Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California's 12th congressional district election, 1946/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 SandyGeorgia 22:53, 6 September 2009 [1].

---

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/California's 12th congressional district election, 1946/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the FA criteria. The fifth, and perhaps final (though I am considering an article on the Alger Hiss imbroglio) in my Nixon series, it covers Nixon's first election campaign. It's a GA, in which our WP Nixon expert, Happyme22 was asked for a second opinion by the reviewer and endorsed the GA, and received a peer review by Brianboulton, who was favorable (favourable, in his case) about the article. Most of the photos were taken by me on a visit to California earlier in the summer, at which I also visited three archives to obtain the official Statements of Vote and seek other appropriate sources (such as newspaper clippings from 1946 not available online) that would help this article. I think it's ready to go.Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Good article; interesting read. The only thing I noticed is the last source (1946 election results) is missing publisher, date etc. Dave (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's now fixed. I have the official California statement of vote too, but better to have an online ref there, I think. Thanks for the praise!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't that many anyway, someone could do it manually in very little time I suspect. This is an article mostly from offline sources. Thanks Ealdgyth!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've looked from the top down to the start of "Background".

• Comma required after "Nixon" in the opening para.
• Bit clunky, or at least unnecessarily "marked" with bumps: "which would, almost a quarter century later, lead to the White House". Consider "which would lead to the White House almost a quarter century later."
• Why is "World War II" linked? Is it an obscure event that even a few readers have never heard of?
• "and to connect" might be better than "and successfully connect", given that the previous "to" is way back and that to connect is to connect.
• Perhaps "in the election" rather than "in November", since non-US readers will be unfamiliar with the constitutional setting of the ?first Tuesday in November for elections for all levels of government.
• "explanations have been made" – Consider "put forward" or "proposed" or "considered". "ranging" might be dropped.
• "such errors" doesn't work—it's plural, but refers back by comparison to a singular "campaign". It's also a little laboured, I think. Could you express the opposite in substantive terms? "while Nixon ran a skilled .... ".
• "encompassing such (at the time) small towns as"—clunky; perhaps "at the time encompassing such small towns as"?

This demonstrates the need for fresh eyes to copy-edit throughout. Two things that might be watched are comma usage and the awkward placement of phrases in the middle of sentences. Tony (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start looking for someone to look at the article, but I may await additional comments so as to consolidate things, and perhaps one of the reviewers will be minded to do some work. Since this article is almost entirely my writing, it therefore displays my writing quirks. As for the White House sentence, I think it important that the sentence end with the words "White House", I'll look at alternative phrasings. Otherwise some of the effect is lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made most of the specific changes Tony noted. I struck the parenthetical (at the time), because doing it the way he suggested would lead to an ambiguity, the reader could see it as a statement that the 12th district no longer includes any of those towns, which is actually true, since the present 12th district is up by San Francisco, but that's not the point that is trying to be made. I delinked World War II and also Washington D.C. All other comments were acted upon, and I'm seeing about getting a fresh set of eyes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"which almost half a century later would lead to the White House.", perhaps? Reviewers are under no obligation to edit nominations—in fact, I would discourage more than a little of that, since we are so short of reviewers. Unfortunately, we are reduced to providing examples from small portions, then returning to re-assess; or at least that is how I try to cover as many nominations as possible. Quirks? Not sure about that unless the readers are likely to find them easy to get; what is most important is a smooth read. Tony (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quarter century. Yes, your suggestion is fine. Frankly, I'm happy for help at any hand.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Tony's comments have been addressed, and I dropped a note on his talk page so stating.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. An excellent and balanced article, both well-written and well-sourced. I have only a couple of suggestions:
  • Maybe add a picture of Voorhis?
  • In the South Pasadena debate, you write that Hoeppel asked one question -- do you know what the question was? It's not crucial to the article, but it might be interesting to the reader. Coemgenus 14:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unhappily, I have not been able to find a free use picture of Voorhis. That's why I fell with glad cries on the license plate attachment at the Nixon Museum which includes a picture of Voorhis (figuratively, it was behind glass), and I photographed that, it's three dimensional and for public display, perfect free use! As for Hoeppel's question, the actual question is not in any source I've been able to find, but it, according to Bullock, had to do with a group in the Spanish Civil War that Voorhis had supported (I gather, though Bullock is imprecise, on the losing side) which was by 1946 believed to be Communist Front. Bullock describes the question as "tricky". Bullock does not say what Voorhis said in response. Gellman doesn't mention it. Morris mentions it, using similar language, and cites to Bullock. I'd be open to putting it in a footnote. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad about the picture. That's one of the difficulties of writing about post-1923 figures. As to the question, if it's not that relevant, maybe it's best left out, or relegated to a footnote. I have the Gellman book, which doesn't list it, so I was curious. Anyway, great article -- good luck with the FA nom! Coemgenus 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news about Prof. Gellman. The archivist at the Nixon Library told me he's almost ready to go with the second part of his projected three part bio of Nixon. He was out sick for quite a while. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments, leaning to support: I was involved in the peer review, and most of the substantive issues I raised there have been addressed. In general this is an excellent addition to the growing collection of early Nixon articles, and Wehwalt is to be commended for the depth of his research and for his narrative abilities. I mentioned at the review that the prose might need some final polishing, and that still appears to be the case. I have fixed a couple or so minor glitches; here are a few more to be looked at:-

• Lead
  • I suggest: "First elected to Congress in 1936, Voorhis..."
  • Also, "For the 1946 contest, Republicans sought a candidate..."
  • I'd avoid the repetition in the third paragraph by saying: "...while Voorhis did not return from Washington D.C. until..."
  • ...and in the last paragraph, rather than repeat "defeat of Voorhis", I would simply refer to Nixon's "victory".

Done with minor changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• District and campaigns
  • "Voorhis was re-elected by 13,000 votes in 1942"; without knowledge of the total vote, this doesn't tell us whether the 1942 election was close or a walkover. Could "a majority of x%" be added in?
  • Just a thought: are military school principals by definition weak candidates? Otherwise, in regard to 1940, it might be appropriate to say something like "he faced a military school principal with no political experience" - or some such.
    • After digging through Bullock, I find he says that the principal, Capt. Irwin Minger "was an unknown". I'll give him the benefit of the down and call him "little-known".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Search for a candidate
  • "Tammany Hall" will mean nothing to the great majority of non-American readers (except for the odd geek like me who did an American politics option). Although the term occurs within a quote, this is, I think, an occasion when a wikilink inside a quotation would be helpful.
    • Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the concern to avoid repeating Nixon's name, but calling him "the naval officer" is too anonymous. There are other repetitions in these two sentences which in my view are equally distracting. Thus, I would go for: "When the Committee met on November 28, Nixon received over two-thirds of the vote, which was quickly made unanimous. Chairman Roy Day immediately notified the victor of the Committee's endorsement."
    • Fair enough. You've read my prior FACs when I've been nailed for rep of the name of the subject. I've changed that and also changed two other allusions to Nixon to his name and hopefully the wind won't hit me from the other side.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggest instead of "The naval officer was a virtual unknown..." say "The candidate was a virtual unknown..."
    • I just changed it to "Nixon". See previous note.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Two consecutive sentences begin "Charles Voorhis..." Could the second start "Voorhis Sr"?
    • The elder Voorhis is probably more formal, and I've used it with good effect elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Primary campaign
  • "In mid-March, Nixon was approached by former congressman Hoeppel, who hated Voorhis." In view of the strong verb "hate", shouldn't this statement be cited?
    • • Not a problem. Just found it in Bullock. "a bitter, relentless foe throughout his life" Nixon bios also call him "enemy" and so forth, but they've all read Bullock too.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nourished by the PAC controversy, the campaign had new life..." Suggest "the Republican campaign"
    • Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Additional debates
  • "The candidates were compared to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas" Surely, the comparison was with the Lincoln-Douglas debates rather than, as implied, with the personalities? This should be clarified. Also (for the benefit of Brits etc.), it should be mentioned that the debates in question took place during the 1860 presidential campaign.
    • • No, they were referred to as being like Lincoln and Douglas. Bochin's book is online, see here, page 18. Now, I do have a Newsweek post election article where it refers to Nixon having bested Voorhis in five Lincoln-Douglas debates and Voorhis saying of Nixon "The fellow has a silver tongue" but I'm suspicious of it, it does not sound like Voorhis, even a Voorhis trying to be gracious.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It would help my fellow-Brits if some explanation was added as to why the Lincoln and Douglas comparison was made. Could you add the words "who had debated before the 1860 presidential election" or some similar wording, using thr link? This is a suggestion, not a request. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason/history behind Warren's letter praising Voorhis? It seems an odd thing to have done.
    • Warren probably did not intend it politically, from what I gather. Voorhis used a very nice letter Warren had sent him for helping to get a bill passed in the campaign. Warren did not endorse congressional candidates, but Nixon's people went to Warren and said that since Voorhis is using your letter in his campaign, you should disavow the letter or else endorse Nixon. Warren said Voorhis deserved the compliment and he wasn't going to endorse Nixon. Do you think I should add more exposition there?
      • Perhaps add to the sentence "claiming his action was not political." Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Historical issues
  • "In 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis denied in an interview that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC." Perhaps this should say "In an interview in 1981, three years before his death, Voorhis repeated his denial that he had been endorsed by the NCPAC."
    • • No, you've fallen under the spell of Chotiner. It was the CIO-PAC he denied. He didn't know about the NCPAC until South Pasadena. A little revisionism on Voorhis's part. He "indignantly denied it", too!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixon's backers, especially in the Committee of One Hundred, have been a matter of controversy..." Is it not the identity of Nixon's backers which is a matter of controversy?
    • • I've rephrased. I had consecutive paragraphs basically comparing and contrasting the same things. I've combined them. You always catch the things that are bothering me a little, but not quite enough to do anything about it. Now I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will be pleased to switch to full support when these matters are tidied up. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the amendements that have been made, and have registered full support, above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will put in those suggestions. Right now Mattisse is busy copyediting and I don't want to ec her, so expect the changes a little later on. I'm please at the reception this article is getting, it gave me a lot of trouble, I started it before the Senate article but found that one was easier to work on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Ssilvers

• I am concerned with the very first sentence of the article that says, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place in California's 12th congressional district...." Didn't the election take place throughout the U.S. on the same date? Shouldn't this say something like, "An election for the United States House of Representatives took place on November 5, 1946. In California's 12th congressional district, the candidates were...."? How do other high-quality election articles solve this?

I strongly believe the subject of the article, even if not stated in the exact same words as the title, should be in the first sentence of the article. There is an article about the 1946 elections, though it is mostly tables. I am splitting the first sentence into two sentences, which I think will address your concerns. It bumps "Nixon" into the second sentence, but that can't be helped. The only high quality election article is my article on the United States Senate election in California, 1950, which has a similar tone to the first sentence.

• Does the Lead section give an overview of the entire article per WP:LEAD? Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked it over. I think it does. In very summary form, it tells what the article is about, and leads the reader through it quickly.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Results section - What do the parenthetical statements in the Primary tables mean? Can you give a text note explaining their meaning? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hometowns. I'll find a way to put in a nice looking text note.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Support: Regardless of whether my above comments lead to modifications or not, I support the promotion of this article to FA. I have very much enjoyed reading it. The prose is lively, even compelling (and that's saying something for a Wikipedia article!). Congratulations to Wehwalt and the other editors of this article on a fine contribution to Wikipedia. Disclosure note: as I read the article, I made some minor copy-edits to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

THanks for the support! I've addressed your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• This was listed on a list of articles requiring an image review. I have reviewed the images (only) on this article, and can find no issues with them. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Great. Has someone looked at the alt text?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  The alt text looks good to me. (I particularly liked the thimble.) Eubulides (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  Cool (got it on eBay, the other objects photographed are in archives or museums). Is there anything else that needs to be done? This one's getting pretty senior at FAC, image, tech (subject to misbehaving programs), alt all done, three supports, copyedited.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:MOS#Ellipses need review.

Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do reliable sources state these two (they read as synthesis or OR)?

• Most books that discuss the 1946 campaign agree that Nixon's campaign was far more effective than Voorhis's.

Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Most commentators stated that Nixon ran a strong campaign, while the incumbent's campaign was badly organized and plagued with errors.

I've replaced the statement with one about the money dispute which certainly should be in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• These two seem at odds with each other:

• Nixon had a great advantage in press coverage in the race. (not cited, according to whom?)
• His one avenue of outreach in the press was his newspaper column, People's Business, which ran in most local newspapers. In July 1946, Voorhis chose to suspend this column lest it be thought that he was using it as a means of campaigning. According to Gellman, this weakened Voorhis's political outreach.[93]

The second statement reads as if Voorhis had a great advantage, but gave it up. So, in general, I'm wondering if some of the lead-ins contain synthesis, or can be rephrased or attributed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the lead ins in the aftermath section and reffed, changed, or deleted them. I've expanded and reffed the sentence about the press advantage. That's all of them, Sandy. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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