Talk:Day of Infamy speech/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * MOS:OVERLINK - you’ve got seven links in only the first paragraph, which can hamper readability at the beginning. Since you’ve got public speech linked twice, once in the lead and once in infobox event (although that link points to the wrong target), I would recommend linking to public speech (as the type of event) in the infobox only. Per OVERLINK, there’s no need to link "everyday words understood by most readers in context", which would include the word "speech". Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ''The "Day of Infamy speech", sometimes referred to as just "Infamy speech"’'
 * sometimes referred to as the Infamy speech


 * According to author Sandra Silberstein, Roosevelt's speech followed a well-established tradition of how "through rhetorical conventions, presidents assume extraordinary powers as the commander in chief, dissent is minimized, enemies are vilified, and lives are lost in the defense of a nation once again united under God."
 * The use of this quote seems very odd to me. Silberstein is writing primarily about 9/11, and drawing some kind of modern analogy with the past for various political reasons. I would ask to see another source, concerned primary with the speech, that draws the same or similar conclusion about religion. The reason I say this is because the obsession with god in this context didn’t occur for another decade or more, with the Eisenhower administration, and subsequently with further efforts at anti-communism during the Cold War. So if you can offer another source, preferably an expert on FDR, who makes the same point, I would be interested in looking at it.  I’m not comfortable with the way Silberstein is being used here. At the very least, it probably shouldn’t be in the lead as it attempts to frame the speech using a post-historical lens, which is a NPOV problem. If you’re going to use a quote like this in the lead section, make sure it is from a subject matter expert and authority who is directly discussing the topic and is known for their neutrality. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, I see on the talk page that POV concerns were raised about this in 2007. That seems like a very long time for this to go unaddressed.  At the very least, it should be removed from the lead section. I have no problem with it being used in the proper context in the body of the article, such as in the context of post-9/11 discourse.  Right now, as it is used in the lead, it’s purely ahistorical, and that’s problematic. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The speech had a immediate positive response and long-lasting impact
 * the speech had an immediate positive response


 * It is one of the most famous speeches of American politics.
 * That either doesn’t need to be said, or if you think it does, it should appear at the end of the paragraph after you explain its impact, not before. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is does has to be said. Not every speech is most popular in American politics. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Laura Crowell of the University of Washington wrote that Roosevelt worked diligently on his speeches, and he "regularly provided the basic thoughts which he wanted to incorporate in an address ... [brought] the manuscript to the precise length; content and tone he desired in now widely understood."
 * Something is wrong with that quote. Look at the source material. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

 * MOS:OVERLINK - same issue as above, again with the first paragraph. The first paragraph is where you want to be extra mindful of avoiding OVERLINK, because this is where you draw the reader into the article. It looks like you’ve got 11 links in that one paragraph alone. You don’t need to link to "law firm", for example, and you could probably chop it down to half the number of links.  It’s important to use links sparingly. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Address to the joint session

 * It was intended not merely as a personal response by Roosevelt, but as a statement on behalf of the all-American people in the face of great collective trauma.
 * The all-American people? Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the speech was worded to reinforce Roosevelt's portrayal of the United States as a victim of unprovoked Japanese aggression. The initial draft read, "a date which will live in world history". Roosevelt rephrased it as "a date which will live in infamy." The wording was deliberately passive. Rather than speaking in the active voice ("Japan attacked the United States"), Roosevelt chose to speak in the passive voice to emphasize America's status as a victim.
 * Thats the second ahistorical issue using post-9/11 sources making political hay about FDR in the post-historical context. This is a NPOV issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I don’t like to fail articles without giving the nominator an opportunity to fix problems. However, the article has major NPOV issues that can only be resolved with a total rewrite, and I think it’s likely that many of these issues predate the involvement of the nominator and go back more than a decade.  I say this because the talk page shows User:RandomCritic raising these same issues back in 2007, and nothing appears to have changed in the intervening years.  My recommendation is for an interested writer to focus on using sources from subject matter experts about the speech and FDR, and not to solely rely on framing the article around post-9/11 political discourse, which is the current problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ - Thanks for the review. I am willing to work on the article. The main concerns raised are that the article does not follow a neutral point of view ... Well, everything mentioned in the article is indeed from reliable sources. I don't understand the issue with post-9/11 sources. The speech has received much recent attention just because of 9/11 and JFK assassination. We also do have various pre-9/11 sources too. Our work is to summarise what realible sources discuss. The overlinking issue (which I didn't notice earlier) would be easy to fix. I am not much concerned about the quick fail, which I can re-nominate. But that fact that I was not given any chance to respond is a bit, unfair. The issues raised could have been resolved within the due course of GAN. Is there anything else which makes you feel that the article is not neutral. - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Im sorry that you feel it was unfair. I honestly don’t think the article could have been re-written in seven days, so failing it was my only option. I would not recommend re-nominating it at this time. As for the NPOV issue, which appears to predate your involvement, the overriding concern about post-9/11 sources being given undue weight with their opinions stated as facts was expressed on the talk page in 2007, with no attempt to fix it in the intervening years.  I wasn’t aware of this problem until I reviewed the article and then decided to look at the talk page, only then realizing that my current concerns had already been expressed a decade before. I don’t know how much more clear I can be about the problem.  Please focus on eliminating all the sources about 9/11 and the war on terror, and writing this article only from subject matter experts and sources about the subject, first.  Then, when that’s been done, go into the 9/11 and war on terror literature for supplementary context, criticism, and debate.  It should not, however, be used to frame the article, because that is entirely ahistorical, and presents this subject in terms of post-9/11 commentary, which in itself is only one perspective among many. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Although you improved the article alot, the legacy section still has many of the same issues that it did before. There are many sources about Pearl Harbor / FDR that discuss the speech and are not cited. I agree with Viriditas that it's not GA at present, although knowing how fast you can write I might have put it on hold so that it could be rewritten to focus on WWII rather than later events. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. When I said that I will re-nominate, I meant renomination after fixing the issues. Will look at the other sources soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I don’t like to fail articles without giving the nominator an opportunity to fix problems. However, the article has major NPOV issues that can only be resolved with a total rewrite, and I think it’s likely that many of these issues predate the involvement of the nominator and go back more than a decade.  I say this because the talk page shows User:RandomCritic raising these same issues back in 2007, and nothing appears to have changed in the intervening years.  My recommendation is for an interested writer to focus on using sources from subject matter experts about the speech and FDR, and not to solely rely on framing the article around post-9/11 political discourse, which is the current problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ - Thanks for the review. I am willing to work on the article. The main concerns raised are that the article does not follow a neutral point of view ... Well, everything mentioned in the article is indeed from reliable sources. I don't understand the issue with post-9/11 sources. The speech has received much recent attention just because of 9/11 and JFK assassination. We also do have various pre-9/11 sources too. Our work is to summarise what realible sources discuss. The overlinking issue (which I didn't notice earlier) would be easy to fix. I am not much concerned about the quick fail, which I can re-nominate. But that fact that I was not given any chance to respond is a bit, unfair. The issues raised could have been resolved within the due course of GAN. Is there anything else which makes you feel that the article is not neutral. - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Im sorry that you feel it was unfair. I honestly don’t think the article could have been re-written in seven days, so failing it was my only option. I would not recommend re-nominating it at this time. As for the NPOV issue, which appears to predate your involvement, the overriding concern about post-9/11 sources being given undue weight with their opinions stated as facts was expressed on the talk page in 2007, with no attempt to fix it in the intervening years.  I wasn’t aware of this problem until I reviewed the article and then decided to look at the talk page, only then realizing that my current concerns had already been expressed a decade before. I don’t know how much more clear I can be about the problem.  Please focus on eliminating all the sources about 9/11 and the war on terror, and writing this article only from subject matter experts and sources about the subject, first.  Then, when that’s been done, go into the 9/11 and war on terror literature for supplementary context, criticism, and debate.  It should not, however, be used to frame the article, because that is entirely ahistorical, and presents this subject in terms of post-9/11 commentary, which in itself is only one perspective among many. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Although you improved the article alot, the legacy section still has many of the same issues that it did before. There are many sources about Pearl Harbor / FDR that discuss the speech and are not cited. I agree with Viriditas that it's not GA at present, although knowing how fast you can write I might have put it on hold so that it could be rewritten to focus on WWII rather than later events. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. When I said that I will re-nominate, I meant renomination after fixing the issues. Will look at the other sources soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)