Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign/archive1

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article gives a comprehensive coverage of Harry Truman's 1948 presidential campaign. Truman won the presidency, when almost all the polling companies and media strongly predicted a victory for his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey. Elmo Roper, a major pollster even discontinued polling, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." On the election night, boldly anticipating Dewey to win, an early edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", which proved to be wrong. Truman's picture holding the erroneous headline has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory". Almost all possible sources are consulted, article is copy-edited, it passed its GA review, and I aim to nominate this for Featured article. – Any, any possible comment is more than appreciated. Thanks – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

HF

I intend to get to this soon; ping me if it's been a week and I haven't started my review. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which energized the delegates, impressed Truman" - missing an "and"?
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Briefly mention his WWI service in the background?
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• From what I've read, by '44, it was fairly clear that there was a decent chance Roosevelt would not survive his last term, and that the '44 VP choice would likely be a president by term's end. Do your sources support this? If so, recommend including
  • Indeed. I have tried to add some content, by referring to the main Truman article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend having a footnote to briefly explain Turnip Day. It must be either very old or very obscure Missouri folklore, because I've spend the vast majority of my life there and have never once heard of it.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the senator from Idaho as his running mate" - the senator from Idaho? Wouldn't Idaho have had two senators (except in case of vacancy)?
  • Changed to 'a' senator. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "[Truman's] voice was flat and nasal" - As an aside, this is pretty much the Missouri accent in a lot of the state.
  • Yeah, but most of the readers might not be familiar with this! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note b- link faithless elector
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Kansas City is said to be campaign HQ in the infobox but is very really referred to as such in the article itself
  • I went ahead and just removed this from the infobox. Sources don't explicitly mention Kansas City as headquarters.

Hog Farm _Talk 17:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm – Thanks a lot for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Do let me know if you have any other suggestions. And would appreciate your comments on article's sourcing, and possible shortcomings. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing stands out as particularly problematic in the sourcing to me. Hog Farm _Talk 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, would try to nominate it for FAC soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

• Image captions: It seems like the exact year is known for a lot of these images, so I'm not sure why c. is being used
  • Done, where-ever it seemed unnecessary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider linking 1946 United States elections instead of mid-term election
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "both the houses of Congress" → "both houses of Congress"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Article is not consistent about using "Vice President" or "Vice-President" (e.g. "former Vice-President Wallace had announced" vs. "replaced Vice President Henry A. Wallace")
  • Done, though I kept the dash in "vice-presidential" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "dissatisfied of" → "dissatisfied with"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Eisenhower is introduced as former Chief of Staff of the Army in the lead, but there's no mention of that in the body
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Secretary of Army" → "Secretary of the Army"?
  • Added 'the' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and the States' Rights movement led by...": the wikilinked proper noun threw me off; I feel like either "States' Rights" should be lowercase there or you should pipe "States' Rights movement" to States' Rights Democratic Party
  • Lowercased states' rights. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "A Gallup Poll indicated no matter how Truman might campaign": this looks like it's unsourced
  • Added a source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Several polling agencies polls suggested" → "Several polling agencies suggested" or "Several polling agencies' polls suggested"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "it became clear the Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee." would be best to have a source here
  • Added a source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sometimes you link names in image captions like William O. Douglas and sometimes you don't, like Alben W. Barkley
  • Now consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• no "states' rights" plank → should the "no" be included within the quotation marks?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• What is a ½ delegate? (Not necessarily looking for a change to the article, it just confused me and I didn't know where to look for more information about that!)
  • Well, if my understanding is correct, usually, Democratic National Convention invites U.S. territories which are not official states to the convention. The delegates from these territories usually have ½ vote, so that more people could be invited without changing the total votes. Useful links: 1, 2. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to link "Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill" to Housing Act of 1949?
  • It does. Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• He "harshly contrasted" the Republican platform with the Republican Congress?
  • Rephrased – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think you need the (Turnip Day) parenthetical if you link to Turnip Day Session in the next sentence; I was wondering why there wasn't a wikilink to Turnip Day because I had never heard of it before I read the next sentence
  • Removed those parenthesis. We don't have a article to "Turnip Day", but we do have for Turnip Day session. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and the Northeast, and a shorter trip": recommend changing to "and the Northeast—and a shorter trip" for consistency with the other dash in the sentence
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording, when you substitute a word with brackets you don't need to keep the original, so for example "[Truman's] voice was flat and nasal" is sufficient rather than "his [Truman's] voice was flat and nasal"
  • Removed 'his'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman answered the Republican charges of communism in government" seems vague, could you elaborate a little on how he answered them?
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "252 of which have been given" → "252 of which were given"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Although both candidates held only a slight advantage in the number of states visited" How did they both hold an advantage? I feel like the one who visited more would be the one with the advantage
  • Rephrased to make that statement more clear. Both the candidates traveled almost equal number of states, but Truman has much more advantage as he spent more time campaigning, especially giving speeches in the states, while Dewey didn't campaign as extensively as Dewey. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Would it make sense to write "Although the candidates had only a slight difference" instead of "Although both candidates had only a slight difference"? The current wording still reads a little strangely to me. DanCherek (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Berryman cartoon image needs a period since it's a complete sentence. There are also several captions that are not complete sentences that don't need a period
  • Probably fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• I think "clear decisive" is redundant, you just need one of those words
  • Yeah. 'Decisive' would fit better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "His latest poll showed Dewey leading": was that a prediction of the popular vote?
  • The way polls are conducted, they don't always refer to popular or electoral vote, but give chances of each candidate's victory in percentage. Source doesn't state about popular or electoral vote here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In the wake of the expected Democratic defeat nationally, editors of major media corporations predicted the South would regain its influence in the Democratic party." → would restructure this either as "Editors of major media corporations predicted the South would regain its influence in the Democratic party in the wake of the expected Democratic defeat nationally." or "Editors of major media corporations predicted that, in the wake of the expected Democratic defeat nationally, the South would regain its influence in the Democratic party."
  • Adopted the second alternative. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the campaign needs a new approach" → "the campaign needed a new approach"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The Times magazine wrote" — which Times is this? does it have an article or have you already linked it previously?
  • Now linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "also endorsed him, saying" → "also endorsed him, saying he was"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Biltmore Hotel": is that the New York Biltmore Hotel?
  • Well, I can assure you that no way was Truman staying in a hotel in Dewey's home state (New York), that on the election night. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Who is Jim Rowley?
  • His advisor, added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Check "he won all of them easily" in the lead vs. "He won almost all the contests by comfortable margins" (emphasis mine) in the body
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• There are two instances where "democratic" isn't capitalized, in the lead and in "Whistle-stop tour", that I think should be capitalized
  • Done. –
• Infobox key people: suggest putting "Advisor" and "Fundraiser" in lowercase
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox slogan: apostrophe before "Em" for consistency with body
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox theme song: should that be in quotes (and in title case)?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Great work on the article! DanCherek (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek – Thanks a lot for your comprehensive peer review comments. Much appreciated. I have addressed all of them. Do let me know if you have more comments. And in your opinion, is this article somewhat near being "ready for FAC"? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

1 reply above, and thanks for the info about the ½ vote :) I'm a little reluctant to give FAC advice because I don't have too much experience (haven't nominated any myself yet and only reviewed one in the past), but I think the article is looking good and I don't have major concerns. DanCherek (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)