- 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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 1 January 2022 [1].
- Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about how General Dwight D. Eisenhower was persuaded by both the Democratic and Republican Party to contest the presidency. We won't see that today! Both in the 1948 and 1952 presidential election: politicians, news organizations, columnist, composers, and many citizens campaigned to "Draft Eisenhower". And "Ike" (nickname of Eisenhower, because you can't remember that long name!) refused all requests to enter politics. The Draft movement failed in 1948, but the upset victory of Harry S. Truman made many Republicans to again campaign for Eisenhower in 1952. Democrats to tried to persuade him, saying that he can win only as a Democrat. Senator Paul Douglas even suggested both parties to nominate Eisenhower with different vice-presidential running mates. The famous "I like Ike" campaign slogan was associated with this movement. Eisenhower at-last agreed to contest Republican primaries, and won few of them despite never actively campaigning himself. He was elected president as a Republican, and served two terms.
This is currently a Military history A-class article. It was reviewed for GA by A. C. Santacruz. Also, it was copy-edited by late Twofingered Typist (a great copy-editor and a Wikipedia veteran. This was the last article copy-edited by him particularly for FAC ...) I have tried to keep the article comprehensive, but concise. I added many things related to the "Draft movement", and separate article about the Republican primaries/vice-presidential selection exist. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several politicians, including New York Representative W. Sterling Cole, voiced their opposition to the nomination of Eisenhower or any other military leader for the presidency." - Why did they oppose this? Also, what is the significance of Cole's opinion specifically?
- Rephrased the first part of the sentence. The reason on Cole's opposition to this was mainly based on the fact that he didn't wanted any military leader to run. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could win the presidency only as a Democrat." -> "In 1951, more Republican politicians announced their support for Eisenhower, while Democrats continued to assure him he could only win the presidency as a Democrat."
- "Eisenhower replied in the affirmative" Odd wording here - change it to just "Eisenhower agreed".
- What is the relevance of George VI's state funeral? Either elaborate on its significance or remove it.
- There is no major relevance here, agreeing that it is bit trivial, I removed its mention. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "On June 4, he made his first political speech in his hometown of Abilene, Kansas." About what?
- Is there any more information on the 1956 Draft movements that could be added in the Aftermath and legacy section? It's a bit short as of now.
- All images seem well-captioned and are all free to use!
@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Thanks for your comments. I tried to address all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see much else that needs doing, so I'm gonna Support this right now. I'll let you know if anything changes! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a first reading, I could find few issues or questions outside of what ExcellentWheatFarmer already mentioned. The trivial nitpicks I did have I cleaned up. I'll go through the 'Works cited' and try to find full text versions for the sake of reader accessibility and give a tentative Support prior to a second reading. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a straightforward article which has already been copy edited 2-3 times and speaks to the important issue of why it took seven years for Eisenhower to make it to the Presidency when he had achieved such large popularity as General of the Allied Forces which defeated National Socialism in 1945. Although I will offer some optional comments, the article is already highly refined due to the number of copy editors who have done previous reviews of this article. Supporting this as a important part of Eisenhower's biography covering his career on the way to his White House years. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Optional comments:
(1) Background section: "MacArthur in Washington..." to "MacArthur both in Washington, D.C. and the Philippines."
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Background: "Field marshall Lord Montgomery..." to caps for title "Field Marshall...".
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Both main sections: Currently both sections use popular quotes for titles, though optionally they could emphasize one of the main themes of this article which is that the Democratic Party was unsuccessful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1948 whereas the Republican Party was successful in convincing Eisenhower to run in 1952. Optionally, could this be used to give explicit emphasis in the section titles, for example, "Unsuccessful Democratic phase in 1948" and "Successful Republican phase in 1952".
- I this we are fine as it is. It wasn't that just Democrats convinced him in 1948 and Republicans in 1952. Both Democrats and Republicans persuaded him in both 1948 and 1952 (just that Democratic movement was stronger in 1948, and Republican movement was successful in 1952). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(4) "Eisenhower boom" section: "Eisenhower told" to "Eisenhower was told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president had..."
- I think that would change the meaning ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article is supported. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for you review and support! Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review[edit]
All images appear to be properly licenced, placed and have ALT text.
I didn't do any thorough spot-checks. The way sources #40 and #41 are used bother me - the sentence as a whole implies that the re-emergence of the Draft Eisenhower movement is due to Truman's low approval ratings, but neither of the sources explicitly says so. Also, the sentence supported by sources #88 and #89 strongly implies that there were other "draft X" movements but #89 explicitly says otherwise.
I note that Stephen E. Ambrose is used as a source and the article we have on them has a criticism section about his characterization of Eisenhower. The sources appear to be consistently formatted and have the necessary information. I am fine with the use of contemporary newspapers here, it doesn't look like they are used for evaluative claims.
To sum it up, the images are fine but the way some sources are used gives me a bit of worry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus – Thanks for taking the image and source review. As for source #40 and #41, I have rephrased it to make sure everything in the article is said in the sources. As for sources #88 and #89, yes, there are other draft movement which were compared with Draft Eisenhower movement, or Draft Eisenhower movement was referenced in them. I am not entirely sure why this says that: "A real presidential draft movement hasn’t happened since 1952, when Republicans urged Eisenhower to get into the race.", as another source says that 1992 Draft Perot movement was compared with Draft Eisenhower movement. Have added that in the article. I don't think there should be an issue in citing Stephen E. Ambrose. Despite the criticism part, I think what more important here is that Ambrose was an American historian and professor of history at UNO. And I don't think I have cited any part from Ambrose's book which expressed his opinion, just facts and evaluative claims are cited. Does that answers your concerns. Let me know of there is anything else I can do. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's mostly it. I stress though that I didn't do a thorough source review, so if someone else finds more source-text incongruities my findings here shouldn't be held against theirs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Are you comfortable with this counting as a source review, or would you like me to add one? Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to. My review was not super deep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's great to describe USMA class of 1915 as the class the stars fell on, I might also mention the year in the sentence.
- "rose to five-star general in the United States Army" that's awfully late in the day to mention that Eisenhower was in the US Army.
- Removed the mention (as it is quite well understood that he must be in U.S. Army). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "All of Truman's efforts to persuade him failed.[17] " you haven't mentioned any such efforts.
- Changes to "Truman's efforts&; – the efforts are mentioned in the previous sentence: "President Harry S. Truman considered him..." and "Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's vice-presidential nominee" (really can't imagine president agreeing to be vp) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "In January 1948, few Republican politicians from New Hampshire entered a group of delegates pledged to Eisenhower in the primary contest." Should this be "a few Republican ..."?
- "Later that month, Eisenhower told that since George Washington's presidency, the office of president "historically and properly fallen only to aspirants", and repeated that he had no political ambition.[19]"There's a need for a "has" somewhere in there.
- "Strom Thurmond" perhaps "Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina"
- The timeline for the Nixon nomination as Vice President seems a bit muddled. From what I recall from my research on the subject, no real thought was given to who would be Ike's running mate until after he defeated Taft at the convention, and he didn't know he was expected to pick a running mate, and more or less left it for an ad-hoc committee of advisors and Republican notables to decide.
- Yeah, shifted the mention of Nixon's nomination after RNC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Republican politicians argued that they can lose the election without Eisenhower as their presidential nominee." Should "can" be "could"?
- That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, @Wehwalt! I think I addressed them all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot, Wehwalt! And may I mention (if I haven't already) that your work on American history/politics and virtually any other topic is among the finest I have seen on Wikipedia! Thanks again! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
I went through this at PR and was pleasantly surprised at how little I found to pick at, and so have nothing further to add other than my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your support and your help during the peer review!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary source review (HF) - pass[edit]
Based on JJE's comment above, I'll be giving this one a source review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pickett is available on Internet Archive with free registration. Has it been consulted for potential usefulness? Based on a couple scholarly book reviews I've seen, it's considered to be significant in the field, and represents a somewhat different viewpoint than most of the other sources in the article
- @Hog Farm – Well, it primarily deals with the 1952 Draft movement, i.e., only half of the article. Moreover, for 1952, we already have various sources. I am a bit reluctant at this point to use this book, as, although it is a significant work, I think we are good with number of books and scholarly works we cite. I can use it if you insist, but I think it is better in the "Further reading" section. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My primary concern here is that the reviews I read suggest that Pickett provides a different school of thought about the movement (basically that Eisenhower was playing hard to get). Our article on Pickett's book does note that Welch had access to recently declassified materials. And I haven't come across anything accusing Pickett of being a crackpot yet. I'm a bit concerned that it potentially represents a significant viewpoint that has not been included in the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm – Done, included the book. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks much better, I think I'm fine with this now that Pickett is included and the fringe source is gone. Hog Farm Talk 20:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia Library ProQuest brings up a piece in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly titled "They liked Ike: Pro-Eisenhower publishers and his decision to run for president" that looks useful here, as well
- Have added this source, though haven't used it substantially, as most of this source is about how various publishers and journalists wrote letters and urged Ike to run, something which the article already discussed in very brief. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm questioning Welch's reliability here - This is by the same Robert Welch who cofounded the conspiracy theory peddling John Birch Society, and "Robert Welch University" looks suspiciously like an arm of the JBS, given that it's from the same place the JBS is, and both were previously based out of Belmont, MA around the same time.
- There is just one citation to Welch, that too is just used as a primary source for quoting him. It is like citing Trump's tweets, not to prove the accuracy of that statement, but to show that Trump did said that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This still gives me WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns. There's a big difference between, for instance, the due weight of Trump as a former president, and the due weight of a guy on the political fringe who claimed that Eisenhower was a communist and that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was gonna happen. Welch is WP:FRINGE here and shouldn't be used. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, I didn't turn up much that could be issues with the "thorough and representative survey" bit from criteria 1c
- "Because of his popularity, Eisenhower was widely expected to run for the presidency" - possibly in a pagination issue, but I'm not finding this on p. 50 of Metz?
- "Former Minnesota governor Harold Stassen, known for his steadfast internationalism," - this is exactly the same as in the source; there has to be a way to reduce the closeness here
- "Sherman Adams, the Republican governor of New Hampshire, became the manager for the Draft Eisenhower movement in his state" - cited to Birkner p. 1, but there's no Birkner page 1. You seem to be going off of the pagination on the scanned pages with the other Birkner refs, but Birkner starts at page 5 (it is the first page of the source material, just not number p. 1, so I can see how this happened pretty easily)
- "With Eisenhower's inauguration on January 20, 1953, he became the first Republican president in 20 years" - cited page does not provide the inauguration date
I checked all of the citations to Metz, Mason, Birkner, Griffith, Dishman, and Keefer. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to see this second source review, happening after promotion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I started to promote but decided to hold off, until I could figure out how closely the previous source review was done Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.