Talk:Dewey–Stassen debate

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dewey–Stassen debate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one. This a very interesting event I've never heard of. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Good work, only a few minor fixes left. Source spotcheck says you almost perfectly reflect the statements made in sources, but with some minor instances of original research to correct. And I think you should remove the images with the unclear copyright status. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Vigilantcosmicpenguin, that should be everything. For the images, I removed the two and then added one that has better licensing tags. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the article well. Layout makes sense and is mostly chronological. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Cites all sources using SFNs.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All citations are to books from reputed publishers.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article reflects what is stated in sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 9.9%. No close paraphrasing. Quotes used appropriately.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article mentions all the main points of the sources that go into detail about the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article provides just enough
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article represents the opinions of sources about the debate. It does not unduly promote either side.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are clearly related to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	"Certainly." —Dewey

Initial comments

• Two of the photos (Dewey with his supporters and Dewey accepting the nomination) are sourced to the Bettman Archive via Getty Images, but Getty Images does not list them as being public domain. Have you verified that these photos were published without copyright notices?

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Getty doesn't have copyright over the Bettmann Archive. I'm not sure where to look beyond that. Any thoughts, or should I swap them out? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably best to swap them out, if we can't find any proof that they're public domain. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• Both candidates gave a 20-minute speech on his position, and after both had spoken, they were both given 8+1⁄2 minutes for rebuttal. since the word "rebuttal" implies it came after.
• Stassen's political career effectively ended in 1948 but the article only says it began to decline in 1948.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Background

• Link "delegates" to United States Electoral College, in case readers don't know the concept.
• Stassen again took advantage of Dewey's itinerary in Nebraska feels like unnecessary phrasing. The rest of the sentence is clear enough.
• I've made some minor copyedits myself throughout the article.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Linked Electoral College in the lead and the body and reworded Nebraska. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Organizing a debate

• You say "most recent Gallup poll" but don't say what that's relative to.
• as Stassen's height and build made him an imposing figure next to Dewey. Dewey stood 5 feet 8 inches, compared to Stassen's 6 feet 3 inches. → as Stassen's build, at 5 feet 8 inches, made him an imposing figure next to Dewey, at 6 feet 3 inches.
• Stassen reportedly told Swafford

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to outlaw the Communist Party

• floated the idea → first brought up the idea as it feels like an unneeded idiom.
• He argued that it did not violate the constitution to criminalize attempts to overthrow the United States government, and he cited the Guarantee Clause to justify the constitutionality of his position. → He cited the Guarantee Clause to justify the constitutionality of criminalizing attempts to overthrow the United States government.
• fewer than 50 technicians and campaign aides. Also present was the press, 24 members in the room and 62 more observing from the next room through a window. → fewer than 50 technicians and campaign aides, as well as 24 members of the press, with 62 more observing from the next room through a window.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Debate

• Stassen's four questions would be more clear as a direct quote.
• I think a statement like giving him an air of authenticity is more of an opinion and should probably say something like "which audiences perceived as..."

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Stassen made himself vulnerable to accusations of extremism feels like unclear phrasing. It would be more direct to say that he did receive accusations of extremism.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The exact wording of the source is that it "provided an excuse to put Stassen into the extremist corner" without further elaboration, so I don't know if a direct statement would be verifiable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It looks like the source brings this up as more of a hypothetical explanation for Stassen's defeat but doesn't really say there were significant accusations of extremism. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• I'll be reviewing the three most frequently cited sources. Citation numbers as of this revision. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Ray 1961:

3. Y
4. Y
5. Y
6. Y
7. Y Y
8. Y Y Y
9. Y Y Y Though the source doesn't support the phrasing "significant blunder", more of an "unlikely possibility"
10. Y Y Y Y Y Y
11. Y Y Though since you're listing members of the audience, you probably shouldn't exclude the 24 representatives of the Multnomah County Republican Committee.
12. Y
13. Y
14. Y
15. Y Y Y Y
16. Y
17. Y
18. Y
19. Y
20. Y
21. Y
22. Y
23. Y
24. Y
25. Y
26. Y
27. Y
28. Y
29. Y
30. Y Y Y

Kirby, Rothmann & Dalin 2013:

5. Y Y But change "elevating one of his opponents" to "elevating Stassen" Y
6. Y Y Y Though the part about the "impartial sponsorship" was specifically the New Hampshire challenge, not later ones Y
7. Y
8. Y
9. Y
10. Y
11. Y
12. Y
13. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
14. Y Y
15. Y Y Y Though it doesn't say this was the most common argument
16. Y Y Y Y Y
17. Y Y Y Y
18. Y Y Y Y
19. Y
20. Y
21. Y
22. Y

Werle 2015:

10. Y Y
11. Y Y
12. Y
13. Y Y
14. Y
15. Y Y
16. Y
17. Y Y Y Y
18. Y Y
19. Y
20. Y

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.