Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard Nixon/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 promoted by Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011.

Richard Nixon

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Happyme22 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because... We believe it meets the criteria. Richard Nixon. What else do we have to say?Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

*"Nixon is the only President to resign the office." That sentence reads strangely to me. —Designate (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Better? Thank you for your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's more natural. —Designate (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use cite templates for books in Bibliography, you should also do so in article text to avoid inconsistencies in formatting
 * Let me say this about that (am I the only one old enough to remember Nixonisms?): articles with lots of templates take a long time to load. I almost gave up trying to copyedit Manhattan Project. Are we talking about replacing every ref with a template here? - Dank (push to talk) 10:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me make one thing perfectly clear. That would be the practical result, as I would have no excuse for not inserting another 150 cite templates.  Alternatively, I can remove the cite book template from the twenty-odd books I've used as sources, but I'm not certain that will be an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could amend the hand-formatted citations to exactly match the templated ones, but then whenever the template is updated you'd have to do it again. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue are the papers from The Richard Nixon Companion. These were presented as papers last week, but the book has been out for months, so I didn't want to do a cite conference.  Do you have an idea on what cite template I should use if I wanted to put them into a cite template?  I think we can manage five or six more templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * FN 86: is this the retrieval or the publication date?
 * FN 87: check formatting
 * The only problem I see in this is that I don't add a period after the title of the article, given that it ends with a question mark. Is that the concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there seems to be a stray "|" where the period would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how Year in Review refs are formatted
 * FN 134: is something missing, or is that a punctuation typo?
 * FN 140: should this title be italicized?
 * Be consistent in whether newspaper article names include quote marks
 * Are you referring to 172, 173, and 175? Those are not newspaper articles, they are pages about Watergate put up by the Post, which is the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Post is the publisher, it shouldn't be italicized and the full company name should be given. What about FN 240? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in how multiple authors are notated
 * FN 137: check date. If that's 1978, no citations to Nixon 1985
 * Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * I see no doubled periods other than ellipses. Any small inconsistencies I see, I shall assuredly deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aitken biblio entry, Nixon 1985. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, artifacts of the cite templates. That explains why it did not show up on the search I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Location for Schulzinger? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've caught everything except as questioned above. However, it is a long article and I'm human.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The caption for the bottom-most image, "Nixon friend Bebe Rebozo, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and President Nixon relax before dinner", sounds off to me. I think it's trying to say that Nixon is relaxing with his two friends, Rebozo and Hoover, before dinner, but I'm not 100% sure. Jenks24 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rephrased it. Does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. To be honest, that was the only problem I saw on a quick skim read. I'll try and have a more detailed read in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time. Unavoidably it is a long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't should not
 * Be consistent in whether his house's name is enclosed in quotation marks
 * Source links for File:Eisenhower_meets_the_Nixons.gif, File:Nixon_Ford_Carter.gif and File:Nixon_press_October_1973.gif lead to lead image - am I missing something here?
 * There seems to be a problem on how to specifically identify images you find through a Digital Copies ARC search at the Archives. If necessary, I'll change it to the search instructions.


 * File:Nixon_Opening_Day_1969_Two.jpg: author is listed as "White House photographer, probably Ollie Atkins, am awaiting confirmation on this" - has confirmation been received?
 * No, and that is actually my fault. I have sent a new request out to Yorba Linda.


 * File:Four_Presidents.gif: is a more specific source, or an ID number, available?
 * It was in the author field, but I've made it more explicit.


 * Source link for File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_White_House_photo_portrait,_February_1959.jpg is dead
 * First source link for File:US_Vice_President_Flag.svg is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess these are in the navboxes or something. It's a bit outside my field, but I'll see what I can do.
 * With the exception of the actual photographer for the baseball picture (it's still early out West) all these things are fixed. Thank you for going through 35 images in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the photographer has been added per the advice of the A/V people at the Nixon Library. All done, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - subject to the resolution of any source or images issues. I have a history with this article; three years ago I failed its first GA nomination. It has failed other GAs since then, but has recently been transformed by the work primarily of Wehwalt. I made my detailed comments during the recent, very detailed peer review, which is linked here.

I am still uneasy about one issue, which I raised at peer review, namely the depiction of Nixon as one of the chief builders of the "modern Republican Party". It is not apparent that the character and orientation of the present-day Republican Party owes much to Nixon, particularly as we read that Nixon' role was to "steer the Republican party along a middle course, somewhere between the competitive impulses of the Rockefellers, the Goldwaters, and the Reagans". I am not a expert on American politics, but as an avid reader it seems to me that the attempts to steer the party along a middle course ended with Nixon and Ford, and that Reagan subsequently began an ideological transformation which was carried much further in the mid-1990s in the Gingrich era, and further still by today's "Tea Party" movement. Would Nixon even recognise today's Republican Party as his own? As I have said, I am not a political analyst, but I offer these as thoughts on which to ponder, and wonder if the current wording is the most appropriate? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've taken it out.  This is obviously something about which reasonable people could differ.  And I agree, if Nixon were around today, he would be clobbered by the Tea Party for daring to compromise with Democrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I spent a lot of time going over this in the peer review. I'm confident that any issues raised in the course of the FAC will be minor and easily addressed. This is phenomenal piece of work on a very difficult topic and it is well deserving of its star. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I am no judge of my own writing and can't tell when it has turned out badly, so it is good to hear from competent authorities--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. As the primary author of the text that was in place for the better part of three years, I know the subject very well and am impressed with the overall neutrality of the article. Wehwalt has been working very hard to achieve this, and I commend him for his determined efforts thus far! I do have one concern, which I would prefer to share on the article's talk page as it relates more to the subject of the article/content rather than the FA process. Wonderful! And it makes me proud. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and the comments. While I agree with Clinton's comment in his eulogy of Nixon that we cannot judge one aspect of Nixon't life in isolation, I think we do have to explain, albeit in a summary fashion, what Watergate is in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support in principle, with some minor issues listed below. What a creative use of images to headline major sections. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 04:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of complete sentences in the image captions do not have an ending period.
 * "Richard and Pat Nixon introduce his running mate, General Dwight D. Eisenhower to their daughters". The antecedents do not match the pronouns.
 * I don't see the problem here. Both of them are the girls' parents; only one of them is Eisenhower's running mate.  Yes, I could change it to Richard alone, but I think that dilutes the point  Pat Nixon may have taken second place politically, but as a parent that isn't true.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand; I don't have an issue with Pat Nixon's presence in the caption. My concern is that Richard and Pat are introduced as a collective "they", making the pronoun "his" seem out of place. Another thing I just noticed is that you'll either need another comma at the end of Eisenhower or use no comma at all. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the caption so it was (more) grammatically correct, though it's a little awkward now, imo. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a shot at it myself. It's a bit awkward, but both parents look like they are showing Eisenhower the daughters and I don't want to leave Pat out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Nixon supported the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947". Hyphen should be an en dash.
 * "Kennedy called for new blood and claimed the Eisenhower-Nixon administration". Hyphen should be an en dash.
 * "Vice President Nixon and Vice President-elect Lyndon Johnson leave the White House on the morning of January 20, 1961 for the Kennedy-Johnson inaugural ceremonies". Again, should be Kennedy–Johnson.
 * "and the Washington Post, disbelieving his illness". It should be The Washington Post.
 * "President Nixon greets Chinese Party Chairman Mao Zedong". Should it be Chinese Communist Party Chairman?
 * I'll work through these later on today. Thank you for the support and the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I am getting conflicting advice on image captions. I just took out a lot of periods in captions like "Nixon shows his taping equipment to Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Dean".  Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's conflicting. Nikkimaria said the same thing I did. The example you just mentioned is a complete sentence, so it should have an ending period. — Arsonal (talk + contribs) — 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've played with that caption again, and I have added periods as I felt was appropriate, if you see anything you feel I screwed up on, by all means change it. Thanks again for taking the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the full-width images are absolutely brilliant. For the rest, though, would there be any way to have a few more left-aligned images? The best look is usually to alternate the images left-to-right but I know that's not always possible with the text. —Designate (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the praise. Tony1 put the first two in full width, but I can claim credit for making it a theme.  I've changed several to left aligned.   Not a pure alternations, but pretty close.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, we have four supports (one is from my conom) and all checks seem to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS photo and comments
 * A photo gallery posing as an article. Text sandwiching, crowding and stacking. Photos spilling over into sections below. Don't tell me the picture window size photos are the wave of future FA's. Brad (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry you don't like the use of images. I thought I had done it well, and some of the reviewers seemed to like them.  I'm open, as always to suggestions but am reluctant to cut too many unless a number of reviewers agree with your views.  And given the article length is the second longest I've brought here, I think there is text enough to constitute an article.  Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the full-width images, which I like, the side images are a little heavy (although many recent politicians have a similar amount). There are 28 left/right-aligned images, not counting the infobox. I'm sure you could cut out 4-5 of them and maybe reduce the overall impression of crowding. The last section particularly is chewed up on my monitor. —Designate (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I did that. Is that good for you, Brad101?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No mention of the Hughes Loan that plagued one of his campaigns. Howard Hughes loaned Donald Nixon 200k via his mother so that Donald could shore up his business dealings. Brad (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "He was the running mate of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican Party presidential nominee in the 1952 election, the first of five national nominations he received from his party, a record he shares with Franklin Roosevelt.": "the first ..." is an appositive phrase of the whole "was" clause, following an appositive of something else. It's not awful, but it's usually possible to get an appositive phrase closer to what it's modifying, and it's slightly better if it doesn't modify a whole clause, especially when it's not right next to the clause.  Also, wouldn't someone who knows nothing about the American political process (in or outside the US) get the sense from the word "nominated" that the vice-presidential candidate was selected in a nominating process of voters or the party, rather than being picked by the presidential candidate? - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, of course, the VP candidate is voted upon by the convention, and there were contested ballots as late as 1968. In fact, Eisenhower, when asked for his choice for VP, said words to the effect, "Isn't that up to the convention?". Thank you for the work.  Do you have a suggestion for that phrase?  I don't want to delete it; Happyme22 wanted it in the lede and I tried to do it in a way that sounded nontrivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Agnew was contested ... in that case, it really is a nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Agnew got about 91 percent of the vote, most of the remainder went to Romney ... sour grapes by someone I expect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, I got reverted on this one: "... had allowed the Soviet Union to overtake the US in ballistic missiles (the "missile gap")". "the missile gap" is an appositive there; what phrase or clause is it modifying?  And how is "overtaking" someone, meaning you've reached parity, a "gap", meaning there's no parity? - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no missile gap, your version implies it was real. Longer answer later am on iPhone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No rush. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Apart from the one reversion ... and anyone can make a call on that one, I only got halfway down, to Vietnam War ... so far so good on prose, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits. Let me take a shot at the missile gap matter and I saw something a little funny further down.  Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time. Best of luck!  Some day, we'll have enough copyeditors to cover all of everything, I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read missile gap and see what you think is needed. The only other thing I changed was some phrasing about the RFK assassination.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, was wholly satisfied then, and the article has been made even stronger since. An impressive tightrope walk by the nominators. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. After two peer reviews and an FAC I don't expect any major changes. Any further tweaks can be discussed later. It meets all the criteria easily and it's main-page-ready. Props to the nominator for jumping through so many hoops for an important article. —Designate (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support, and for the helpful comments through the course of this FAC. Main page for this I hope will be January 9, 2013, Nixon Centennial Day.  He's tanned, rested, and ready, Nixon in FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.