Talk:1946 California's 12th congressional district election/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * 1) Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * The first line in District and campaigns is a bit of a run on. You might want to split it out between "represented by Democrats," and "first by John Hoeppel" into two seperate sentences.
 * You Might want to change ", but then, it was principally agricultural. " to at the time it was principally agricultural."
 * Also, you may want to change from "the more so" to "especially" or some other variation from "The 12th district leaned Republican, the more so after Voorhis survived an attempt, in 1941, to gerrymander". But I'm not certain on acceptable usage of "more so". You might want to drop the commas surrounding ", in 1941," because that feels like a lot of pauses to have readers make and it might flow better without them.
 * Landslide should link to United States presidential election, 1936 in "Elected as part of the Roosevelt landslide of 1936,"
 * "his 1942 opponent, radio preacher and former Prohibition Party gubernatorial candidate Robert P. Shuler, "even embarrassed GOP regulars"." Should probably just drop the comma after his 1942 opponent. Also drop "even" from the quote.
 * I think "the 400-square-mile district." might need to be using convert to give the metric figures.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Everything appears ok with respect to MOS issues.
 * 1) Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Well referenced from various reliable sources. All quotes are cited.
 * 1) Broad in its coverage:
 * Covers all related aspects of lead up, campaign, results, and after-effects of election.
 * 1) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Neutral, no POV issues.
 * 1) Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
 * Stable, no one outside of main editor has touched this since June.
 * 1) Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]
 * No copyright issues, no fair use rationales used or needed. Images are relevant to article.

Overall no significant issues that I can see. I'd pass this but I want someone more familiar with GA criteria to double check the MOS issues and any general criteria I might have missed. So hold for a 2nd opinion little while to have someone else take a look. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help; I've made those changes and will wait for the second opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by Optigan13 for my opinion and input, so here are my thoughts:


 * In the section entitled "District and campaigns", second paragraph, first sentence: who is "he"?
 * In the section entitled "Search for a candidate", first paragraph; why was forming a commission controversial?
 * In that same section, the information about Hoeppel and why he was not reelected should be moved above to where the information about Voorhis's primary victory over him is.
 * In the section entitled, "Primary campaign", last paragraph: the first sentence needs a rewrite. It reads as if Voorhis beat Nixon by 7,000 votes in the Republican primary. And I'm pretty sure that didn't happen....
 * "Peculiar ideas about money" - does that refer to Voorhis' beliefs when it came to taxation? Or what does that refer to?
 * I assume that the sentences that do not contain citations are backed up by the citations which reference the following sentence(s)?
 * Regarding the controversy section: I think that the money aspect, Nixon's flow of money, etc. is given a bit too much weight. In addition, it is recommened that content within controversy/criticism sections be integrated into other places in the article per WP:CRITICISM. Because this section is not a criticism of the election but rather a reflection of the controversial nature of several aspects of the election and their lasting impact, you may be able to get away with it. But in that case I'd retitle it. I'd be more comfortable if you attempted to integrate most of it into other parts of the article, though.

Overall a great read! Another of Wehwalt's masterpieces. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * High praise, indeed, from one who deals with far longer and more complicated articles than I ever touch. Thanks.  I've made the specific changes you suggest.  Yes, if there is no cite on a sentence, the next cite covers it.  I can always name the ref and stick it on the end of a sentence if you think I go too long without a reference.


 * I've cut back on the "money" issue but I think the reader is going to expect discussion of the campaign and any historical issues, and the end is the best place to put it. I've changed the name of the subsection.  It would be hard to bury discussion of these issues in the text, and then the reader would, I think, feel cheated at the end.  The thing is, the controversy is all hindsight, which makes the sources spotty.  Trying to figure out exactly what happened in South Pasadena, for example.  In the Voorhis archives, I found a letter asking Voorhis if he had a tape.  He said, no, maybe Nixon does?  About two hours later it hit me he was making a Watergate allusion ... but like I said, a lot is hindsight and stories and there has to be a discussion of the uncertainties at the end.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses. Your explanation makes sense and I'm conforted by the change of the heading title. I don't have any further quibbles so my opinion to the reviewer, Optigan13, is to pass the article. Happyme22 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

-Optigan13 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)