Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [1].

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Harry S. Truman's 1948 campaign, arguably the most under-rated presidential campaign in American history. By various accounts, Truman was a fine man, who was nominated for vice-presidency by Franklin D. Roosevelt for his fourth term. Just 82 days after being inaugurated for his unprecedented fourth term, Roosevelt died. Truman ascended to the presidency, explaining the burden of the presidency as "the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on [him]." In 1948, he tried to "earn" a term in his own right, but almost all predicted a victory of his opponent—the young and charismatic Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey. Various Democratic Party bosses wanted General Dwight D. Eisenhower (considered the most popular man in America) to run, and drafted him. Due to his unpopularity, Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's running mate! Eisenhower declined. Truman had to face division withing his own party; two new parties were formed by influential Democratic leaders challenging Truman in the election. Truman campaigned around 22,000 miles, gave 352 speeches, and traveled almost the entire nation (except deep south). Almost all polls predicted a "landslide" for Dewey. Elmo Roper discontinued polling way before election, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." The top 50 political writers were asked their opinion about the election. All predicted a victory for Dewey. On the election day, Chicago Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", boldly anticipating a victory for him. Truman won! He won by a margin of over 2 million popular votes. Truman's picture, holding the erroneous headline of Chicago Tribune has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory".

This article was copy-edited by @Twofingered Typist, reviewed for GA by @Maile66, and peer reviewed by @Hog Farm and @DanCherek. Any constructive feedback is more than welcomed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass

[edit]

@Nikkimaria – Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, could I just confirm if you're happy with images now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis — Support

[edit]

As you probably know from Daisy, I am very inexperienced/naive in the field of politics and probably will screw something up.

  • In 1948, Harry S. Truman and Alben W. Barkley were — who are they and why do they warrant a mention?[just kidding]
    • In 1948, almost all media companies and pollsters were thinking the same!
  • and former vice president under — per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE, I think "former" can be removed
  • and urged former Chief of Staff of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower to — WP:SOB?
  • wanted Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas to — same as above
  • however, Douglas declined, claiming a lack → Douglas, however, declined, claiming a lack (MOS:HOWEVER)
  • and impressed Truman. Truman selected — repetition of Truman
  • received some notable endorsements — WP:EDITORIALISING
  • Initially leading in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey — given what the rest of the sentence says, I believe this is referring to Dewey leading the popular vote. Though I'm not that well-versed in grammar, I think this makes it grammatically as the verb in the dependent clause at the start (i.e. leading) is tied to the noun of the next phrase (i.e. Truman); if Dewey led, I would revise it to: "Initially leading in the popular vote, Dewey lost to Truman", or "Initially losing in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey", etc.
  • By July 1918, became commander — missing word
  • Roosevelt believed that Roosevelt might not live — "he" (for the latter "Roosevelt") seems fine in this case as this (probably) could not refer to Truman or another man
  • The incumbent Vice President Henry A. Wallace was viewed as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor by most of Roosevelt's advisors. → Most of Roosevelt's advisors viewed the incumbent Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor.
  • I'm not ask you to change anything about it but I'm interested: what does "on his ticket" mean?
    • Well, a ticket in politics, especially in this particular case about American presidential election, comprises on the presidential and vice presidential nominee. When Roosevelt decided to replace Wallace from his ticket, he meant to replace him with any another candidate as the vice-presidential nominee. In American presidential election, voters vote for a ticker, not for a candidate. That is, if someone votes for Truman, he is actually voting for "Harry S. Truman for president and Alben William Barkley for vice president". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though he showed little interest in being the vice president, the 1944 Democratic National Convention chose him — I think this is another grammatical error as the beginning bit (i.e. Though he showed little interest) is linked to the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Might need rewording
  • nominee of Eisenhower, if Eisenhower so desired — repetition of Eisenhower
  • four possible Republican nominees including Dewey — to my knowledge, "include" means as part of a whole. Since all four are listed, however, I would replace "including" with a colon or something
  • "Americans in 1948 had to render [...] conventions really mattered." — per MOS:BQ, blockquotes should not have quotation marks
  • initial choice was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. — WP:SOB

That brings me to #Democratic convention... Pamzeis (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis – Done all, or replied above. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis – Just a courtesy ping that all previous comments were resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • Unlink Howard McGrath in #Democratic convention per MOS:DUPLINK
  • did not mention his opponent Thomas E. Dewey, he — I think a comma is needed after "opponent"
  • "ascendancy of the visual, propelling images as well as words immediately into the homes of millions of Americans." — I can't tell if this is a full sentence or not but if it is, per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside the quotation.
  • The were soon nicknamed → They were soon nicknamed
  • William Batt headed a new — who is William Batt?
  • Truman's close friend, Oscar Ewing, advised — unless Truman only has one close friend (that'd be sad), remove the commas around "Oscar Ewing"
  • In early August when the special — I'm unsure about this but I think a comma is needed after "August"
  • had been a "do-nothing" Congress → had been a 'do-nothing' Congress (MOS:QWQ)
  • was to carry the fight to them [Republicans], to — I don't see any quotes here so I'm unsure why "Republicans" is in square brackets
  • travel in all 48 states but — ...doesn't the US have 50 states? To my knowledge, "all" means every single one... I'd recommend removing all
  • deep south states which heavily favored — I wouldn't bring this up if this article was in British English but, from what I've read, in American English, you need to use that and not which in a defining clause.
  • train stops featured a local brass band which played — same as above
  • York Herald Tribune later characterized — comma after "Tribune"?
  • November 3rd. Truman's triumph — per MOS:BADDATE, remove the "rd"
  • On its cover Newsweek called — comma after cover?
  • Truman's victory "startling", "astonishing" and — per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I would recommend not add quotation marks around one-word quote material
  • Time magazine later called — unlink Time per MOS:DUPLINK
  • 30%. 18 days after the New Hampshire — per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure
  • appeal to middle class Americans — I think a hyphen is needed between "middle" and "class"
  • Republican senator from Massachusetts argued that — comma after Massachusetts?
  • do for them if elected." — I think the full stop should be outside the quotation

I think that's all of it from me. Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis – I think I have addressed all your comments, or replied as above. Changes can be seen here. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechnician27 — Support

[edit]

One thing I'd change, though, is how journal articles only list the year of publication. I think it's much more elegant – and, furthermore, more useful – to also list the month. Up to you. Also, I'll try to add links to these sources where possible, such as JSTOR and the Internet Archive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I also went ahead and added links to the book sources where possible. Hopefully this helps things feel more accessible for casual readers (like myself). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that I have added remaining links to books and authors, to make it consistent. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheTechnician27, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog the Mild. Right now, I'm saying tentative support, but I want to give it one more read before I say 'Support'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: This might be a little out there, but by any chance is there a map of the stops Truman made? The numerous stops he made were such a massive part of the campaign that I feel it would be incredibly illustrative for just how many there were. I think this exceeds even FA criterion 3, but I still would love to see something like that – maybe an SVG map with dots like over at List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy. It'd take a lot of work, and it's just a thought, but I'm going to keep giving this article a second reading. So far it's a support unless something comes to mind while I'm reading it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea. There does exist a photo map in the Truman Library (whose copyright status is not clear). Also, I do have sources that discuss have a list of places where Truman visited during his whistle stop tour from September 6, 1948, till election day. So, it is possible to create a map. While I have requested the Map workshop, I think it'll take some time. As it is not majorly a part of FA criterion 3, I think it won't be an issue even if this map was created/added after this FAC. I'll escalate this discussion about the map to the talk page soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Two things come to mind when it comes to en-dashes and em-dashes. The first is that they need to be standardized. It seems like the article primarily goes with em-dashes, so I can change the en-dashes as I find them. The second is that there are places where a dash replaces a comma or a colon preceding a quote. However, WP:MOS#Punctuation_before_quotations does not include such a use for the en- or em-dash. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (Done)[reply]
  • Another thing is in 'Early developments'. The sentence reads: "The same day, Truman watched the parade". However, you never actually introduced to the reader that there was going to be a parade. You also don't really explain why the public might think the auditorium was open to 35th Division vets, because you don't exactly introduce that Truman was speaking to 35th Division vets in the first place. Those two sentences just feel kind of confusing with the lack of context. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and I added context about the auditorium part. I'm not sure about the first part saying "The same day, Truman watched the parade". Do I need to introduce that he was going to watch the parade; I feel that to be a bit reluctant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your comments. I think I have gone through everything, and thanks for fixing up much yourself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I don't know how much of the article you wrote or fixed up, but it really is fantastic so far. It's like I'm back in 1948 following along with the coverage of Truman's campaign but with the hindsight of the modern day. It's an easy Support for me. I'm going to keep going through and nitpicking (for example, "Democratic National Committee" is mentioned 7 times, whereas it's usually just abbreviated to 'DNC'), but having already read it through once, nothing I find is going to make me change my vote. Just saying, by the by, that if you do have a list every stop Truman made, I can learn how to make an SVG map and go through all of them. If you have every stop Dewey made too, I could do blue dots for Truman, red for Dewey, and purple for both. TL;DR: Support. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. It took me little more than a week, but I can say that I wrote this article from scratch, and published it on 4th of July!. This is my first attempt for WP:4. Appreciate all your edits and help! I have list for Truman's all visits, but will have to find it for Dewey. Will let you know soon. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: One more thing I would add to the article is Bess Truman's quote to his friend Tom L. Evans: "Does he really think he can win?" in Ferrell (2013) page 270. I think it's impactful and noteworthy that even Bess had basically given up on his chances. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

Great article. Without verifying any of the references or checking for plagiarism or close paraphrasing, I like that they are consistently formatted and the works cited represents a wide breadth of sources. The prose is engaging but neutral. It seems to me to offer comprehensive coverage of the topic without going into undue detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy – Thanks a lot for your comprehensive and helpful review. I think I have fixed everything. Do let me know of any other issues. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've still got a couple minor issues above I recommend you look at, but this article is already in a state to warrant my support for FA status. If you feel like getting back on the other side of the table, this FAC nomination is in need of another content reviewer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have fixed the remaining issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Recusing to do the sr. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Farley 1989 - publisher should be Julian Messner. Also, this looks like it might be a children's book. Does it meet the stricter "high-quality RS" standard for FA
  • "Eisenberg, Lucy (2016). "Harry Truman and the Election of 1948" (PDF). Constitutional Rights Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2021." - This is meant to be classroom read-and-learn homework. The same question of RS vs high-quality RS applies to this one
    • For the above two sources, I find them reliable, but maybe they are not what we consider "high quality reliable sources", so just to be on a safer side, I have replaced their citations with another more reliable source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend adding ISSNs to the journal sources, if available - check Batt & Balducci, Bogardus, Holbrook, Lee, McDonald et al., Murphy, Sitkoff, Visser,
  • Link Communication Research (journal) as the publisher in McDonald et al. 2001
  • "After Eisenhower declined to run yet again, it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee" - recommend in-text attribution, since you're using a primary source for this.
    • Not sure how The New York Times is a primary source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's contemporaneous news reporting of a historic event. While it's independent, it's primary from the sense that it lacks the benefit of any sort of hindsight view
        • Okay, so I added a book source for a phrase of the sentence. For "it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", I could not find better source, so I think we should be fine with The New York Times, but I rephrased it as "but many Truman supporters soon believed that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", which makes it more clear and the fact is directly cited by the news article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from points above, everything looks okay from a perspective of reliability/formatting. So far as I can tell, the range of sourcing used is pretty comprehensive and representative

Spot checks:

  • "The president's discretionary travel fund covered the costs because of a lack of donations to the Democratic National Committee" - can you quote for me what Baime says here? Assuming the page number in Bray is correct, Bray just makes general comments about the state of DNC funding, not referring to Truman's travel fund paying or this specific incident at all
    • Sure. Bray indeed make comments about the state of DNC funding, but rest of the incident is cited in Baime 2020, p. 124. See this preview on Google books. He says "[...] meaning it could be paid out of the president's discretionary travel fund. Truman was such an underdog, the Democratic National Committee was broke. ..." Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This works
  • "Initial counting showed Truman leading in the popular vote, but news commentators predicted a Dewey victory" - Bray p. 38 only mentions the commentators, not the initial counting
  • " Truman began his speech, electrifying the delegates by directly attacking Republicans, and praising Barkley—who was considered the most popular man in the hall" - Not sure about the "directly attacking the Republicans" - this seems to be based on "“Senator Barkley and I will win this election and make these Republicans like it—don’t you forget that", which isn't an unequivocal direct attack. The next page does discuss the attacks on the Republican platform, though
  • " American author and historian David Pietrusza later wrote that Truman's speech transformed a "hopelessly bedraggled campaign" into an "instantly energized effort capable of ultimate victory in November"" - checks out
  • "Although he did not mention his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, he criticized the Republican platform, charging them for actions of the eightieth Congress" - source says that he contrasted the platform and the actions, not charging?
  • "He blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for not passing his legislative measures like the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill" - page number's wrong - should be 259, not 256. Source also doesn't name the bill, just referring to "failing to pass vital legislation for housing" - is it WP:OR to assume that Lee is referring to Taft-Ellender-Wagner?
  • "July 26 is referred to as Turnip Day in Missouri, as Turnip crop is traditionally sown on that day. Truman himself was a farmer for 11 years prior becoming a politician" - checks out
  • "The number of campaign stops (238 for Truman and 40 for Dewey) are from September 3 till the election day. It differs from the number of days spent in the state, or his overall number of tours" - source says September 2, not September 3
  • "Truman campaigned much more actively than Dewey. Although the candidates had only a slight difference in the number of states visited, Truman had a clear lead in the number of campaign stops, having made 238 stops to Dewey's 40" - checks out
  • "Clark Clifford edited and presented the forty-three page confidential memo to Truman" - source doesn't seem to say that Clifford edited the memo?
  • "Truman became the first candidate to lose in a Gallup Poll but win the election" - checks out
  • "Even many Democrats strongly anticipated a victory for Dewey and did not campaign to obtain votes for Truman" - checks out
  • "His direct approach stood out more favorably compared to Dewey's strategy. Truman discussed specific issues and solutions, while Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution or his approach" - not sure where "and did not provide the solution or his approach". Best I can find is on p. 80 is "hewed to the line of generalization", and it seems to be a bit of a stretch to pull "did not provide the solution or his approach" from that
    • "hewed to the line of generalization", "Governor Dewey's aloofness from domestic issues", and other instances from page 81, etc. leads me to believe that "Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution". Is you think that "did not provide the solution or his approach" seems a stretch, I can remove it. Your thoughts?
  • "Truman single-handedly coordinated his own campaign, making a direct appeal to middle-class Americans and farmers, who traditionally voted for the Republican Party" - can you point out where "single-handedly coordinated" is on pages 81 and 82? Or where middle-class are specifically referred to - I'm seeing the source mainly talking about minorities, farmers, and housewives
    • Source mentions "[..] of his own personal courage in making an almost singlehanded bid for support and of the let-down in the opposition's efforts due to overconfidence.", " The President made positive proposals where the people's needs were greatest, namely, in connection with the interests of labor, of the farmer, of the veteran seeking more reasonable housing ...", " Truman won farmer votes away from Dewey." (emphasis mine) Fixed duplicate citations and pg no, though. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks did not give me confidence. Hog Farm Talk 06:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm – Fixed the minor issues of page numbers, etc. Have responded to the spot check review above, and fixed almost everything mentioned. There are few places where we disagree on source interpretation, but I have tried to make it clear in the prose by removing details which may otherwise be considered doubtful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above, will take another look in the morning but this is coming along nicely. Hog Farm Talk 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hog Farm, I fixed everything mentioned to the best I can. Do let me know of any other issues with spot-checks, which I'll surely fix. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Except for Louis H. Bean and Survey Research Center's (SRC) polls, most of the other polls conducted during the fall campaign polled Dewey having a decisive lead over Truman" - where is Bean mentioned in the source? Source says "it turned out that only the SRC had correctly gauged the mood of the nation."
  • "Apart from Truman and his campaign team, about 100 other officials boarded the train, including many journalists" - probably ok
  • "In a busy schedule, Truman delivered four or five speeches a day" - checks out
  • "252 of which were given from the rear platform of the train, which had covered 21,928 miles (35,290 km)" - Not sure what the list of speeches is supposed to support here. It lists 252 speeches, but #249 is said to be in an auditorium, #250 from his house, #251 at the election victory party, #252 at the White House, 239-244 are all from various places in NYC, and many more
  • "Truman's 1948 campaign and the election are most remembered for the failure of polls, which predicted an easy win for Governor Dewey" - checks out
  • "Clark Clifford, David Bell, George Elsey, and Charles Murphy were responsible for writing Truman's major speeches" - checks out
Fixed both. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on source reliability and formatting, but this one needs further spot checking. I couldn't spot check the books, and the problem rate in the journal/web sources was higher than I was comfortable with. Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair call. To whoever does more spot-checks: All the books except Baime 2020 are available on Open Library or Google Books. I have tried to do some spot-check myself (I know that wouldn't count), but I'll definitely resolve further concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane

[edit]

I think that this article is among the best of many FACs, although I think that it would benefit from splitting really long paragraphs. To a desktop user, it wouldn't matter that much, but to a mobile user, it would be a really really hard read. 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane – Thanks for your comments and kind words. I have tried to split long paragraphs, and having checked the article from the mobile, it looks better to me! You'll still see one or two long paras, but they have not been split because the content in closely related, so spiting would break reader's flow. Rest, most of this is done. Would appreciate if you have any further comments. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just gonna roll over my sleeves and split the paragraphs then, and will take a look at this article later. Thanks a lot for your thank-yous as well! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane – Just a courtesy ping; do you have any further comments before you support/oppose this nomination. Definitely, no issues if too busy. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I cannot review your article in time, I really do be busy today :( CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check #2

[edit]
  1. 129 Can I have a copy of McCullough 1992, p. 680.?
See McCullough 1992, p. 680 on Open Library (OL)
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 120 OK.
  2. 8 OK.
  3. 72 Can I have a copy of the page? Google Books has different numbers and different context from the text.
See Donaldson 1999, p. 164 on OL
That still bothers me from a context perspective - no Charles is mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Charles Bloch calling for Russel's nomination has been mentioned and sources from other books (see this). This citation is for citing the statistical claim of Truman's "947½ delegates to Russell's 266". As for the context, it is quite similar. Baime and Busch state that Charles Bloch of Georgia called for Russel's nomination, and Donaldson states that "Georgia delegates cast their cote for their senator and favorite son Richard Russel, and most of the south followed." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 100 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Karabell 2001, pp. 188–189 on OL
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 18 Google Books does not mention Manchuria on the page?
Fixed (removed)
  1. 81 OK.
  2. 106 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Karabell 2001, p. 191 on OL
OKish but I worry that the text in our article is quite similar to that on the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is a case of WP:LIMITED, but I still tried to rephrase. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 94 OK.
  2. 177 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Savage 1997, p. 138
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 9 Can I have a copy of the page?
See this partial preview on the Google books for Baime 2020, p. 32. Rest, we have an entire book (The Truman Committee – A Study in Congressional Responsibility) cited on this subject!
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 127 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Karabell 2001, p. 217 on OL
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 40 I am not seeing the travel fund on the page given.
It is cited by Ref#39; see my reply to Hog Farm above.
  1. 181 Can I have a copy of the page?
See McCullough 1992, p. 710 on OL.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 56 Can I have a copy of the page? The abstract does not entirely square with the claims.
Well, the title of the news article itself is "Eisenhower Stand Buoys Truman Men", which in my interpretation means that Eisenhower's stand (which in article is "restatement of his unavailability for public office") kept Truman supporter happy and confident. The prose of the article states "After Eisenhower declined to run yet again, various ADA members unsuccessfully tried to persuade Douglas to contest the nomination,<cited till here> but many Truman supporters soon believed that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee." Is that fine, as I wan't able to find other source, as told to Hog Farm above.
Hmm, that sounds a little too WP:OR for my taste. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the full news article must have this mentioned, but I don't have access to The New York Times. I am unsure what needs to be done in this case, but have found other newspapers of the same date reporting that despite Eisenhower's stand and anti-Truman forces, veteran Party leaders believe that Truman would win the nomination on the first ballot. (See this and this) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have cited one of those news reports in the article. So everything should be goon now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 47 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Karabell 2001, pp. 131–133 on OL.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 173 Can I have a copy of the page?
See McCullough 1992, p. 707 on OL.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 189 Can I have a copy of the page?
See Busch 2012, p. 189 on OL.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 195 Half-OK as Google Books shows half the sentence.
Can verify the same on OL; see Ross 1968, pp. 251–252
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 114 Can I have a copy of the page?
See McCullough 1992, p. 654 on OL.
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the importance of a speech and its effect on the campaign, the Democratic National Committee decided to pay for nationwide radio time. is unsourced. Is it just an optical illusion with Baime 2020, or are some sources used multiple times with different format? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was indeed cited, but appears uncited due to recently I was splitting the long paragraph. Now fixed.

Thanks a lot, Jo-Jo Eumerus for doing spot-checks. I have provided direct link to page numbers for you to verify. Also, have fixed the issues you brought up. How is this going? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus – Replied to above 3 points. Let me know if I need to do anything else before this is considered Pass/Fail. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus – Hi! Anything else before spot-checks to be considered pass? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

Fantastic article. My comments:

  • There, Truman won the support of unpledged delegates unopposed. All unpledged New Hampshire delegates?
  • Although Truman did not trust Rowe, he endorsed the strategy enthusiastically. Is it of much concern why he didn't trust Rowe? Did he think Rowe had ulterior motives?
  • Some explanation of the states' rights plank (it was a whitewashing term both then and now) in the Democratic convention section and how it contrasted with the civil rights plank would be nice. Same for Wallace's differences with Truman.
    • Added some context for "states' rights plank" in the convention section; they specifically called for states to maintain segregation. As for Wallace's differences with Truman, they are mentioned in the 'Preparing for a run' subsection: "In December 1947, former Vice President Wallace had announced via radio that he would seek the presidency in 1948 as a third-party candidate. He was dissatisfied with Truman's foreign policy, and in his announcement, made a forceful attempt to link Truman to a war-oriented point of view. The previous year, Truman had demanded and received his resignation from his cabinet as the Secretary of Commerce." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Post's correspondent Marquis Childs later called it the "liquidation of one of the major parties". "It" being the walkout or the entire convention?
  • Several editors and columnists accused Truman of appeasement by including foreign policy in his campaign. Appeasing who?

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle – Thanks for your comments. I have made some changes. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: – Just two things:

  1. May I nominate another article for FAC?
  2. How is this one going; anything else required?

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes
2) Formally, I think it meets the requirement for promotion but it still needs to be fully evaluated by one of the coordinators. (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Jo-Jo Eumerus's response to "Hi! Anything else before spot-checks to be considered pass? Thanks!" was "Yes", so I'm not sure that they're done there yet. Hog Farm Talk 14:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "Yes" in the sense of "I am satisfied". I was doing a few too many things at once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 6 December 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/Harry_S._Truman_1948_presidential_campaign/archive1&oldid=1059526433"