Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Senate election in California, 1950/archive1

United States Senate election in California, 1950

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nom it for FA. I am not going to do that, by the way, until I have the complete election statistics, which I will get in July when I go to California. So take it as given I know that needs to be done. I just want to hear about everything else. This was a landmark election (Nixon/Douglas) in U.S. history and is still talked about, and I'd like to get it to FAC in August.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I can't do it all at once, but here is a healthy chunk to get started on. I do enjoy these wallows in the Nixon murk.

• Lead
  • WP:LEAD states that articles "should begin with a short declarative statement answering two questions: what/who is the subject, and why is this subject notable." Your opening sentence only answers the first. In fact, the issue of notability is not addressed until the third sentence, and then somewhat obliquely, with references to "bitterness" and the voting record of Vito Marcantonio, of whom I suspect few of your readers will have heard. I suggest that this first paragraph is redrawn to comply with WP:LEAD and also to clarify the "red scare" notability issue.
  • Second paragraph: A bit confusing as worded; I had to read it several times to ensure I had the right chronology. Also phrases like "leapt into the race" carry a strong whiff of opinion. A suggested rewording of the paragraph follows – would you consider this?

Both Douglas and Nixon gave up safe congressional seats to run against Senator Downey; no other representatives were willing to risk the contest. In March 1950 Downey announced his retirement, after which Los Angeles Daily News publisher Manchester Boddy joined the race, attacking Douglas as a leftist and making the first comparisons between Douglas and Marcantonio. The Douglas-Boddy Democratic primary contest was won easily by the former, but the bitter contest left the party divided. Only two party officials considered contesting the Republican primary with Nixon, and each soon stepped aside.

• Early campaign - Background
  • I suggest that the "Early campaign" heading be dropped, and that this "Background" section be transferred into the "Primary campaigns" section.
  • Is "liberal lion" a recognised political label? If so, perhaps it should be in quotes, and/or cited. If it is editorial shorthand for a leading liberal, the desciption perhaps ought to be modified.
  • Too much information in one sentence? "Douglas, the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, had represented the 14th 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." I would split: "Douglas was the wife of actor Melvyn Douglas, and had compiled a liberal record representing the 14th Congressional district since 1945. This district combined Hollywood with a large part of poverty-stricken South Central Los Angeles."
  • "In the post-war years" is a bit vague. "Between 1945 and 1950" would be more accurate.
  • "Much of the 1950 campaign..." Does this refer exclusively to the Senatorial election? (You have just mentioned that Governor Warren was running for reelection, and there were presumably Congressional races too).
  • Another sentence to split – suggest: "Marcantonio, the sole congressional representative of the American Labor Party, represented East Harlem. He denied being a communist, and in general, rarely addressed the issue of the Soviet Union and communism."
• Democratic contest - Early campaign
  • The Lybeck quote ends "crucify a statewide candidate with upon a cross of no-gold." Is the "with" meant to be there? It doesn't make any sense.
  • "On October 5..." Give year
  • You don't need "From then on" and "throughout the remainder of the year" in the same sentence.
  • The positioning of the Earl Desmond sentence in the middle of the Douglas v. Downey spat, looks odd. I think it would be better placed as a "Meanwhile..." sentence at the end of the section.
• Boddy versus Douglas
  • First sentence belongs to previous section, surely?
  • As this is a new section the "major candidates", should both be named, e.g. "he and Douglas"
  • "April" should be April 1950" (we need to know the year)
  • "as yet" is redundant
  • (Comment not for action) The "Helencopter" - is that all Dick Tuck did, make a terrible pun? No wonder Douglas lost.
  • "Soon after Smathers' triumph, which in the days of the yellow dog South was tantamount to election, Nixon visited his friend, Congressman Smathers, for an explanation of his victory." Awkward repeat of "Smathers". I suggest the sentence ends: "...tantamount to election, he was visited by his friend Richard Nixon, who sought an explanation for this victory."
  • "Boddy linked Douglas with Marcantonio, and the congresswoman later stated that the publisher was stockpiling ammunition for Nixon to fire later." This isn't really an "and" sentence. I would suggest: "Boddy linked Douglas with Marcantonio; she later stated that the publisher was stockpiling ammunition for Nixon to fire later."
  • I'm not sure that "a full-page ad" is encyclopedic. Maybe it is. What "warning" did the ads give to Democratic voters?

I shall return, as somebody somewhere once said, and did. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to these within two or three days, am back on the road. Also working on your illustrious ancestor with an eye to the Aug 17 bicentennial of his death. As for Tuck, that is the only reference I find to him, yes there are stories (him booking a huge, empty hall for Nixon), but frankly, from what I know of Nixon and Chotiner, that one's got to be a myth. Anyhow, thanks for the comments and looking forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made most of those changes, if not all. I favor leaving in the full page ad, it shows it wasn't in the classifieds! While I can't get 100 percent confirmation, the committee who ran that ad was almost certainly Boddy's committeepuppet, if you get my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My point on the "full-page ad" phrase was merely whether the abbreviation "ad" is encyclopedic. Nothing else. Sorry I didn't clarify that. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More comment

• Republican contest
  • Nixon decided to seek the Senate seat in October. Give us the year so that we are clear with the chronology.
  • "The representative made an announcement of his candidacy..." This will confuse those, especially Brits, who are unware that "representative", lower case, is how members of the lower house in the US Congress are sometimes styled. They will wonder who made this announcement – the representative of what? It reads perfectly OK as "Nixon".
  • ""there was no need. The Democrats were self-destructing." This is cited, but who actually said it?
  • Fourth paragraph, third sentence, should begin with a pronoun
  • "With no challenge by any Republican officials, Nixon won an overwhelming victory in the Republican primary, with his cross-filing rivals, Boddy, Douglas, and Desmond, finishing well behind him, but well ahead of the two fringe candidates."
    • "from any Republicans", surely - why specify "officials"?
    • "Challenge from" is maybe better.
    • Isn't there a redundancy here? An overwhelming victory indicates of itslf that his opponents finished well behind him.
• Joint appearances: "The audience gasped in shock at the idea of the former first lady, known for her liberal views, contributing to Nixon's campaign." Should be separately cited.
• War in the Pacific
  • Inappropriate section title. The war is barely mentioned and is drowned by a mass of campaign stuff. And, from a geographical point of view, the Korean War was hardly a "war in the Pacific". Korea is cut off from the Pacific by the Japanese archipelago.So, I would retitle the section.
  • "However, the President, holding a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt, eldest son of Franklin Roosevelt, for trying to oust him in 1948, refused to campaign in California." A bit clumsy. A slight adjustment would give: "However, the President refused to campaign in California; he held a grudge against Democratic gubernatorial candidate James Roosevelt, eldest son of Franklin Roosevelt, for trying to oust him in 1948."
  • What is the basis of the updated values, here and elsewhere?
  • "Leaving aside the issue of communism..." would sound more detached as "Aside from the issue of communism..."
  • Again for the benefit of we Brits, could you say something like: "the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act"?
  • "As public support for the conflict..." It is a while since you mentioned the Korean War, so this "conflict" needs to be clarified.

To be concluded. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll get on these. The "War in the Pacific" was supposed to reference the Korean war, of course, but also the nasty little fracas between Nixon and Douglas along the Pacific Coast of North America! Should I still change it? And as for the "Republican officials", I'm not sure which parties Meyers and Leavitt belonged to (the fringe guys). Leavitt ran only as a Republican, while Meyers cross filed. So I need "officials" in there to exclude them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made all those changes, though I used different language in some cases (as in the Taft Hartley Act). I've added a ref to the money site I used in the Rogers and Checkers articles. I'm not sure what you meant by that sentence starting with a pronoun, possibly that two straight sentences start with "Nixon", so I made it so they don't. Thanks for the comments, can't wait to hear how it all comes out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When you finish, I'd appreciate your view on whether I should submit it for FAC soon even though I don't have the vote percentages for the primaries (all I have is what was printed in Gellman). I will get them, I'm going to the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda when I go to California in a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've not had time to list detailed comments on the remaining sections. I have read them, and saw little to trouble me beyond quibbles. I can look again if you wish, but it won't be until after 26th because I'm away until then. As to when to send the article to FAC, I don't think it's necessary to wait for the primary vote percentages. I've seen plenty of less-prepared articles than this at FAC; it's up to you, really. Can't see any reason why I wouldn't support it, even if it needs a few more tweaks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then thanks, I'll move ahead with this and close the PR and nom for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)