Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Sandwedge/archive1


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2015.

Operation Sandwedge

 * Nominator(s): G RAPPLE   X  09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from in 2012, and a recent peer review from  which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by. Of note to anyone taking the time review this, I've also been wondering about possibly replacing the image used with File:Jack Caulfield, photo portrait, Nixon Administration, black and white.jpg instead, I'm not sure which one would work better, although personally I lean towards the hint of conspiracy given by the covered speech in the current one; an idea which, granted, may be a little more yellow-journalistic than it should be. Thanks in advance to anyone who has a look at this one. G RAPPLE   X  09:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed (including the proposed replacement). Personally I like the current image though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments by Wehwalt

Good, and interesting. I have a few comments.


 * Lede
 * "statuses" I think "status" would do.
 * "proposals for the proposed" can this be boiled down into one proposition?
 * Both amended. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "Nixon and Haldeman had first worked together in 1956, during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidential nomination under Dwight D. Eisenhower." I don't think you are reading the source right. He first worked for Nixon in 1956, but it mentions the re-election of Nixon as vice president and does not mention the nomination.  Saying "worked together" implies colleagues, whereas Haldeman was in 1956 relatively junior. In any event, I don't think it's fully supported by the source.
 * I had intended "worked together" to simply mean "working for the same purpose", but I've reworded it to directly relate that Haldeman worked for, not at the same level as, Nixon. And you're right about the goal, I had misread the source to refer to his bid for the vice-presidential ticket rather than his bid for the vice-presidency itself, that's also been reworded now. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nixon's re-election campaign for the 1972 presidential election" I would make this a bit less clunky "Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign" should be sufficient.
 * Changed in both instances. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nixon's Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs." Nixon's domestic affairs assistant carries the same information at less cost.
 * Agreed. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * assistant director of criminal enforcement" On the White House staff, or is this Justice Dept?
 * Of the ATF, which I'm now puzzled I didn't specify (it's there in the source so it's an omission of mine). In now. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * General comments: The prose is a little clunky and could benefit from slimming down phrases like the ones I've flagged above. I'd like to ask the nominator, have you checked other bios of Nixon and other books in the long shelf of books that keep getting written on Nixon and his administration for content?  Because I'm a little uncomfortable about using Black's bio as the backbone. It's fine to use (I've used it myself) but it's a bit controversial, as is Black himself.  I'd welcome your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a comb over the prose again myself, but I'll admit that I'm not the best at it. As for the use of Black as a book source, I could try to find something else if preferable, but the book is only used for the numerical facts of his 1968 election victory; the 0.7% popular vote margin in particular (I cribbed the source itself directly from the Richard Nixon article so didn't realise it may have been a biased one). A quick search on Google Books turns up this as a possible alternative, if you would prefer? It doesn't explicitly state what the margin of difference was but it should be safe to produce it from the two results being given. G RAPPLE   X  09:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. As you pointed out, we used him ourselves, and also for similar things.  Sounds good to me. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- notwithstanding the calibre of the reviewers so far, this nom has unfortunately gone cold without receiving sufficient commentary to consider promotion, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.