Talk:Presidential transition of Richard Nixon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best! jp×g 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JPxG – Didn't intent to interrupt, but just wanted to confirm whether you can/will review this article. I just saw this article under review from considerably long amount of time. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the reviewer about status of the review here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Yg Earwig's scanner is down, so I'll have to check later.

Stability

Y No controversy or instability that I can find in the edit history or talk page.

Prose / MoS

Y Prose is written well, without errors, and flows smoothly. I do not see anything wrong with the grammar.
? §Activities of Nixon has some WP:PROSELINE issues, and doesn't read well. This could use some work.

Referencing

? A lot of the sources seem to be relatively light coverage (i.e. contemporary news reports). I think that, in the name of completeness and context of the subject, it would be better if a couple references could be found to draw from that were more comprehensive overviews of the Johnson/Nixon presidencies, or American political history around the time of the transition. There are only a couple sources that were made in later decades that I can find.

POV

Y Not a whole lot to be opinionated about here -- it's a pretty straightforward writeup about what events happened where and how.

Original research

Y I don't see any.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

? Like I said earlier, there's a lot of focus on the procedural aspects of the transition, but fairly scant detail about how it related to (and impacted) the broader historical context. For example, there's only two sentences about what people thought about it after the fact.
Y I like the section on pre-election developments. This is a good example of what I mean by the broader historical context. That said, a little more information about the preparations for a presidential transition would be nice after the part about Johnson announcing he wouldn't seek reelection.

Media

Y All media is freely licensed.

Conclusion

I think this article is almost all the way to GA. I'll put it on hold for now, but I don't think that much more work is necessary. This is a great article, and I had a great time reading it. @SecretName101: Let me know what you think. jp×g 00:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Thank you, will soon get set on it! SecretName101 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Is it ready for another look yet? jp×g 02:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I believe so. I added a few more citations from a more recent book, but there really are not a lot of subsequent comprehensive sources on the transition, other than the ones already cited. A lot of the contemporary citations, though, don't cite anything that really requires non-contemporary sourcing. I fixed some prose issues. I also do think there is a an important analysis of the impact of the transition in the final paragraph of the "Selection of appointees" section. SecretName101 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Okay, this looks good to me. I have done some minor copyedits in the "activities of Nixon" section to eliminate some of the proselining; I'm going to pass the article now. Good work! jp×g 02:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]