Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1

Ike for President (advertisement)



 * Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The last advertisement at FAC was "Daisy", something dealing with nuclear war, fear, attack ad, and all the scary words you can think of. That was 1964, scary times! This is "Ike for President"; a peaceful, animated, comic, jingly advertisement. A classic example of 1950s advertisements, animated by Disney for the Eisenhower campaign. Hope you have an interesting read! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Image review—pass (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "John Sparkman". Mentioning who he was, i.e. the Dem VP candidate, might be wise here since he is obscure today.
 * Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "name recognition". Seriously? Eisenhower needed name recognition?
 * I don't think he needed name recognition, but that is what the source states. Thomas A. Hollihan says: "Clearly, the purpose was to win name recognition, communicate that Eisenhower enjoyed the support of the people of different socioeconomic means, and simulate the old fashioned campaign parades of the earlier days in this new visual medium." . I write "name recognition" just as the opinion of the author, summarizing what reliable sources say. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * " and often led the list of Gallup Poll's "most admired man".[4]" You might want to phrase this in a way that doesn't make it sound like poor grammar, with the quote.
 * Tried. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * " The Republican National Convention nominated him, with Senator Richard Nixon as the official presidential ticket in July 1952.[15] He was challenged by Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson.[16]" I might simplify and say "In July 1952, the Republican National Convention nominated him for president, with Senator Richard Nixon as his running mate." Also, since you are going to mention Sparkman later, this would be a good place to mention him, it also balances things because you mention Nixon. It would also make the passage where you introduce Sparkman/Acheson/Truman a little less awkward.
 * Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit surprised there's no mention of Nixon's demonstration of the power that television could have on the voter in the Checkers Speech in your setting of the scene for 1952, or, for that matter, at all in the article..
 * See below. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Most of the advertising expenditure from the Eisenhower campaign" Presumably television advertising is meant here.
 * This refers to the complete advertising budget of the Ike campaign, most of which was devoted to a television advertising campaign: "Eisenhower Answers America" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "saying that she discussed with John Hay "Jock" Whitney about a proposed advertisement which could be "the greatest piece of propaganda in [that] whole campaign".[21]" Grammar ("discussed with"/"about" seems a bit odd).
 * Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "and a caricature of Eisenhower around his body, beating the drum with his tail.[29][30][28]" refs out of order.
 * Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the ad is public domain, is it possible to include the video in the article? I realize this is a pain, having done it for Bring Us Together and I won't hold it against you if you don't want to.
 * Presumably you are referring to the ad video? It is already there in the infobox. Let me know if I am missing something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "cops". Since we write with formality, perhaps "police officers"?
 * Oh, sure. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "firemen" To avoid the "men", perhaps "firefighters"?
 * Sure, done. They do a really good job fighting with fire! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Aftermath section makes its sound a bit like Adlai was a bit behind the times with his 30 minute speeches, whereas Ike's people were more modern and effective with short commercials like we all have seen. I would strive to make it sound less that way, given that Nixon had just provided an example of how effectively a 30 minute time slot could be used. Presumably Ike also made TV addresses?
 * This is combined answer for this as well as for the above mentioned Nixon's Checkers speech point. None of the sources I cite contrast this ad with the Checkers speech, neither do they mention it. Presumably because (do correct me) Checkers speech was not really an advertisement. It was a clarification by Nixon to the general public about all his assets and that fund controversy. Stevenson's speeches were specifically meant to promote his candidacy (like what Perot did in '92), they were different from Nixon's speech. I do not feel comfortable including about Checkers speech since none of the sources specify anything about it. But, for curious readers, I have added it in the "See also" section. As for the point just above, that is how the source present it, at-least for this ad. Ike's television address was (I think) limited to that Ike answers America campaign, where he was asked 10 seconds long question, he recorded 10 seconds long reply, and that short ad was ready! Stevenson campaign mostly used their advertising funds for broadcasting long speeches, seen as a way of bringing the traditional Truman styled whistle-stop tour speeches to television. Ike campaign tried new ways of short advertisement. That is what mostly the sources, directly or indirectly say. Do you know any other long television broadcast (except Checkers speech) by the Ike-Dick campaign? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt: Thanks a lot for the review! Replied above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from theleekycauldron
I have negative time on my hands, but this is an interesting one—reserving this spot for a future review/source review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd appreciate your source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comin' right up! I checked through pretty much everything, only ended up having a problem with the stuff below. On the balance, great stuff! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @theleekycauldron: Just a general comment, per WP:FILMPLOT (if you consider this ad a 1-min film), "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film." We have the ad publicly available (in public domain in this case), so citing everything in the "Synopsis" section is not required. That is why I have separate "Analysis" section. So, for the following sources having issue in the "Synopsis" section, well, especially for the lyrics, I am not sure if I need to fix that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that citing everything is required either; in fact, i'm not seeing anywhere to attach a cn tag. But it seems pretty plain to me that FILMPLOT isn't a free pass on sourcing style or verifiability, only whether or not you have to use them; if you choose to provide secondary sources, they should verify the content, be properly formatted, and sit in easily understandable positions for readers so that they know at a glance which sources should verify what content. Also, I got dinged in my SLAPP Suits FAC for relying on that rule for only parts of synopses, and ended up having to cut stuff that wasn't secondarily sourced to maintain a consistent level of sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but when I see FA on books having completely uncited Synopsis section, .... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

version review :D
 * 1) Christiansen 2018:
 * 2) * ref 1d (p. 37): Looks like it only verifies the first line of that two-line quote.
 * 3) ** Added p. 36 in the range. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) * ref 24 (p. 33): The letter says that the costs "will not exceed" $1,000- presumably, some of that $1,000 check could have been left over. Also, the letter requests that the money be sent to Mr. Anderson, not the Walt Disney company—obviously, we know that Anderson was an accountant for the company, but the letter doesn't specify to whom the money is paid, just to whom the check should be sent. Normally, I'd be less of a stickler on this, but this is quoting a primary source, so we've gotta be much more careful.
 * 5) ** I don't think it would be necessary for the reader to know if the check was sent to William Anderson. So, I just rephrased it to imply that the check was sent to an employee of the Disney company. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) * ref 28 (p. 35):
 * 7) ** a: The source says that animated advertisement began with the words "Eisenhower for President" and the Ike button underneath it.
 * 8) *** Yes, but that is too much detail for the synopsis. And this is in the synopsis section, we merely have to summarize what is in the ad, in our own words. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) ** b: Along with the other two references, I'd move them around a little so it's clear what verifies what.
 * 10) *** That would be difficult, since each of the references verify content in chunks. I'll end up having 2-3 citations in every sentence, which is not very good for the flow. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) ** c: Again, not a bad idea to re-order the list so that if one occupation is exclusive to this ref or to Burns, it's clear which reference it can be found in.
 * 12) *** Same as above; what I can assure in this case is that all the occupations are verified by those 2 sources jointly. There are some which are not present in one, but is present in other. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) ** d: The source says fifteen times in one mode, and four times in another, so that should be nineteen?
 * 14) *** Nice catch, fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) * ref 35b (p. 38): The fact that it was created in response looks to be on p. 39, so I'd reference both pages
 * 16) ** Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Ambrose 1983:
 * 18) * ref 2 (pp. 275–276): Where does the source verify the content?
 * 19) ** Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) * ref 5 (p. 14): Where does the source verify the content?
 * 21) ** Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 22) * ref 9 (p. 523): I'm not seeing the source verify that Eisenhower's nickname was Ike
 * 23) ** Fixed page no. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) Busch 2012, ref 3 (p. 55): Not seeing where it says he directed the Allied invasion of germany, nor that he was a five-star general
 * 25) * I think you made the classic error of relying on Internet Archive's page numbers. The real pg 55 is on IA's pg 71 (see) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't, and I actually made sure of that one before—I see V-E/Normandy, I missed that one, and it looks like five-star was cut. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Morris & Schwartz 1993, ref 4 (p. 140): The source (at least on this page) doesn't say that the "most admired man" poll was conducted by Gallup, only that a separate presidential poll was. It also doesn't say that he was hailed as a war hero by people of the time, although the source certainly does. It'd probably be expedient to mention that MacArthur led the list along with him, although I'm noting that if he was commander from '44–'45 or so and led the list "in the late 1940s" (from source), those don't quite match up.
 * 2) * Coincidentally, I have a FLC pending on Gallup's most admired man and woman poll! Fixed a few things here. Added another page, the source definitely supports that he was a war hero. " Much is known about Dwight Eisenhower's accomplishments as wartime general and postwar president; however, little is known about the reasons for his extraordinary popularity. Drawing from opinion polls, popular media, and related sources this article shows how Eisenhower's achievements and public conduct resonated with the concerns and values of his generation. "Symbolic leadership" theory and the "action theory" of heroic leadership frame this twofold articulation of Eisenhower's mid- century image". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now—fascinating article, I learned a ton! very nice job :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Birkner 2003, ref 10 (p. 15): Not seeing "They Like Ike" anywhere on the page? Actually, the source is really confusing me now. Berlin seems to have written a song called "I Like Ike", that "became the Eisenhower campaign song", but it's an entirely different song with different lyrics??
 * 2) * "Other songs were written for the election. Irving Berlin wrote “They Like Ike” for the Broadway show Call Me Madam, which was later rewritten as “I Like Ike.”" this, p. 45. Changed source. It is entirely different from this ad. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Daniel 2000, ref 11 (pp. 396–397): Inaccessible to me, but given that it's verified in the abstract, agf.
 * 4) SAGE Publications 2010: Inaccessible to me, but that's a pretty non-controversial statements so agf
 * 5) Voss 2008, ref 16a (p. 186): Presumably meant to verify that Stevenson was a candidate for president Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat who ran against Eisenhower for president in '52 (weirdly enough, Christiansen doesn't ever explicitly spell that. In fact, it doesn't mention the two words "Adlai Stevenson" next to each other at all). The fact that they're both at the end of that sentence suggests that each reference verifies both the peep and the veep, which they don't—so this one should probably be moved next to Stevenson's name.
 * 6) * I don't think 2 citations at the end of the sentences means they both fully verify everything in those sentences. It may also be the case (as it is here) that they both jointly cite the complete text. One source cited half, another half. I dislike adding citations between sentences unless it is necessary. It breaks the flow. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Kamber 2003:
 * 8) * ref 17 (p. 29): I'd expand this one a little, to make it clear that you're not throwing in a random fact from this source—i'm not gonna insist, but there's a bit of room, it seems?
 * 9) ** What in particular? B'cause I think that 40% stat is the most imp. detail on that page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) * ref 34b (p. 30): Kamber doesn't hedge, so "speculates" would be against MOS:SAID
 * 11) ** He "wrote", fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Wood 1990:
 * 13) * ref 18b (pp. 266): I'd make it clear that you're talking about estimates of said expenditures
 * 14) ** Done (maybe) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) * ref 19 (pp. 265–270): not sure where it says that most of the advertising budget went there, although I could be missing it?
 * 16) * It is in somewhere in those 5 pages, but I just went ahead and rephrased it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Diamond & Bates 1992:
 * 18) * ref 20 (p. 49): Where does the source verify the content?
 * 19) ** Google books doesn't provide preview for pg 49. I added another source along with this one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 20) * ref 26 (p. 59):
 * 21) ** a: Inaccessible (couldn't find the right quote), but it's already verified through the other source there so agf
 * 22) ** b: This also says that it was an indirect attack on Stevenson, so it wasn't just Kamber...
 * 23) *** Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) Rumbough Jr. 2013, ref 36a (p. 111): quite of bit of the information is on p. 110—and it looks like the source says "five or six", not "four to six".
 * 25) * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 26) Benoit 2016, ref 22 (p. 40): Honestly, not sure why you'd want to go to the trouble of citing an entire book for a single page that 1. doesn't wholly verify the content and 2. isn't needed, since the other source does wholly verify the content.
 * 27) * All right then, removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * General comments
 * "But Adlai goes the other way, We'll all go with Ike": per MOS:/, use a spaced slash to separate song lines ("But Adlai goes the other way / We'll all go with Ike")
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "the greatest piece of propaganda in [that] whole campaign": bracketing seems unnecessary? original quote looks fine
 * Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Cochran requested Carlson to pay the amount to The Walt Disney Company": "requested --- to pay" is technically correct grammar, but a little awkward. Might want to consider a rephrase.
 * I don't think that'll be better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the word "President" is unstressed, and is "on the submediant and leading tone.": Punctuation outside the quote—but more importantly, I'm not sure that either needs to be quoted? For the first, it's quoting a word as a word, so it should be president (lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES). For the second, I'm thinking that this is a piece of analysis we should be putting in wikivoice, because otherwise it sounds like we don't quite understand it. We should probably link submediant, too.
 * So: "the word president is unstressed, and is on the submediant and leading note."
 * Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The advertisement begins in D major but subsequently changes to F major; the tempo is constant at 120 beats per minute.": I'd add Christiansen's note that it's the most common marching tempo, too.
 * I think that'll be too much detail, and doesn't particularly benefit a reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Punctuation appears inside a quote quite a few times—I'd run searches for ," and ." just to clear that out.
 * Fixed, except for "Now is the time for all good Americans ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Roy O. Disney wrote a letter to Cochran 10 days after the election"—spell out "ten"
 * Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dennis W. Johnson wrote that the main goal of the advertisement was to "drive home a consistent, simple message: 'I Like Ike'", and called it the best presidential slogan ever created." I happen to think this one would be just a bit punchier if it were " ... simple message: 'I Like Ike'", and remarked that it "has to be one of the best presidential slogans ever created" ". Just a preference, though :)
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Thanks for checking all citations and listing the problematic ones. I replied above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Reping, earlier one didn't work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

All righty! Hmm, I've got some persisting issues:
 * version review :D
 * Morris & Schwartz 1993, ref 4 (pp. 133, 140): mmmm, the quote you've provided isn't ticking the box for me. Is there no clearer indication that the public specifically hailed Eisenhower as a war hero? It says he was popular, and heroic, though. Maybe later in the page: "Eisenhower was revered for time he became commanding general in Europe during World War II ..." but even that feels shaky for me.
 * The source does not explicitly state the phrase "war hero", but various instances in the cited page imply that. But I'd go ahead and remove the 'war hero' thing, replace it by a "'extraordinarily' popular". That is explicitly stated in the source, and
 * Smith 1986, ref 5 (p. 574): still not seeing verification that he led the list in the late 40s? (yeah, i know you moved that up to the top, but the implication is still there for me)
 * "Almost yearly since 1947 Gallup has been asking the American public what man and what woman "living today in any part of the world" they admire the most." + "Dwight D. Eisenhower (before his elevation to the presidency) and MacArthur were the leading light". (from Smith 1986) + "Eisenhower and MacArthur led the list of "America's Most Admired Men" in the late 1940s" (from Morris & Schwartz 1993). Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ambrose 1983, ref 10 (p. 28, 523): Where does he go from "Little Ike" to just "Ike" in the eyes of the public? yes, I know, it's nitpicky
 * From the same page: "... the "Ike" was a natural transformation of the first syllable of his last name". I feel that supports what we are claiming in the article. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Birkner 2003, ref 11 (p. 15): hmm, where does the source verify the content?
 * I'd just remove this ref, the content is supported by the previous ref. Also rephrased a bit. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wood 1990, ref 21b (pp. 265–270): source says "The Republicans, on the other hand, formally engaged three agencies: for television speeches and radio programs, B.B.D. and O.; for print media, Kudner; and for the Eisenhower Answers America spot ads, Ted Bates, Co. " am I missing something? (can't access Diamond & Bates ref there)
 * This limited preview of page 50 of Diamond & Bates: "The Republican National Committee and Citizens for Eisenhower-Nixon gave their advertisement accounts to BBD&O". hmm... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do know most of this is pedantic... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @: No issues at all, I think I replied to everything! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * re BBDO: I'm more inclined to trust Wood as a focused JSTOR page, rather than a more broad-concept book. Also, while we're on the subject of copyright down below, are we really allowed to print Mannes' lyrical response in full? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal
I am looking at this version from 09:57 March 9. The prose is not "engaging" or "of a professional standard", and needs a copyedit by an editor familiar with FA standards. At less than 1,700 words of readable prose, as in the case of Socrates Nelson, there is no reason for such a short article to not have polished prose (it's neither highly technical nor long, so should not be that hard to work on, and that work should be done before bringing a nomination to FAC). If there were only prose issues, I would not suggest withdrawal, but that is not the case. One thing is the number of source-to-text issues uncovered (with an edit summary of "the real five wikicup points were the friends we made along the way :D"), but more concerning are the hand-waving responses to sourcing integrity from the nominator. This nomination appears to have been rushed, and the edit summary above seems to implicate the WP:WIKICUP drive to bring short articles quickly to FAC to advance in a contest. This article was created on 3 March, labeled a "Good article" two days later, and presented at FAC within four days of being created. With significant prose issues, and source-to-text problems. On the positive side, the article does not suffer from one of the red flags of poor writing: the overuse of however (see also User:John/however); there is only one however, and it is used appropriately. There is, though, a smorgasbord of other red flags. There are four instances of subsequently; all are redundant. There are six instances of the throw-away word various; most are redundant. In the lead, four out of eight consecutive sentences begin with the same words (The advertisement), and the fifth is a subsequently. This restricted variation in prose is seen throughout. Samples of redundant wording are things like, "used the technique of name repetition", "decided to contest" = "contest", awkward prose and missing hyphens ("The first one was one-minute long, having 90 feet (27 meters) long tape footage."), odd usage of the word devoted (The Eisenhower campaign was mostly devoted to a television advertisement campaign titled "Eisenhower Answers America".), "a total of" is generally redundant (User:Tony1/How to improve your writing may be helpful). I'll stop there as taking the time to type up the rest of my notes is not a good use of FAC resources. This nomination was premature, and FAC is not peer review. But while I'm here, on MOS issues, please also note MOS:CAPTIONS re punctuation: "Jacqueline Cochran (pictured in 1943) coordinated the advertisement with the Walt Disney Company" is a full sentence. Democratic donkey is not linked, and a thorough Wikilinking check may be warranted. Please do not just fix the issues I have noted and expect me to revisit until/unless a thorough source-to-text integrity check (not by a WIKICUP friend) is done, and a top-to-bottom independent copyedit (by someone not previously involved) is completed. the nomination should be withdrawn. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Believe Sandy meant to ping rather than FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi User:SandyGeorgia, thanks for the review. I will try to fix the issues, please give me some time, but I don't think I'll withdraw the nomination. I will try to get this a copyedit and would appreciate source-to-text integrity check from anyone. But, please give me some time. As for the point about "wikicup friend", I never asked anyone to review this article. As for the point about rushed nomination, it is new, but it was definitely not created nor nominated with the view of WikiCup. I responded to Leeky's all the reference issues, and they have probably checked "through pretty much everything". I think the article is pretty comprehensive, that is why I brought it here. And the nomination, as of now, should not be marked withdrawn. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: Draft Eisenhower movement would be live on the main page as TFA on March 11. The blurb of the article has this advertisement video. We don't see videos at TFA regularly, and such an ad there would definitely make many people curious about the ad. My sole motive for creating this article was to assist curious TFA readers, not for those Wikicup points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * plus, the wikicup points i was referring to would be mine, not yours, and I've got them whether this passes or not. so, no, no conspiracy to pass this one for wikicup points. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting my edit summary. I started the source review because I was interested in the article, not for WikiCup points. Getting through the source review took me a long time, and near the end, it occured to me that I'd get a few WikiCup points for my review—although my next thought was that five was a bit on the light side for the amount of effort I put into the review. The delivery may have been flawed, but I was just trying to quip something to that effect. Oh, and the "we" is just me, not him—think of it as a royal we? We haven't met, I suppose—I don't do things for the barnstars and buttons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: Source to text integrity check ongoing on the FAC talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * : Sorry for pressing you, but few replies to your comments. I have done a top-to-bottom source to text integrity check on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1. All the text in the article is compared with source text; let me know if there are any issues there. I feel that now, there are (at-least) no source-to-text issues. As for the prose, I tried fixing all the issues you specified. There are no subsequently, 'the technique', 'decided to', just one various, full-stop in the caption, etc. I tried reducing instances of 'The advertisement', but the issue is that I didn't find any better alternative than replacing it by ad's name. I would very much appreciate if you can specify more prose issues here of at the FAC talk. I would definitely try to fix them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Has an independent copyeditor looked in? I will be out for most of today, in the car, iPad typing, and cannot take a substantive look until I am home, but I would hope to hear that someone else has been through before I look in. I also note that the Draft Eisenhower movement copyedits made since it has been on the mainpage indicate that articles at FAC are possibly no longer being checked for wikilinking, as a diff of changes so far to the movement article shows a lot of missing links, so please check for that as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sandy Georgia : Unfortunately, no other editor has taken a look except the comments above (by Wehwalt and Theleekycauldron). But I have tried to fix the mentioned issues. I just added few more links which I think are useful. I'll appreciate your further suggestions whenever you wish. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My declaration is that the nomination was rushed, is premature, and should be withdrawn. That is still true. The nomination appeared at FAC within four days of article creation, failing 1a prose, 1c sourcing, and 1f compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy. Perhaps 1c has been corrected (too soon to say considering glaring issues two days ago); 1a and 1f have most certainly not. On 1c, sourcing, I see at least one blatant and very surprising source-to-text inaccuracy has now been corrected--two days after the article received a Support and after the article passed had had ( changed, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC) ) a source review. When I viewed the article on March 9, it already had a Support and a Source review. On March 11, an edit correcting Ike winning Minnesota to him narrowly losing was made. How much more of that kind of very surprising issue might there still be? Kavyansh.Singh, you wrote Draft Eisenhower movement, so you obviously must have known that Ike did not win the Minnesota primary (as that article has it correct). This is an indication of how rushed this nomination was. Yet the article passed had had ( changed Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)) ) a source review, where that issue was not even checked and the nomination garnered a Support from a reviewer who knows US politics quite well (that a Republican would win a primary in a state that is the only state that even Reagan lost in a landslide election should have raised red flags and indicated a check, which would have revealed that the cited source made no such claim, because it's not true). By the way, you should be using high quality sources in FAs: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547486 is a good one on Ike "winning" Minnesota.  On 1a, prose, I am still finding issues. How many of them should I have to type up to convince  to shut down a premature nomination and send an article to peer review, where issues can be more quickly and easily addressed, without requiring opposers to revisit? "Eisenhower contested the Presidency"-- is there a reason we can't just say he ran for president? "followed by many people of different occupations", too may ways of wrong to type, needs a skilled writer. "The goal was to", well, did they? "was the commander" --> was Supreme Commander. Just as Hawkeye cleaned up the Movement article, this article needs a MilHist editor to look it over, and that should be done before bringing it to FAC. Those are samples only; this is not the purpose of FAC. On 1f, there is failure to respect Wikipedia copyright policy on WP:CWW, which should result in the equivalent of a quick-fail. The entire article history is easily viewable as it is so short, and there is no edit summary WP:PATT for WP:CWW. Nor are there any templates on article talk. The article was created with text copied from other articles, that includes at minimum (and I haven't checked all article that content may have been copied from, only Draft Eisenhower movement) text copied that was written by editors Hawkeye7, Ylee, TwoFingeredTypist, and TheTechnician27. At minimum (there may be more), the copyright of those four editors has been breached, as words they wrote are not properly attributed. All text copied within now needs to be identified and corrected via dummy edits and templates on talk of all affected articles. (And I imagine that extends also to Draft Eisenhower movement.) You can see samples of how to template talk at Talk:Battle of Glasgow, Missouri (Hog Farm added the templates there even though he had correctly attributed the CWW in edit summary, see under the talk page banner), but dummy edits also now have to be made on all affected articles. This FAC is even more surprising than the very similar Socrates Nelson, involving the same lax reviews, but this article will get much more readership than Nelson (akin to the time DYK ran a picture of Douglas MacArthur that wasn't, as any one of a certain age knew). There are similarities with Featured article candidates/Socrates Nelson/archive1, where very surprising (and false) claims were not source checked, and poor prose was passed. Any politically savyy editor of a certain age, with experience in writing political FAs, should have seen red flags at the false statement that Ike won Minnesota, just as a source review at Nelson should have specifically checked the glaring red flag (and false) statements that Nelson co-authored a petition to Congress, or voted to "legalize slavery" in Minnesota. If editors support articles with very surprising claims that aren't checked, the premature support should be weighted no higher than a drive-by. A support declared on an article with demonstrable inaccuracies, 1a issues, and failure to respect copyright should be considered a drive-by and the nomination shut down. Coords can also decide not to promote FACs with only three supports if any of those supports come from editors with a history of drive-by supports. These issues discourage serious reviewers from engaging FAC. FAC is not PR, and is supposed to be better than GA; please take the time to prepare an article accordingly before nominating at FAC. My recommendations for preparing for FAC are here; it does not appear this article was prepared. My declaration stands. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia : I might be able to reply to the above comments in a few hours, but a few things. You initially accused me and leeky of helping each other at FAC for those points in Wikicup, which is not true. That comment is making me feel bit uncomfortable, can you please withdraw that accusation. Secondly, now, you say that there is a passed source review. I don't see any passed source review here... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I interpreted that the source reviewer was finished when they said "that's all I've got for now"; in fact, at 18:46, 9 March 2022 leeky does seem to be acknowledging they had finished. Nonetheless, I have struck and rephrased above. I did not "accuse" you of anything; I quoted an edit summary, which I said "seems to implicate the WP:WIKICUP drive to bring short articles quickly to FAC to advance in a contest".  If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to put it on. I believe your denials are on record here, and I accept them on AGF, but me quoting an edit summary and stating what impression that can lead to is not an "accusation", nor did I say anything about "you and leeky helping each other". Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears we both misinterpreted each other. Thanks for rephrasing the "passed" source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sandy Georgia : Okay, a few things before we settle this:
 * I accept my full responsibility for erroneously writing that Ike won Minnesota, when I wanted to write that he "almost won". But that has already been corrected, and is cited to a source which was found in other FAC to be WP:HQRS by two independent source reviewers (Jo-Jo Eumerus and Hog Farm at FAC) and at A-class review (by Ian Rose). I don't see a reason why it should be cited to another source, but I am open to your views. (By the way, while I completely agree it was wrong to say Ike won Minnesota primary, I very much disagree that it should have "raised red flags". We are not talking about general elections. Why would a Republican not win in Republican Minnesota primary?)
 * As for copying text from the Draft Eisenhower article, I did provide attribution, and I have differences. I was initially creating this article in my sandbox. See Special:Diff/1074860806/1074862263 and Special:Diff/1074862263/1074864304. While I was copying text, I did provide attribution. However, when I copied that sandbox in article space, I did not wrote that in the edit summary. Thus, it appears I did not provide attribution. I have now fixed that by adding talk page banner. Nothing from any other article was copied.
 * As for the Socrates Nelson comparison, I'm quite well familiar with that article. As for Douglas MacArthur, I don't know this case, are you saying that DYK ran a picture of MacArthur that wasn't him? Strange, as he is quite easy to recognize. But I agree that this article will get lot of pageviews. (Draft Eisenhower yesterday got about 50,000 views!)
 * As for the prose issues: Don't get me wrong, Sandy, but I am honestly confused. You feel the prose is not upto standard, and the nomination is premature. If it is, I have no issues withdrawing the nomination and sending this to GOCE. But, I am confused, because Wehwalt (an experienced FAC editor) supports this nomination. I don't think he had checked the sources, so I'll assume his support was based on assessing the prose. @, do you share the concerns Sandy specifies. Because if you do, I'll be happy to withdraw this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I appreciate that you accepted the responsibility and respect that. On CWW, when you moved the draft from your user space to article space, there was no edit summary providing attribution from there, so the article remains failing copyright policy until you add the templates on talk of all affected articles, and add the dummy edit summaries. I see the template on talk and will check your work on that this afternoon (I am out the rest of the day).  The point of CWW and PATT is that you leave an attribution trail.  Without that, anyone looking at this article has no way of knowing what content was written by (at least) Hawkeye7 and the others. I am glad the Minnesota issue is corrected; I do not object to any source used as long as it's now correct; I provided you anyway the high quality source I found right after I read the error (it does give a good explanation of what happened, but more depth than needed for this article). By the time I was able to revisit the article, it had been corrected.  I do hope you understand my overall point was, and remains, that this article was rushed to FAC, where it is taking reviewer resources while very well prepared articles are going without review. The edit summary suggested a WIKICUP issue; I accept both of your explanations that it was not.  You are correct that my expectations of what reviewers may be presumed to know about politics in MN may be too high.  My point there is that the random spotchecks are not turning up big issues as they aren't focusing on key statements; that was why I drew the similarity with Nelson (you passed the source check while somehow not checking the most surprising statements, which almost all turned out to be false).  In this article, a key fact was not checked in the first source pass; it happened to be something I knew to check right away. Random checks are good, but be sure to check the big and surprising things as well.  Wehwalt also supported Nelson, which had demonstrably deficient prose, as indicated by feedback from multiple editors. When there is a pattern, Coords should weight Supports accordingly, and expect more than three supports before promotion.  Now, as to whether this article should be withdrawn or is improving: how is Leeky indicating what has passed sourcing and what has not?  Because I just made one small check on only one source on only one page range, and the three facts you have cited to it are two wrong, one poor prose. See Kamber pages 29 to 30: 40% of all Americans did not own televisions; there is a big difference idiomatically between a "positive spot" ad and a "net positive", and the paragraph where Mamie is positioned has poor flow-- why is she stuck in where she is?  Forty percent of households is not the same as 40% of people, and "had" is not the same as "owned" (I don't know about the US, but in the UK then it was possible to rent a TV).  And yet, Leeky reviewed Kamber 29 above and did not indicate it failed a source check, nor is that indicated on talk here, so what's the system? That is one page range of one source I checked.  This article should be at peer review.  And your FA efforts would benefit from developing a set of collaborators who will check your writing and sourcing before you bring it to FAC.  I hope you understand that is not intended as a criticism; my own prose is as Bad As It Gets, so I know I should have multiple independent copyeditors comb through my writing before I bring it to FAC. It appears that you should also have collaborators who carefully check your source-to-text integrity. If I seem overly fussed about this situation, it's a) two FACs in a row that I've checked with such glaring issues (Nelson and Ike), b) taking FAC time while extremely well prepared articles go unreviewed, and c) a cavalier attitude about what an FA is and should be, and how important source-to-text integrity is, and that this approach is disrespectful of fellow editors who bring well prepared material to FAC.  Precisely the reason Coords are supposed to archive ill-prepared FACs is that reviewers should not have to keep revisiting to keep addressing issues, when that could be done more productively at peer review.  I should not have to keep checking to discover yet more unverified facts and keep returning here promptly to see if I should strike my oppose.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn — Now convinced by Sandy. Happy to withdraw for now and will bring this back soon! Thanks Wehwalt, leeky, and Sandy! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, with respect. Please do not hesitate to ping me to a Peer Review, where I will be more than happy to assist.  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)