Wikipedia:Peer review/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1

Ike for President (advertisement)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking feedback to take this article to FAC, after its recent FAC was withdrawn. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rublov

Hi Kavyansh. Per the comments in FAC, I will mostly be looking at prose in this peer review.

• Lead
  • That year Eisenhower entered the election... — Couple of issues: that year is awkward and "entering" isn't really something you can to do an election. Would suggest something like Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II and the Republican nominee, faced Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in the general election.
    • Partly done.
  • He was challenged by... — moot point if you accept my previous suggestion, but this phrasing is usually only used when someone challenges an incumbent.
    • You are right about the 'challenged' part. Rephrased.
  • crafted and produced — seems redundant, recommend just produced.
    • Done.
  • Disney's unpaid volunteers — The fact that they were unpaid requires further elaboration, but that might be too much for the lead, so I'd recommend just omitting it.
    • Done.
  • leads a parade including — need a comma before including, but is there a more descriptive verb you can use?
    • Added comma. What would you suggest?
  • a crowd of people with different occupations — "with" is the wrong preposition, should be "of", but that creates an awkward repetition. Can't think of a better phrasing off the top of my head.
  • are then satirized as Democratic donkeys — bit awkward because "satirize" is not really an action verb. Maybe just depicted, or depicted satirically if you insist?
    • Done.
  • The advertisement featured the repetition of Eisenhower's nickname in a memorable jingle — Not clear what this sentence is trying to get across. Maybe something like The advertisement's memorable jingle turned "Ike for President" into a popular catchphrase? In any case, no need to link "repetition".
    • Done.
  • I would summarize the analysis of the advertisement rather than quoting specific authors.
  • Eisenhower's organization planned to broadcast the advertisement five to six times every night — Well, did they?
    • The source(s) don't discuss about that.
  • Eisenhower won the election by a landslide — I think the phrase is in a landslide
    • Both are fine, but "in a landslide" seems better!
  • The main thing the lead is missing is an analysis of whether or not the advertisement made a big difference to Eisenhower's campaign. You might also mention Stevenson's response to it.
    • Per MOS:LEAD, that would make the lead too long. The fact whether or not the advertisement made a big difference to Eisenhower's campaign is not known as well.
      • The lead is not especially long as it is and I don't think adding a sentence like Stevenson disliked the ad and felt that it trivialized discussion of serious issues. (just an example; I don't suggest using this exact wording) would create an issue.
        • Done.
• Background
  • First sentence should mention and link World War II.
    • Can surely do that if you insist, but the sentence already mentions the Allied Expeditionary Force and the Normandy invasion. Do you think mentioning WWII is necessary then?
      • I think so, just to be direct; the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II would be good.
        • Done. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • According to authors Kenneth E. Morris and Barry Schwartz — Not sure the quote needs this direct attribution; I don't think it's a particularly controversial claim that Eisenhower was very popular.
    • Yes, but as it is a quote, I think we should specify in the prose where it comes from.
      • The attribution for the quote is eight times as long as the quote itself; you can just say Eisenhower was extremely popular without the quote.
        • Done. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • In 1948 — Clarify that you are talking about the presidential election against Truman?
    • Yes.
  • denied all entreaties — Suggest "turned down" instead of "denied".
  • running for office was not appropriate for either the army or him as the Chief of Staff — Should rephrase, perhaps to running for office was not appropriate for a serving military general?
    • Yes, better, but removed 'serving'.
  • according to author William B. Pickett — again, don't think you need direct attribution.
  • the partisan Republican position — maybe partisan Republican politics?
    • Done.
  • His supporters rallied and chanted — Is this describing a specific event?
    • Yes, [1].
      • Okay, then you would need to specify that this is talking about a rally at Madison Square Garden on February 11, 1952. But since the rest of this paragraph is detailing rather general events, that would feel out of place, so I recommend just removing this.
        • I still think that "I like Ike" and mentioning that Ike was his nickname is important. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • referring to his nickname — missing a period at the end of this sentence.
    • Good catch.
  • How can he have won the primary in New Hampshire before he joined the race?
    • Long story short: He didn't formally enter, but allowed his name to be on the ballot. See Draft Eisenhower movement.
      • I think this should be clarified in the article text.
        • I disagree. The background section is mostly summary of the Draft movement, we have a link to the main article for the curious readers. Clarifying this would maybe be an excess detail. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • he joined the presidential race as a Republican — "as a Republican" seems redundant at this point.
    • Removed.
  • Should you mention who Eisenhower faced in the Republican primaries?
    • I think no. That is unrelated with "Ike for President" ad.
  • They were challenged by — again, "challenged by" is inaccurate. Suggest They faced.
    • Okay.
• Creation
  • In his 1990 article, "Television's First Political Spot Ad Campaign: Eisenhower Answers America," author Stephen C. Wood wrote — again, this direct attribution is very lengthy and probably unnecessary.
  • The first paragraph of this section is kind of disjointed.
  • BBDO was responsible for handling most of Eisenhower's campaign. — Presumably most of the advertising for Eisenhower's campaign?
    • Done.
  • (whose husband, Floyd Odlum, was a director of the Disney corporation[24]) — This parenthetical is awkward.
    • Shifted to footnote.
  • On September 30, 1952 — maybe just In September 1952, not sure the exact date is all that important, and it makes for an abrupt transition from the previous paragraph which is very general.
    • Because we later mention "Two days late", I think that the date is crucial.
      • This the transition from highly general to highly specific is too abrupt.
  • Two days later, she wrote to artist George L. Carlson about the animated cartoon "We Like Ike." — Is this a cartoon which already exists at this point? If so it should be introduced explicitly and described.
    • I think the "animated cartoon" here means the ad.
      • If that is the case it should be phrased as the proposed cartoon, which she called "We Like Ike" or something similar.
        • Done.
  • many people including — need a comma before including.
    • Done.
  • the funds were deposited in an account handled by Carlson. Cochran requested Carlson pay the amount to an employee at The Walt Disney Company. — Do these details really matter?
    • Not much, removed.
  • So any effort on the advertisement was undertaken by unpaid volunteers outside working hours. — Beginning a sentence with "so" is generally too informal for encyclopedic writing. Would also suggest all effort instead of any effort as the latter sound hypothetical.
    • Sure, rephrased.
  • with 90-foot-long (27 m) tape footage — "with ... tape footage" is a weird phrase. I don't know if this needs to be included at all.
    • Done.
• Synopsis
  • as music plays underneath — "underneath" is the wrong preposition here. in the background perhaps?
    • Done.
  • The frame segues — technically speaking, "frame" is the wrong word here. Suggest "clip" or "ad".
    • Done.
  • leading a circus elephant holding — two gerunds in quick succession, could change to who held.
    • Done.
  • holding an Ike banner in his trunk — surely you mean with his trunk!
    • Both work, I think, but rephrased.
  • wearing a caricature of Eisenhower around its body, and beating a drum with its tail — more gerunds. This could perhaps be its own sentence.
    • Done.
  • about whom author Eric Burns writes, they — awkward. Recommend just going directly into it with "march[ing] in exaggerated fashion..."
  • The visual cuts — confusing because this looks like a noun phrase, but cuts is meant as a verb.
    • "The visual then cuts": How about this?
  • called Democratic donkeys by author Paul Christiansen — don't need direct attribution, just say they are Democratic donkeys.
  • The music follows — "follows" is the wrong verb here.
    • continues?
  • As the parade continues, an unidentified man rides a donkey in shadows towards the left — is this unidentified man supposed to be Stevenson, as the music suggests?
    • Very likely true.
• Analysis
  • the phrase "Ike for President" appearing 19 times — "appearing" suggests visual, but I think you mean it was said 19 times?
    • Yes, it was "said".
  • generate name recognition — generic verb.
    • What would you suggest?
  • contrasts the similarity — "the similarity" is redundant.
    • Fixed.
  • a vote for someone beside Eisenhower must be an antipatriotic betrayal — It seems that Christiansen is expressing a conventional view/implication of the ad rather than his personal opinion, but I don't think this is made clear enough as it is presented.
• Aftermath, impact, and legacy
  • Could probably just choose one of the three words for the section title as they are semi-synonymous.
    • Fine,
  • defeating Stevenson by a margin of 353 electoral votes — I would at least include the popular vote total in addition to if not instead of the electoral college margin.
    • Well, electoral college is what decides the election (as we say in 2016 and, well, 2000!)
  • This section needs more information on the ad's impact. There's just the one quote from Rosser Reeves.
    • That is pretty much all information I found.

Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Ruбlov, for all your comments. I have read them and would try to fix them in due course, but I realized that various of the changes you suggest were actually not there originally in the article. They were made during the GOCE copy-edit. For example, phrases like: "that year", entering the election, "crafted", "people with different occupations", "satirized", the parenthetical you talk about, beginning that sentence with "So", "with ... tape footage", "underneath", "holding ... trunk", "The visual cuts", "generate name recognition", etc. Should I change them back? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily recommend changing them back, but I do think they should be changed. I like the old version of the first sentence of the lead better than the new one, for instance. If you aren't sure about any particular change, feel free to ask and we can work together to craft a better version. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Very sorry for the delay, but I'm busy this and the next week. I'll get back to think whenever I get time. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No rush. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I have responded inline in a few places. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(I also intend to do another round of copy-editing; please ping me ({{ping|Rublov}}) when you're ready.) Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: Thanks. I have replied and made few more changes. Feel free to copy-edit the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I made some more copy-edits. The prose isn't perfect but I think it's in a better state than at the beginning. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, your edits greatly improved the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)