Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, although it's on the short side, it's comprehensive in its coverage of what is essentially a small cog in a big machine. I'd like to take this to FAC down the line, and have already placed a request for a GOCE copy-edit to help with the prose style. What I would like to gain from this PR is an assessment of how the article comes across to the lay reader, as it's difficult to write about something that didn't happen, especially when it is overshadowed by what did, and I'm not sure how well-weighted the material regarding the eventual Watergate affair is in light of this. Plus, any other comments that can be added would be very welcome.

Thanks, GRAPPLE ^X 10:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Since this article was written, an article on Jack Caulfield, a central figure, has been created and has introduced File:Jack Caulfield, photo portrait, Nixon Administration, black and white.jpg. It's a much better picture than the current image of the "Berlin Wall", so I'm wondering if it's preferable to go with a higher-quality picture of one participant, or a lower quality image of two together. Aesthetically the article won't really fit both. GRAPPLE ^X 22:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Dead link

  Archived. GRAPPLE ^X

• Given that not all readers will be American, it might help to be a bit more explicit/detailed in some places. For example, you mention a bid for the vice-presidency - could you add "failed" or "successful"?

  I'm not American myself so I wasn't sure what was readily assumed or not but I've taken a pass and clarified a few things a little further. GRAPPLE ^X 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Caulfield's noted that this firm" - is there a missing word here?

  Nothing missing, just an unnecessary possessive, trimmed. GRAPPLE ^X 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Should use fixed column size rather than fixed number of columns with ((reflist))

  Done. GRAPPLE ^X 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Xlibris is a self-publishing company, expect to see Beyond Homo Sapiens questioned at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't realised that. Although I can't see anything about the book or author being particularly noteworthy in the field, I feel the book does give a good concise synthesis of information available separately, so I've backed it up with some further citations rather than removing it entirely; is it safe to just cite the other sources instead? GRAPPLE ^X 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm having trouble finding more information about the book - no hits on Worldcat, no preview on GBooks - so it's hard for me to say yea or nay. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if Google Books is location-based (if it is, I'm viewing it from Northern Ireland, YMMV), but here is the book in question, with the relevant page marked. The preview should also cover the publishing information at the beginning of the book, with the Library of Congress Control Number 2011904181. I'm not sure if that helps any. GRAPPLE ^X 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  GBooks is very location-based, and I can't see that page. Based on mentions of the book elsewhere, it would seem to have a very strong POV and not a strong scholarly approach - is that a fair characterization? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I didn't read the whole thing, but it does seem to focus a lot on being critical of post-WW2 Germans. I'm using it specifically for the passage: "H.R. Haldeman had worked with Nixon since the 1950s and was his chief of staff [...] Ehrlichman and Haldeman had started Operation Sandwedge to do clandestine intelligence gathering against Nixon's alleged enemies right after Nixon took office". There does seem to be a thread of distrust of Ehrlichman and Haldeman specifically because of their German ancestry, though, which I believe is the only reason the material is even mentioned. I could either cut the source out and treat the phrase it supports as a synthesis of information from two other sources, or specifically append that quote to a footnote to make it clear what the book is being used for. GRAPPLE ^X 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]