Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Senate election in California, 1950/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:22, 23 June 2009.

United States Senate election in California, 1950

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets FA standards. Despite the rather dull title, this was one of the most famous Senate races of the past century, between Nixon and Helen Douglas. I think it does them all justice in an article in which there are few admirable people.Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Not bad, but right off the bat I have one issue.


 * Descriptive titles should not be bolded within the lead. I know this can be a contentious issue, but I think it creates awkward first sentences when one tries to un-naturally cram all the words from the title together. I think it would read better as "The United States Senate election in California of November 7, 1950, is still remembered for its contentious nature..." or something like that. I don't think we need to be reminded twice that the election occurred in 1950. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  06:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll play with it a bit, perhaps use different wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are your sources for the election results tables? Any why are some of the fields not filled in (percentages and totals)? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * General election is from here. As for the primaries, they are from Gellman, I can give you a page number if it helps.  I don't have the total number of votes in the primaries so can't give exact percentages, there may have been write in ballots.  I am going to California in July and intend to look at the official Statements of Vote at the Nixon Library (probably July 21).  I discussed this at peer review, and the reviewer (Brianboulton) saw no reason why this should hold up FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose No offense but I disagree. FAC criteria 1b requires that an article be comprehensive. Personally I would suggest waiting until the article is complete before nominating, but that is just my opinion. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'm just going to withdraw it, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise its a good article. You can wait and see if anybody disagrees with me, but that is up to you. Generally speaking, a table with missing information is not really something we want to be "featured". Comprehensiveness is part of the criteria, and obviously the information is available, so it would be prudent to wait until the article is finished and "complete". Otherwise my vote would be support. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is a valid point. I'll notify you when the table is filled in, and hope you will support then.  It was a point I brought up at PR.  I'll get the official Statement of Vote, and the article will be the better for it.  Besides, I need to push Matthew Boulton through if I can since there are celebrations of him on the 200th anniversary of death in August and I'd like to see if I can get that to TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Organization looks good, but it needs some serious copyediting. Just in the lead, there's no full stop at the end of the last sentence of the second paragraph, "Nixon and Douglas won their party's primary..." should read "Nixon and Douglas won their parties' primaries" (or "Nixon and Douglas each won their party's primary", if you're into the singular "their", which I'm not), etc. I can commit to doing some copyediting, but I probably won't do enough to get it to FA level, so if you can recruit someone else that would probably be beneficial. Given sufficient copyediting, I expect to be able to support this by the end of its candidacy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...accusing him of being a do-nothing, a tool of big business, and an agent of oil interests." Are any of these direct quotes?  If so, she should be in quotation marks.  If not, I think the tone may be somewhat informal for a Wikipedia article.
 * Throughout the article you refer to the California State Assembly as "the House"; is this not just a colloquial nickname?
 * What is the source for the statement that financing was an issue for Douglas? It initially appeared not long before a citation to Gellman 292; is that the source that supports it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the California State Assembly is ever referred to. House is short for House of Representatives, and is commonly used.  I'll throw in a pipe to it.  The accusations are a very close paraphrase of what is actually said.  Yes, it is Gellman 292, I'll throw in a cite.  I've asked Mattisse to do some copyediting on the article, but your help would be welcome as well.  Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. SI, somthing in the article must have given you the impression that Nixon and Douglas were members of the California State Assembly.  That isn't the case.  They were members of the United States House of Representatives.  I've restored the language, but made things rather clearer.  Hope that clears up any confusion.  And I've deleted the sentence about the fundraising entirely, the way you've reorganized that section it is rather an orphan and repetitive of what's alreay in there!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I shit the bed on that one; thanks for fixing it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact quote from Ambrose (page 209, it is available in Google books here "She accused Downey of having a do-nothing record in Congress and of being a tool of big business. She claimed the California oilmen had Downey in their pocket."--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Other images are verifiably free and properly tagged. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Earl Warren Portrait, half figure, seated, facing front, as Governor.jpg - the source does indeed say "No known restrictions on publication", but the tag doesn't look right, since it suggests an expired copyright, and the picture was taken between 1943 and 1953. Since it was taken while he was Governor, it doesn't seem likely to be a federal government work.  Should it possibly be tagged as PD-US-not renewed?
 * File:Helen Gahagan Douglas1.jpg appears to legitimately be in the public domain, but its description page is plainly inadequate.
 * I'll see what I can do on these, and since I'm not an image hawk, might need a bit of help.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've taken care of the image concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn per here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


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