Wikipedia:Peer review/California's 12th congressional district election, 1946/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946[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 intend to nominate it for Featured Article, and I'd like review of it before doing so.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have done the first part. I will get back to complete my review, but my online access during the next few days is going to be limited, so there may be delays. The article looks like the usual comprehensively researched study of Nixon's rise to power; the points I raise are mostly minor prose issues.

  • Lead
    • Lead
    • As there was a third candidate, I'm not sure you should say that the elaction was "between" Nixon and Voorhis
      • I've put Hoeppel in the lead sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Various" and "varies" in successive sentences does not sound well. Also, I don't don't understand "The amount of evidence for these claims varies" The amount varies, i.e. goes up and down? Rewording advised.
  • District and campaign
    • First sentence: "Since its creation following the 1930 census due to California's population growth, the 12th district had been represented by Democrats." The clauses read awkwardly; a smoother version might be: "Since its creation, after the 1930 census had revealed California's population growth, the 12th district had been represented by Democrats."
    • I am uneasy about using "today" to indicate a point in time. I suggest the sentence begins: "The area has since been entirely absorbed..." etc
    • Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be clarified that the legislature doing the gerrymandering was the California state legislature, presumably Republican-dominated.
      • It was and it was, though Governor Culbert Olson was a Democrat and the Assembly (lower house) was governed by a coalition between Republicans and conservative Democrats. However, the sources indicate that the Republicans dominated, and I will so state. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Elected as part of the Roosevelt landslide of 1936, his 1938 opponent was so shy..." The opponent wasn't elected, Voorhis was, so the sentence should begin: "When Voorhis was first elected, as part of..." etc
  • Search for a candidate
    • "...in advance of the June primary election" needs a year.
    • I have replaced the semicolon after "controversy" with a full stop, to break an overlong sentence. I also wonder if "controversy" is the right word for press opposition from one newspaper?
      • I've switched to "editorial concern". That happened to be in the '46 campaign files at the Nixon library, and those files are not extensive. I don't know if others felt the same way or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He continued to consider running..." - "He vacillated..."?
      • Don't know if he did or didn't. I think vacillated is too strong a word. That implies sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't know anything more about Dexter's frame of mind than is stated. He may just have been holding the Committee's feet over the fire for a job assurance. I don't take Voorhis's "hard to beat" comment too seriously, he had a depressive state of mind. Brooding, one Nixon biographer characterizes him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had Hoeppel changed parties? Should be clarified.
      • Probably he didn't. He ran three times in the Republican primary between 1938 and 1944 too. Not unusual under cross filing for a candidate to run in another party's primary, not his own, especially if a minor party. I think Hoeppel sailed under a flag of convenience. He wanted Voorhis's head. There's really not enough info to clarify this in the article. It would be possible to find out his voter registration, but I'm not planning to go to Sacramento anytime soon. Minor point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been advised that for "sic" one should use the template, thus: [sic]
    • Who was the "former Whittier president" who recommended Nixon?
      • Dexter, he's described as such. But I changed it to "he".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While a number of potential rivals also showed up at the meeting on November 2, 1945, including a local judge and assemblyman, Nixon, who spoke last, was, according to one Committee member, "electrifying"." "While" is not appropriate here; the two parts of the sentence (a number of rivals showing up, and Nixon's electrifying speech) are not connected. Suggest drop "while" and split sentence after "assemblyman".
  • Primary campaign
    • Far too many commas (six) in opening sentence. My version would be: "Nixon was discharged from the Navy at the start of 1946; within days Richard and Pat Nixon, the latter eight months pregnant, returned to Whittier where they initially moved in with the candidate's parents, Frank and Hannah. (3 commas plus semicolon)
    • Second sentence: "in fact" redundant.
      • It's one of my writing quirks. Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hoeppel filed as a Prohibitionist." This political shorthand won't be widely understood - at least, not here in the UK. We need to be told that he entered the election as a Prohibitionist candidate. "Nevertheless" is not the right word to begin this sentence; "Subsequently" would be OK.
    • "The consultant, Murray Chotiner..." At this stage, I think "a political consultant"
        • Yep. Done and piped. The start of a rather odd relationship.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General election (intro)
    • "...while driving to California from Washington D.C. in August, he was forced to have surgery for hemorrhoids in Ogden, Utah." I am not familiar with US medical procedures, but this sounds quite impressive. My suggested version is a lot less intriguing: "...while driving to California from Washington D.C. in August, he was delayed in Ogden, Utah, where he underwent surgery for hemorrhoids."
      • There you see the down side of having socialized medicine. Still, I am decide you don't have drive in surgery for hemorrhoids. They wash your car, too. But I digress. Changed, but some of the life is out of the article. My change is rather simpler, I just struck "driving" and inserted "en route".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Pasadena debates
    • "the May media attacks" - which attacks were these? I can't find an earlier mention.
      • Perhaps stated too dramatically. I meant press comment over the initial claims about the PAC issue, which puzzled Voorhis, because he knew he hadn't been endorsed by the CIO-PAC. Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is substantial over-detailing in the background information you give concerning the South Pasadena debate. For example, the information about Knowland sending Chotiner, or Will Rogers sending Holifield, is not relevant to the debate between Nixon and Voorhis. I recommend some blue pencilwork at the lower end of the first paragraph. The account of the debate itself is compelling, and it's a pity to have it watered down by an over-fussy prelude.
      • I think you have to introduce Holifield and stress that he was there, as he tells Voorhis that Nixon cut him to pieces. His presence is essential to that, and it is less effective to introduce him at the end. Granting that, it costs nothing to mention that Chotiner was the Knowland proxy. I have cut back by deleting the sentence about how Nixon and Voorhis were the only candidates addressing the crowd, not counting cross-filing victor Holifield.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more...

  • Additional debates
    • "with the debate sponsored by the Whittier Ex-Servicemen's Association, attendance was limited to veterans," suggest should start "as the debate as sponsored by..." etc
      • Got it. It was a small hall by the way, they had to limit attendence. I couldn't find any info on it, which is why it is the only debate site not photographed. Probably name change or torn down.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nonetheless, McCall challenged the Voorhis campaign to as many as eight additional debates, of which three were actually held, after Chotiner convinced the candidate that he needed to run an aggressive campaign to the end." I think a more logical structure is "Nonetheless, after Chotiner convinced Nixon that he needed to run an aggressive campaign to the end, McCall challenged the Voorhis campaign to as many as eight additional debates, of which three were actually held."
    • "Nixon parried that with a comment that..." Suggest lose the first "that".
  • Final days
    • "ad" is a bit informal
    • "...when outraged Nixon supporters demanded an endorsement of Nixon or at least a retraction of the letter, refused." Need to specify "Warren refused."
    • "On election night, Voorhis took an early lead,..." Suggest: "On election night, Voorhis took an early lead in the vote count,..."

I will be back to finish off. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later

  • Candidates: no comment
  • Historical issues
    • "would be scrutinized" - "was scrutinized", perhaps?
    • Two successive sentences begin "Nixon biographer"
    • I'm puzzled by the sentence "As each candidate completed his career in political office, he wrote a memoir." It's not clear who is being written about here, or whether it is a general observation. I don't think it adds anything, it interferes with the flow, and would be best deleted.
      • I intended it as a transition into what the candidates said about it in their memoirs, but I guess you are right. Sliced and mild modifications made to following sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1948, Voorhis alleged..." The pronoun could be used here.
    • In what way was Hiss Nixon's nemesis? The other way round, I would have thought?
      • I think it is OK, but I understand that some might think that the nemesis relationship only goes one way, so have changed to "enemy".--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nine years later, Voorhis..." - nine years later than what? Needs clarification.
    • Parmet need not be fully described again.
    • Voorhis's 1947 publication was earlier described as a "memoir". Now we have (twice) "memoirs". Consistency needed.
    • "writing nine years after Morris" - when did Morris write?
      • 1990, as the reader now knows.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish when I get home tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just a few minor points to finish:-

  • Nixon campaign
    • Not many of us insular Brits know that G.O.P. means Republican Party, so I suggest a link. (I would also prefer GOP to G.O.P.)
    • "The campaign emphasized smaller papers,..." - "emphasized" meaning concentrated on. I'm not sure this is the best choice of verb.
    • "Nixon supporter and Republican National Committeeman from California McIntyre Faries..." This seems unnecessarily clumsy; perhaps "McIntyre Faries, Republican National Committeeman from California and a Nixon supporter,..." Also, is there a link that can help explain "Republican National Committeeman" - is this a significant office?
        • Significant party office. I'll link to Republican National Committee. At the time, there was a committeeman and a committeewoman for each state and territory. Basically, it is the national party's governing body between conventions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voorhis campaign: Just one small point - "Nixon later stated..." Could we know when Nixon stated this?
    • He said it in 1960, when he initially refused to debate Kennedy. I've added the info and a source in a footnote so as not to distract the reader, but still make it available to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment. Very thorough, no stone left unturned. Probably needs a slow readthrough out loud, to pick up any remaining prose glitches/slightly awkward phrases, but overall looks like a worthy addition to the series. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that and perhaps nom it over the weekend. Am giving a thought to writing about the Alger Hiss affair, plenty of sources there, but I have a bunch of projects going, still, would be nice to have the article for the 60th anniversary of Hiss's conviction of perjury in January. We'll see. Thanks for the review!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/California%27s_12th_congressional_district_election,_1946/archive1&oldid=309410044"