Talk:Checkers speech/GA1

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

Initial comment
I will be reviewing this article, and hope to post detailed comments during the next 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Detailed comments

 * The story is told clearly and comprehensively. However, in contrast to your usual taut and succinct prose style, in this case there is a significant amount of rambling/overdetailing.
 * For example, I can't see any purpose served by the third paragraph of the "Development of the story" section, which seems to have arrived from another article.
 * In many other sections the narrative needs considerable summarising. Lines like "On Monday morning, Nixon flew to Los Angeles, making notes for his speech on souvenir airline postcards", and this chunk: " When the aide asked that Nixon be put on the line, an exasperated Rogers told him that the candidate was in the next room, crying his eyes out. On having this relayed to him, Dewey got on the phone himself, demanding to speak to Nixon.  Rogers passed the phone to Congressman Hillings, who told Dewey that the senator was not to be disturbed.  The governor insisted, and the phone was passed to Chotiner, who said Nixon had gone out, destination unknown.  Dewey said that he would wait on the phone for the senator's return.  After several minutes of silence, Chotiner got his candidate on the phone" – are colourful, but much too detailed for an encyclopedia article. There are similar instances of a storytelling style elsewhere, and I think that a substantial pruning exercise throughout the article is necessary to bring it to the best encyclopedic style.
 * I have numerous relatively minor concerns picked up as I read through:-
 * Second sentence of second lead paragraph: "After his 1950 election to the Senate, discussions between his campaign staff and his longtime California backers, with Nixon's knowledge and consent, resulted in a privately-run fund which would reimburse the senator for postage for political mailings which he did not care to have franked, transcription and reproduction of political speeches, and similar expenses."
 * Rewritten.
 * Suggest link running mate at first mention
 * Done.
 * Is it correct to capitalise "Fund"? Would it always be referred to thus?
 * As noted below, it is what the references, and Nixon in his books, call it.
 * It might be worth approximating the current worth of Nixon's senatorial salary of $12,000, and/or the total of the Fund. MeasuringWorth.com gives a 2007 value for $12,000 in 1952 of over $100,000.
 * We need a clearer idea of what Nixon was legally entitled to claim in expenses from the public purse, since he made so much of the point that the Fund was saving people's taxes. You say he was entitled to an annual round trip between Washington and California. Is that the limit of his entitlement? No other expenses chargeable?
 * Can you explain the reference to "a major engraving bill"?
 * In the "Ideas for a speech" section I wasn't clear what this sentence was getting at: "Humphreys mentioned Summerfield's financial concern, but Chotiner pointed out that reprinting all campaign materials without Nixon's name would cost the RNC far more than would a television broadcast."  Was Chotiner saying that it would be cheaper to fund the broadcast than to have to reprint all the campaign stationery with a name other than Nixon's on it, should Nixon be dumped.?
 * Rephrased, please check to see if it makes it clearer. Stationary, posters, buttons, billboards, quite a lot.  And with six weeks to go before the election.  Given the technology at the time, things might have been ... interesting.
 * In this same section, Thomas E Dewey and Harold Stassen are both described as "longtime" Nixon supporters. Nixon had been in politics for only six years, and Dewey and Stassen were much senior to him in the party hierarchy, so is it accrate to call them his longtime supporters? Later, Rose Mary Woods is described as Nixon's "longtime" secretary. Well, she certainly became that, but at the time of the Checkers speech she'd only been in his employment for about a year.
 * "Longtime" eliminated for all three, and I've removed that reference to Woods entirely and moved her wl down in the article. Stassen actually knew Nixon from military service.
 * In the "Candidates and public" section the addendum: "everywhere, it seemed, except an auditorium in Cleveland" seems worded for theatrical effect.
 * Rephrased with reluctance. When will I learn?
 * Same section: "While Eisenhower affirmed that the RNC had the power which Nixon had ascribed to it, the general stated that the Committee would undoubtedly be guided by his wishes." I find it hard to match the names and the pronouns in this sentence, in particularly in identifying "his"
 * Rephrased.
 * "Western Union was caught off-guard by Nixon's request." I can't find the request that you refer to
 * It's in the one of the final quotes in the speech, Nixon asks the public to wire or write the RNC. I've rephrased for clarity.
 * Mundt's comment, "viscous" – did he say this, or "vicious"?
 * That's what you get for careless spellcheck use.
 * Media reaction: To say that the St Louis Post-Despatch "sneered" is your POV.
 * I've taken it out.

For GA purposes I would expect the minor points to be dealt with. The more significant question of overdetailing and wordiness is not a GA issue, but I believe would be one at FAC, so the article will definitely need work before its submission there. As to the other GA criteria I see no problems. I am not sufficiently expert to know if the licences on Checkers speech.jpg and Patnixoncheckers.JPG are OK, but the other images look all right. The article is appropriately referenced from reliable sources, is neutral and stable.
 * Before FAC submission, I'd attach cites giving the references that say the speech is public domain. Obviously if the film is PD, so are screencaps from it.  Two of the pictures were taken by me in the last few days, fortunately I was passing through Cleveland and Wheeling.


 * As for wordiness and storytelling, that is going to be difficult. You can't have a comprehensive article about the speech without discussing the Fund crisis.  I'll keep looking for places where the article can be cut back, I've already eliminated about 2K.  The reader needs to know about the intricate political manoevering that was going on during these seven days in September, though, because without it, there is no Checkers speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll await your response before promoting – it's not worth a "hold".

Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll make those changes over the next two days or so. Many of them had given me pause when rereading it.  Well done and thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, "the Fund" is how it is referred to in the references that consider the matter at length. I'd rather go that route than call it "supplementary expense fund" as did the NY times.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will work on your suggested changes over the next 2 days. I won't be home (finally) until early tomorrow, and will consult Morris on the expense question, he is the best source.  I think you can expect this article to show up at Peer Review, possibly along with Franklin Knight Lane which remains a vote short of promotion with time running out.  I guess my next FAC will be Voorhis.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am promoting the article GA. As to the other changes I have indicated, I am not suggesting removal of anything substantive, rather that some of the descriptive froth might be skimmed. This is a matter, however, for peer review, and I will discuss it there. The article can easily be knocked into FA shape from where it stands now. I don't see why Lane shouldn't be promoted now – two supports, no opposes – but I'll take a quick look to see if I can help it on its way. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the promotion. I'll submit it to Peer Review in a few days, once I am home and implement the other comments I need to do research on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)