Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Sandwedge/archive3

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) 21 October 2021 [1].

Operation Sandwedge[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another run with this one, which was last at FAC back in January 2016. At that time it was only half the length it is now, reflecting the paucity of sources available when I was writing it, but some tremendous help from the late Brianboulton identified several texts which contributed to a much more comprehensive overview of a project which never happened. Sandwedge is a minor footnote in the grand scheme of the Watergate affair, but an interesting one, as it inevitably gives rises to the question of "what if". I hope whether any of you take the time to review this or not you at least find it an interesting entry in political history, a quaint reminder of a time when crime in public office was wrong. A lot of the sourcing used is offline but if anyone needs to conduct a source review on these I should be able to access all the print sources again to accommodate this. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass[edit]

Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Going to have to review this as Nixon is my favorite president, will start as soon as I finish my current GA review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Suggest expanding the lede slightly, perhaps with more information regarding H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Jack Caulfield's positions, as well as G. Gordon Liddy.

Background

"defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote." suggest "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote."
"by a margin of less than 118,000 votes", it may be worth mentioning somewhere that the actual overall vote count doesn't (technically) matter because of the electoral college, but that several states, such as Illinois, were narrowly lost, which ultimately lost him the election.
It may also be worth mentioning there was some considerable belief of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, in the 1960 election, with several of Nixon's 1972 aides having argued it at the time.
"Nixon's initial election bid had already involved the planting of rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" suggest "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved planting rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" for simplicity.

Planned activities

"officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General." may be worth noting that he was a leading candidate for 1968 election before his assassination, perhaps, "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General, who had been the leading Democratic candidate in the 1968 primaries before his assasination."
"investigators and officials of Inland Revenue," really? The British one? Is there any known reason for crossing the pond, and not getting people from the IRS?
"Mitchell had served as Attorney General under Nixon's first term" suggest changing "under" to "during"

Aftermath

Article definitely needs to mention that Nixon had to resign because of Watergate.
That is all of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having a look at this. I've implemented the majority of the changes mentioned; the only thing not yet addressed is the information concerned the voting margins and accusations of fraud in the 1960 election—I know that White's Breach of Faith details this and I want to be able to accurately quote the figures he presents, but I'm currently moving home and the book is elsewhere today, so this will be added when I have the source in front of me. Otherwise this should demonstrate the changes made. (Also of note, today is when I first learnt, as a European, that "IRS" does not stand for "Inland Revenue Service". Every day's a school day). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made look good; I will say that probably most Americans couldn't actually tell you what IRS stands for with certainty. Unfortunately, the pain of my tax accounting course will never leave me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now added the information about 1960 more specifically, including the particularly fine margins in two states, along with an attributed mention of electoral fraud. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

Very interesting article. This is my first FA review, so fell free to ignore any suggestion which you don't find helpful.

Do we really need a specific image size in the info-box (270)?
Apparently not, I've removed it.
""The operation was planned to help Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign."" – suggesting to red-link "1972 re-election campaign" to Richard Nixon 1972 presidential campaign, rather than linking it to the election page.
I would prefer at present to retain the current link just because the target is so well-written; I have no issues with a relevant red link but not over a viable in-depth article. It's an easy switch if the article is ever created to the same standard though.
""but rivals within Nixon's own party."" – The lead doesn't tell which party Nixon is in.
Added
""which detailed a plan to break into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex. Liddy's plan eventually led to the downfall of Nixon's presidency, "" – both "break into Democratic Party offices" and "downfall of Nixon's presidency" ultimately redirect to the same page.
Good catch; the duplicate link tool wasn't picking this up.
""In 1968, Richard Nixon, the United States Republican Party nominee"" – Is "United States" really needed? It should be phrased something like "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party's nominee"
Trimmed it; this is what happens when you let a euro write about US politics
""this position granted"" → "a position which granted"
Got it
""during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidency under Dwight D. Eisenhower"" – I won't say that Nixon was under Eisenhower. They both campaigned as a ticket for re-election in 1956.
I've rephrased it; I would have thought a vice-president always served under a president but now it's just "as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-president" to avoid that.
""Nixon's initial election bid"" → "re-election bid"
Got it
""$511,000"" – suggesting to use Template:inflation
I've added this template with the "equivalent to" output to all the major dollar amounts in the article now
Attorney General is linked twice in the prose.
Another one the tool hadn't flagged due to a redirect, pared the second one out
Link Republican National Convention
Added to first mention,
""congressman for California"" → "congressman from California"
Although McCloskey was from California, this is to show he was the representative for California (honestly not sure how often a representative tends to stand for a state other than their home but it doesn't feel like they're one and same)
Well, "congressman from California" would also imply that he represents California. (is mentioning the state important)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Gemstone was an umbrella term ...... rival political campaigns" – too long sentence
I've removed the em dash and split this into two sentences.
Its notable to mention that Nixon was the first and only president to resign.
Added a mention of it, cited to Nixon's biography on the US Senate website; if this needs something further I could dig out one of the more recent books but obviously the older the cite is the more date it looks for a fact intended to remain present to today.
Committee for the Re-Election of the President already linked in the prose. No need for it to be in the "See also" section.
Gone.
Any book/work for further reading?
None that haven't been used already; there's no shortage of output on Watergate as a whole but a paucity on the story that didn't happen.
Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rest, most seems fine to me. It would be much appreciated if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at this; I've addressed your points above and all changes related to them can be seen here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapple X – I have made a minor edit. Rest all seems fine to me, and I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

You link Vietnam opposition twice in the lead, and the second mention feels redundant (it comes very shortly after the first and is worded almost identically)
Not sure the link on "New York police officer" adds much, and is a bit of an Easter egg.
at this time he was Nixon's domestic affairs assistant at what time?
Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969 "was the one who" is redundant
Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969; Ehrlichman intended for Caulfield to conduct private investigations while undercover as a private sector employee, it was Caulfield who insisted on working from the White House bit of a mouthful, with a semicolon and a comma splice in the mix. The easiest solution is to replace the semicolon with a full stop, and the comma with a semicolon.
however Caulfield intimated privately that it would also "however" implies a contradiction whereas "also" implies an agreement. Suggest replacing "however" with "although" or similar.
"private investigator" is linked on the third use of the term in the body
Strachan, Dean and other staff members were frustrated "however" again (see WP:WTA)
That October, a meeting concerning Sandwedge Which October? This is the start of a new section.
a meeting concerning Sandwedge was arranged Can we rephrase this to use the active voice?
Another factor in Caulfield's removal from the helm was the belief of several White House officials, including Dean, that Caulfield's Irish-American, non-college educated background was at odds that's a lot of commas. Suggest dashes for "including Dean". And this use of "non-college-educated" is one compound adjective and needs hyphens between all parts.
Liddy's initial draft of Operation Gemstone was deemed active voice is preferable again
Likewise was made by Dean in January 1972
tried for various crimes, with 48 of these This use of ", with" is ungrammatical as a way of joining clauses. You could replace it with a semicolon or split it into two sentences or restructure the whole sentence.
"the most monumental of the Nixon Presidency" You need a reference straight after a direct quote.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at this. I think I've gotten everything here although if you want to cast an eye over the changes to be sure, especially with active voice concerns, just let me know if anything needs further work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not returning to this sooner. The day job is keeping me occupied! I'm happy with the responses to my comments. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

FN1: this link works, but is it the page that you're meaning to cite?
It was not, seems like they have rearranged the site a little since it was used. I've updated the link although it's far from vital--the actual percentages are given in the Black source, the Electrical College was just to provide a governmental source for the winner in addition to the more precise breakdown in the book.
Knight is listed at the publisher site as the editor of that work rather than the author. Do individual entries have authors?
They don't, although it's structured like an encyclopaedia or dictionary with alphabetical entries, there's only an editor (Knight) and three "associate editors" (Robert Alan Goldberg, Jeffrey L Pasley, and Larry Schweikart) credited for it. Is the best option here to switch the field to credit Knight as editor, then?
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you ordering References? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetical by author (then by year for Genovese who has two entries) with the House Committee listed after individual authors. Open to changing this if you think the last one should be alphabetised like a name.
I think if you're treating the committee as an author, it would make sense to alphabetize it with the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above, thank you for looking at this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United States House Committee on the Judiciary alphabetised under "U"; Knight updated to list as editor. I'm noticing now that this displays the editor credit differently for these two entries, in brackets for the Committee and without brackets for Knight. If these should match, I'm not sure how to achieve it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's... odd. Perhaps raise it at Help talk:CS1? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried playing around with it to no avail, I've left a message at the help page asking if anyone can figure it out. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now solved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks – Pass[edit]

Version checked — this

Ref#2 – The book specifies "43.4 percent to 42.7 percent", so OK (link)
Ref#3 – OK (link)
Ref#7 – OK (link)
Ref#13 – OK (link)
Ref#15 – OK (remaining part supported by Ref#16) (link)
Ref#16 – OK for remaining claim of that sentence, which isn't supported by Ref#15 (link)
Ref#21 – OK (link)
Ref#25 – OK (link)
Ref#31 – OK (link)

Overall, pass on spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, modern American politics has always interested me so I can't really go past this one...

Copyedited so pls let me know any probs, otherwise prose, detail (appropriately succinct given it's really a footnote to Watergate), tone and structure seem fine.
I'll take Buidhe's and Nikki's image and source reviews as read.
One thought: In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote -- My understanding is that the Electoral College decides the election, not the popular vote (as witness Trump 2016), so is it really accurate to say the election was won by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote? Perhaps with a margin of seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm happy to rephrase this. The popular vote doesn't decide the winner, you're correct, but the margin being so fine is contextually important as the section expands upon. How does "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President. Nixon's margin of victory in the popular vote was seven-tenths of a percent." sound? Splitting it into two sentences should hopefully provide the necessary separation that these are two different facts. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that works for me. I agree that even though the Electoral College in both 1960 and 1968 was very clear, the narrow popular margin is what everyone focusses on, so I think it's reasonable for this article to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change. It's an interesting election in that it shows how strange the College is--the "official" result doesn't look close at all but small margins in large states like Texas mean a swing of a relatively small number of voters would have had big differences in that final College tally; less than five thousand votes for Humphrey in Illinois would have been a 52-point swing for example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point -- small percentages can make a big difference in the end. Anyway change looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 21 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.