Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daisy (advertisement)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2021 [1].

Daisy (advertisement)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although aired just once, "Daisy" ad is referred to as one of the most controversial, yet most popular political advertisement. The ad was broadcast on September 7, 1964, with the intention of highlighting Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions. However, the ad in-turn was interpreted as an attack ad on Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent in the election) and his positions on nuclear weapon. Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off, but it was frequently replayed and analyzed by network news. Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide victory, defeating Goldwater by a margin of almost 15 million votes. The Daisy ad is considered a significant reason was his victory, and is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. The article is almost re-written by me, it passed its DYK nomination, GA nomination and received its peer review comments from various editors. Thanks to all reviewers in advance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass

[edit]
  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the further reading section not so much. For featured article it is expected that if the source has something significant to add to the article, it should be cited, otherwise if there's nothing to add it probably isn't relevant enough or adding enough information to be worth putting in further reading. In particular the book that's specifically about the ad and not cited seems like a major oversight and something that makes me doubt this short article is fully comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe – In my opinion, the "Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds" book fits better in the Further reading section. Despite its title, the book is focused on Atomic theme and the 1964 election—i.e. the information already included in the Background sections of this article using various other sources. Despite the article's length (13,207 characters), I feel that all main aspects of the ad are covered. I have removed few books from the Further reading section which I feel aren't adding enough information related to the ad. Hope that addressed your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this important article at FAC, but I don't think that the FA criteria are met at present due to the sourcing issue noted above, as well as some other gaps:

  • "It remains one of the most popular political advertisements" - popular seems an odd choice of word, and the reference here to a 1964 NYT story obviously doesn't support such a claim (is the ref really needed in the lead?)
  • The lead should note how Goldwater was perceived before the ad - like all really powerful political ads, this played on how he was seen
  • "The principal work of Johnson's campaign" - this is a bit clunky
  • "Despite his relatively high polling numbers, Johnson felt safe to use rhetorical techniques to ensure his victory" - to be blunt, this doesn't make sense - what's the contradiction?
    • Tried to rephrase. Johnson had high polling numbers, and could have won the election even without this ad. Still, he felt safe to broadcast a controversial ad, when it could have easily backfired his campaign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should discuss the anxieties Americans (quite rightly) were feeling about the risks of nuclear war at this time - it was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis
  • It's also odd to not see Johnson's ruthless political tactics not discussed
    • Honestly, I didn't feel the need to include this. Johnson had very limited role to play in the creation or broadcast of this ad. Moreover, the ad wasn't intended to be an 'attack ad', but that is how it was interpreted. Wouldn't it go a bit off topic to discuss his political tactics, which isn't directly related with the ad? Please suggest... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visualize their child in the role of Corzilius" - awkward
  • The scholarly book on this topic noted in the 'further reading' section needs to be consulted - I'm not at all confident that the FA sourcing requirements are met without this. The blurb for the book states that it covers this topic quite broadly, so it may be possible to considerably expand or deepen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick-D – Thanks a lot for your review. I have attempted to address all your concerns, and replied above. As for the sourcing, I have added Robert Mann's book. I hope that addressed your concern. Requesting you to take a second look at the article regarding your leaning oppose. Feel free to suggest anything else which you feel would make the article closer to meeting the FA criteria. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D – Is there something else I can do to improve the article, as I have already included Robert Mann's book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about this, but I'm sceptical about how little you sourced from the academic book on this topic. The article also seems to be dodging around both the nature of Johnson's political tactics (he's famous for how ruthless his politics were) and how extreme Goldwater was. The ad was part and parcel of Johnson's tactics, and worked because Goldwater was seen as being genuinely dangerous. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – I have addressed these comments by making necessary changes in the article. Goldwater's extremism is mentioned by various instances in the article and I have added some more facts about his reaction to the ad. I feel that focusing more on his 'extremism' would make the article less neutral. Rest, I feel that the article covers all major aspects of a 60 second ad which was aired just once. Do let me know if the changes were not satisfactory. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – Given that various changes have been made in order to resolve all your comments, and the article is again copy-edited, do you still lean towards opposing this nomination? Of-course, you can suggest more changes, which I'll surely consider. Please take a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted to just 'comments' until I read this more closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a further read:

  • "Goldwater defended himself by charging Johnson with making the accusation indirectly and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion" - it's not clear what this means, and the wording is close to the source. What the source is is unclear as well.
    • Removed the part about 'making the accusation indirectly', and just mentioned that media interpreted that Goldwater would use nuclear weapons, which Goldwater defended by saying that they [media] 'blew the issue out of proportion'. Hope that its clear now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and second sentences in the para starting with 'The Johnson campaign portrayed' don't flow well, and the second sentence doesn't seem to fit well with the last sentence of this para. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second sentence and the last sentence were somewhat contradicting each other, so I rephrased both of them for increasing the flow. Johnson did had high polling numbers, but that wasn't because of his accomplishments as the president, but because of Goldwater and his extreme statements. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D – Done both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that revised wording is generally awkward and partly contradictory, and you haven't responded to my comment about what that source is. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D – I have further rephrased that, and now it isn't contradictory. Please excuse if I am mistaken here, but as for the source, it is an essay from Kennesaw State University, Georgia, and should be reliable. However, I'll leave it to the source reviewer to decide the reliability. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of the article, and what is their status? It reads like an undergraduate essay, though may be course material aimed at undergraduates. The wording in the article remains short of FA-level prose I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So I looked for any alternative source, but wasn't able to find any reliable newspaper/website/book/journal having the exact quote (with one impulsive act....) So I just removed the two sentences supported by that source, and merged the paragraph for flow. As for the article's prose, it was again copy-edited by a member of WP:GOCE on my request after your initial comments. I'll see what I can do, but I don't quite feel that it needs much work. Let's see what other reviewers think. Any further comments/suggestions to strengthen the prose are always welcome. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick-D, sorry to press you, but should I be reading your comments as an "oppose", at least at the moment? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild: no worries at all - I should have posted a follow up comment. I'm neutral at present: I still don't think that the prose is an example of our best work (the first para of the background section, for instance, doesn't flow particularly well), but it's not greatly problematic. I have have no objection to the nomination being promoted, but can't support it. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Grapple X

[edit]

Some passing comments for now, hopefully will get a fuller review over the next day or so.

  • Initially struck that we have a still from the ad in the infobox and then the full ad embedded later; given that the video's thumbnail is the same image as the screenshot is there any reason we couldn't just use the video in the infobox?
  • He often used various rhetorical techniques including the famous "Johnson Treatment" to gather votes in the senate—I don't think we need to get bogged down in too much detail but a brief gloss as to what the "Johnson Treatment" actually is would be a good idea, alternatively Lyndon B. Johnson#Senate Democratic leader has a meaty quote which explains it and could be linked to here (as "the famous "Johnson Treatment" perhaps) to provide context.
  • notably mocking his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the counter-slogan "In Your Guts, You Know He is Nuts"—Why is one of these in sentence case and the other in title case? No strong preference for either but surely they should both be consistent
  • who proclaimed, "We will bury you! Your children will be Communists!"—I'm not a fan of introducing a quote with a comma when one wouldn't be present if the quote wasn't in quote marks; but in any case as a multiple-sentence quote this should more properly be introduced with a colon per WP:MOS#QUOTE
  • that "[at] the next level, [they could] really run a savage assault: a billboard, e.g., [could] be devised reading 'Goldwater in 64—Hotwater in 65?' with a mushroom cloud in the background."—There's a bit of legwork being done here to keep this quote flowing; is it better to quote less of it (just the proposed slogan perhaps) and paraphrase the rest?
  • "Vote for President Johnson on November 3[rd]" —The date formatting throughout the article doesn't use ordinals like "3rd", it's strange to interpolate one here if it's not necessary.
    • The ordinals are added here just because they were used in the advertisement too. Nothing much to do with date consistency in the article, as they are inside the quotes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The video just displays "November 3", which would be consistent with the rest of the date usage internally too. I think we could drop the "[rd]".
  • Might be a good idea to attribute the Auden comparisons to who's making them; were they being drawn at the time or is this a retrospective analysis?
  • Make no mistake, there's no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear weapon' .... To do so now is a political decision of the highest order. It would lead us down an uncertain path of blows and counter-blows whose outcome none may know.—Seems to be a four-dot ellipsis in there
  • Eisenhower replied – "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot."—fronting a quote with a dash like this is inconsistent with the rest of the article
  • they were trying to use what the voters already knew"—Missing a full stop here, whether you want it in or out of the quote marks.
  • A minor point but the quote box in the last heading runs alongside a block quote which looks a little jarring; might be worth looking at moving the quote box template up a paragraph to remove that overlap. It should lose no context as it's clear what its connection is within the heading.
  • I feel like we're good as far as information and historical context goes and there does seem to be a good breadth of sourcing; I can't comment to Nick-D's reservations on this but as a lay reader I was not struck by any obvious gaps in context. That said I think the prose strength is where we need most focus; I'm not a confident copy-editor at FA standards but I still found a few inconsistencies and errors, which should be easily addressed but likely aren't exhaustive. As this is still a fresh nomination and will likely have more breathing time here, it may be worth asking at WP:GOCE/R if anyone is able to give it a once-over. I'll take another look at it during the week to see if I can't come up with anything else. That said it's an interesting subject and I do enjoy these deep-dives on narrower fields. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes look good so far. I'll be able to return to this in more depth tomorrow hopefully. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a second sweep through now.

  • Lead mentions that the ad is also sometimes known as "Peace, Little Girl" but this isn't mentioned elsewhere--some of the sources use the name in their titles so it shouldn't be difficult to work this in.
  • A few duplicate links; Corzillus' name and the Democratic National Convention both appearing more than once
  • Looking at the mention of the 84 Mondale advert--I don't know that the information presented is enough to really justify a link; can we get a direct comparison drawn to this?
    • While researching, I got a perfect citation for this; added a line which further justifies why the ad was similar to "Daisy". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We still don't mention an explicit comparison between the two; it's not enough to just describe superficial similarity without a source already making an explicit link between them (this is the same issue with the Auden material below). Looking at the Spokane Chronicle source, it does make direct reference to the Daisy advert, stating Mondale [...] seeks, without the subtlety of Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 ad etc. So the source does draw direct parallels here but we don't mention that. You don't need to directly quote the comparison but do use that source to state plainly that comparisons were drawn to the earlier advert when the Mondale one aired.
  • Still would like to see attribution when we're comparing the advert to that Auden poem, I'm not keen on doing that in wikipedia's voice.
    • Did I address this? If not, could you please further clarify this point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that "Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads: "We must love one another or die."" is stated as a matter of fact, and while yes we can see looking at the lines that they're extremely similar, we really should be attributing the comparison to someone who has made it in a reliable source. The source you've added, Taylor 1992, does this just discuss Auden's poem or does it explicitly describe the similarity between the two?
        • Ah, I see. The comparison of similarity between the ad and Auden's poem is discussed in this source, which says ""Decades earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson drew on another line from the poem [September 1, 1939] in his famous 1964 "Daisy" campaign commercial ..."". I have cited that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of Auden, in the excerpt quoted, it seems the italic emphasis on the last line is not in the original; since we already highlight it in prose I don't think we need the italics here
  • "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [the advertisement]""—I think rather than the aside here, we could go with "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement"
  • "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that a miscount might be more appealing to the voters"—I know it's what's used in the source but given that we're talking about voting, I don't know if "miscount" is the best word here; perhaps "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that her mistakes might be more appealing to the voters."
  • All for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grapple X – Addressed all. Thanks for taking a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grapple X – Hi! The previous 2 points raised were probably resolved. Any follow-ups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see the point regarding Auden has having been addressed but perhaps I wasn't explaining myself correctly. It's not that I would like to see more sources cited as footnotes, but that an actual attribution to the person making the comparison is what I feel we should be using. Instead of saying the two are alike, and then appending a citation, we need to point out that someone has made that comparison for us. You can name the writer specifically ("journalist Maureen Corrigan has noted that Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem...") or make the attribution in a passive voice ("It has been noted that...", although this should really be used if there's a wider sampling of sources than just this one). My point is that it is preferable to ensure that this kind of literary analysis is clearly being attributed to third-party sources and not to Wikipedia's voice (which is essentially the difference between stating a fact and citing it, and stating that someone believes a fact and quoting them). I hope this makes more sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grapple X – Just a courtesy ping that are you in a position of either supporting or opposing this nomination. And of-course, feel free to add any more comments if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and support. Much appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lee Vilenski – Just a kind reminder for your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check and source review — Pass

[edit]

Version initially reviewed — this. Current Ref numbers may differ. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Actually, I reviewed this version Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty heavy reliance on newspapers in this article, always a worrisome sign as they tend to be so-so sources (sensationalism, getting basic facts wrong etc.). And here they are even many contemporary ones... Beyond that the sourcing's OK.

I note some inconsistencies, with some sources having archives and others lacking them. Spot-check:

I again ran the IA bot, and it archived 6 sources. Do I need to manually archive the rest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imma ping Ealdgyth for a second opinion on the various newspaper sources (WaPo, NYT etc.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Provided copy of all the articles you requested which I could. As for the newspapers part, many FA's that rely on newspaper, and I don't think that it is an issue, provided that the newspaper is a reliable one. I have always considered The New York Times and The Washington Post reliable sources. And I don't think that I have cited any newspaper, which doesn't has a Wikipedia article (i.e. all are notable enough). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Any updates on remaining spot-checks and sourcing? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do let me know if there's anything else I can do for the source review to be passed. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria – Can you please provide a second opinion on some newspaper sources (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) used in this article? Are they unreliable to use? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Jo-Jo Eumerus correctly, the concern is not simply are these reliable yes/no, but are they overused. Those particular papers are not unreliable in general, and on a quick look I'm not seeing any that raise red flags. But in terms of overreliance, can you speak to your approach to locating sources for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the way I would go about this is to first start with academic sources and to only use newspapers to illustrate how the topic was covered in contemporary coverage and to cover uncontroversial facts. But upon thinking more, I am not sure anymore that this article is overusing news sources so I'll retract this concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I tried. Most of the newspaper sources are used in the "Political usage and aftermath" section, discussing about the contemporary coverage of the ad. I initially tried to cite this article completely using books/journals. But, to comprehensively discuss about immediate aftermath and later uses, newspapers seems helpful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Just a kind reminder that the nomination in nearing a month, but the source review and spot-checks are still pending. I have responded to all the previous concerns. Would appreciate if you can take a second look. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this passes the source and spot check reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis — support

[edit]

Not a politics person... I will try not to screw this up.

I'll hopefully leave more comments later. Ping me if I don't reply within a week! Pamzeis (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pamzeis – Thanks a lot for taking a look. I have addressed/replied above. Feel free to add any further comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

Ping me after these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis I have tried to resolve all of your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ

[edit]

As promised, I am here (although inexcusably late). I'll probably focus on prose, although I'll comment on anything that sticks out at me. I'm a bit busy right now, so bear with me if I take a while to get this done.

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks a lot for your comments. Addressed all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll read it through again later and that should be all. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks again! I have addressed all your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those nitpicks keep me from giving my support on prose: there are things that I might word differently, but I think the overall quality is adequate. Thanks for your hard work on this important article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your support and kind word; I have addressed few remaining points. And congrats for Melville Fuller! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]
  • @FAC coordinators: – With 5 reviews, three of which have declared their support and one review in underway, as well as a passed image and source review
  1. May I nominate another article (Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign) for FAC?
  2. Is this nomination on the right track? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with 2, broadly yes, but it has some prose issues, as picked up by Nick-D above. The prose needs to be "of a professional standard" if the article is to be promoted. Re 1, I think that we need to see what Nick's current view is on the prose before we ok a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild. I'll surely wait to see what Nick-D thinks of the article, but I think that I have, at-least attempted to resolve their concerns. I'll be more than happy to address any further comments. Thanks! And as an aside note, thanks for promoting Draft Eisenhower movement yesterday, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you may nominate another article. I haven't looked at Truman, but can I suggest that you take pains to ensure that "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - which, of course, it may well be already. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gog the Mild – I'll nominate it soon. I had opened a peer review page, which was reviewed by Hog Farm and DanCherek, and no major concerns were found. It has been copy-edited, so I think the prose may be fine. But can't predict what a reviewer will bring up; I'll be responsive to reviewer's concerns. Also, we now have 4 supports here ... Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ian Rose – How is this one looking? Been open for a month, with 5 supports, passed image review, passed source review with spot-checks, and one neutral. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I shall copy edit as I go. If you don't like, or don't understand, anything, could you flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Following the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in November 1963." Link "president and state which country you are referring to.
  • What is a "local spot"?
  • "network ads" - likewise.
    • For both the above points: Both local spot and network ads are advertisements. Local spots were mostly broadcast then on radios on a smaller level by local advertisers, while Network ads were broadcast during prime-time in network programs, on a larger level. See this. Do you suggest me to add this in the article? I think it would be a bit off topic, but we can summarize it in a footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should have explained, I like to ask rhetorical questions. I know what they are, but many readers won't. Ideally an FA should be readily comprehensible without a reader needing to consult Wikilinks or footnotes. In the case of technical topics they may be a necessary evil, but I am not sure that we have to break many readers concentration in this case by referring them to a footnote in order for them to understand what they have just read.
Tried to incorporate in the prose itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be losing worthwhile content. How would you feel about something like 'The Johnson campaign ran further advertisments in a similar vein, including "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard".[1]'?
Looks fine. Added back. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson retains the victory with the highest popular vote percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in the 1824 presidential election." This does not make grammatical sense. "Johnson retains the victory"?
  • "has maintained that position for years." Does that mean to this day? If so, say so. ('to at least late 2021'.)
  • "which argued Trump's ability to handle the nuclear weapons." I assume that this makes sense in US English. For a more international audience, perhaps 'which argued that Trump was incompetent to be in control of nuclear weapons' or similar?
  • "Corzilius said, "The fear of nuclear war ..." In Clinton's ad, or seperately?
  • "when asked whether he approved the "Daisy" commercial". Do you mean that, or 'when asked whether he approved of the "Daisy" commercial'?
  • The final block quote, see comments above on MOS:QUOTE.
  • The two notes would seem to me better worked into the main text, especially the first one.
Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild – Did most of them. Just suggestions/clarification needed as few points above. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. If I haven't responded to a point, assume I am content. Do shout if you don't like any of my copy editing. A couple of points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild – Thanks! Addressed the remaining 2 points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I am missing something, but @Ian Rose, how is this one going? We have 5 supports, 1 neutral, passed image/source reviews. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry KS, your earlier ping got lost amid a bunch of FACbot notifications to me. Can't see anything obvious needed, will walk through the article with a view to closure in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (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/Daisy_(advertisement)/archive1&oldid=1054763797"