson's fund. I haven't a great deal more to say – it's an excellent article, worthy GA candidate, will have my support. A few nitpicks and one suggestion:-

  • "After the speech, Nixon was shown the Post story, which had been picked up by UPI under the headline "Nixon Scandal Fund", by Republican activist Keith McCormac." Remove hint of ambiguity by rephrasing: After the speech, Republican activist Keith McCormac showed Nixon the Post story, which had been picked up by UPI under the headline "Nixon Scandal Fund",
  • "...Nixon confidant and Congressman..." Not sure about the "and". He was Nixon's confidanr; was he also Nixon's congressman?
  • "The two newspapers would not be alone..." In the GA review I drew attention to some aspects of the text that were more journalistic than encyclopedic, and this is a further example. The sentence could easily begin: "Over a hundred newspapers wouold editorialize..."
  • "Nixon preferred to work from a memorized text..." Suggest "normally preferred..." etc
  • Is it worth mentioning, in the Legacy section, that the Checkers speech (or rather, "The Fund") was one of Nixon's "six Crises" in his book of that name?

Where next with Nixon? Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made those changes, inserting Six Crises into the existing text. Brian, you catch the things that give me pause, but then I flip a coin and keep it in. I'll flip less often. Yes, there is always a tension between encyclopedia style and wanting to write in an entertaining manner. Anyway, I'm hoping you ment "FA", not "GA" and looking forward to nomming it as the former. Soon as Voorhis clears the floor. As for what's next, it seems to be California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, right now is in the ugly construction stages, and then maybe the 1950 one. Thinking about a featured topic about the early political career of Nixon. Thanks for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Checkers_speech/archive1&oldid=1078818440"