Talk:Joseph Tydings/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This is generally a good article. The problems I've identified are minor and easy to address, except in the area of broadness, where the problems are somewhat more fundamental (though I'm not sure they're major enough to fail the article; I'm consulting others on this). Regardless, however, good job - it's a well-written and well-cited article that covers most elements of its subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed, and the article is now a GA. Nice work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well-written?

Generally quite good. Points to improve:

"For the primary election in May 1964..." - I'm not sure "for" is the best word here. "In", maybe? Or "during"? Same thing later on, with "For the general election..."
In the third paragraph of "1964 United States Senate election", I think the word "victory" is overused.
"His major victory was due at least in part to the landslide victory of Lyndon B. Johnson for President in the same election." This could use some elaboration (not much, just a few words). My guess as to why this is is that Johnson's landslide victory drove Democratic turnout and maybe increased the number of voters voting a straight ticket, but ideally the reader wouldn't have to make this sort of inference.
"...Tydings was facing criticism for his actions as senator from both parties." Misplaced modifier here, making it sound as though Tydings was a senator from both parties.
"...the unpopularity of Tydings..." Try to avoid passive possessives - I'd change this to "Tydings' unpopularity".
"...resulted in Beall defeating him 51% to 48%." This sentence needs to be reworded, since "his" currently (gramatically at least) refers to Beall.
"In an ex post facto review of the election..." Is there any other kind of review?
"...identifying with his voters." The phrase "his voters" makes me think that you're talking about people who voted for him. In fact, though, I assume you're talking specifically about people who didn't vote for him, in which case something like "the electorate" might be better.
"...who had declared his candidacy several months before Tydings." Tydings is already the subject of this sentence, so this second mention of him can probably be replaced by a pronoun.
As an aside (i.e. not a GA issue), I think the article could be better wikilinked. Many of the links are too general - for example, the link to general election would probably better go to United States Senate elections, 1964, and the link to Europe would better go to something like Allied Occupation Zones in Germany (these are just examples - there are more). There are also places where there isn't a wikilink, but probably should be (e.g. preventive detention).
- I believe I fixed all of the problems noted above. --Tom (talk - email) 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good - I made one small edit of my own to correct an awkward modifier. I liked several of your fixes more than my recommendations. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

I can't find cites for the following statements (some of these are probably supported by references that follow the ensuing sentences, but as these aren't available online I can't verify them - in these cases, if you could just identify which footnote it is that supports them, that will be fine). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tydings was born in Asheville, North Carolina, but attended the public schools of Aberdeen, Maryland."
"Tydings served as a delegate until 1961, when he was appointed United States Attorney for Maryland by President John F. Kennedy, one of Tydings' close friends."
"For the 1964 elections, Tydings was frequently mentioned as a potential candidate to compete for the United States Senate seat of Republican J. Glenn Beall, Sr."
"Upon his election, Tydings began to lay out his legislative agenda for his upcoming term, which included water conservation, pollution and air purity, and mass transportation."
"Tydings' difficulties with the right stemmed from his sponsorship of the Firearms Registration and Licensing Act, which would have required the registration of firearms. An avid hunter himself, his efforts agitated the gun lobby and the NRA."
"Beall's campaign strategy "leaned heavily on his affable, noncontroversial personality" and avoided turning the campaign negative." (At the very least, a footnote is required here to attribute the direct quotation)
"Tydings resumed his legal career after he lost his Senate seat, entering into practice with a Washington law firm that included Giant Food President John Danzansky. After several years out of politics, he began traveling the state in 1975 to gauge his chances for winning a rematch versus Beall, who was coming up for re-election in 1976."
"This head start gave Sarbanes a considerable organizational and monetary advantage, and he had already secured influential endorsements. To fend off Sarbanes, Tydings hoped his name recognition and charisma on television would compensate for Sarbanes' other advantages."
"On election day, Tydings needed a large margin of victory from precincts in the Washington, D.C. suburbs of Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, where he was most popular. However, despite winning both counties, Sarbanes performed well in the rest of the state and defeated Tydings by over 100,000 votes, 61% to 39%."
(Later addition, thanks to User:Malleus Fatuorum for bringing it to my attention): The infobox states that he fought in the second world war, which doesn't appear to be supported by the material in the article.
- I believe I have addressed all the points above. Everything was cited, but it was usually two/three sentences later if multiple sentences were using the same cite, so I tried to make the citations a bit more specific. Also, he did not serve during the War but during the occupation afterwards, so I removed that from the infobox. --Tom (talk - email) 18:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?

I'm on the fence here, and am consulting some other reviewers. Coverage of his career as Senator is generally satisfactory (although still somewhat on the low end) but coverage of other elements of his political career, especially his time as state delegate, is virtually non-existent. It's possible that this is okay under the Good Article criteria, which specifically states that the Good Article program allows "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic"; I'd have to think some more on it. The best solution would be to expand the information on his pre-Senatorial career, if sources can be found. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other points:

The end of the "1964 United States Senate election" identifies his priorities as Senator as being "water conservation, pollution and air purity, and mass transportation", but then the article doesn't expand on what happened with these priorities during the ensuing six years. Is there information available on that?
It might be worth briefly mentioning what happened in the 1976 Senate election, even though Tydings wasn't a candidate in it. Once the reader learns about Sarbanes defeating Tydings, he/she is curious about how Sarbanes fared in the general election. Of course, maybe that's what wikilinks are for. Your call if you want to do anything about it.

As an update, I've consulted a couple of extremely experienced GA reviewers, and both of them agree that the level of detail in this article is suitable for a GA. My advice to expand it if possible still stands, but per their advice I won't hold up promotion over it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am somewhat limited by the sources available from the middle part of the century. Short of driving to a library, my best source is probably the Washington Post online archive available through my school. However, I don't recall finding anything from the post about his earlier days. When I have more time in the future, I might try to flesh that out (as I tried in the Mathias article... he is a bit more notable, though). --Tom (talk - email) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. For now we'll just leave it at pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?

Nearly perfect. My only concern: "Tydings won election to the Senate in 1964, running a campaign against the Maryland political machine." - Late in the article it notes that he characterized himself as running against the political machine, but this sounds more like a candidate's trying to paint himself as a principled underdog. I don't think the Wikipedia article should state as fact that he was running against the political machine. Otherwise, good job on striking the difficult balance of writing neutrally in a politician's biography. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of it. --Tom (talk - email) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

Pass. No substantive edits since November, no evidence of edit-warring at any time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Pass. Single image is clearly in the public domain, though the template at the Commons needs updating (I don't know anything about Commons templates, or I'd do it myself). A couple more images wouldn't hurt; what you did in Charles Mathias, putting in a couple of decorative images of other figures significant in the subject's career, was good. Up to you, though - this clearly passes the minimum required by the GA criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, short of driving to a library or the state archives (and determining the copyright status), there are not many free-use images online of Tydings. --Tom (talk - email) 18:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]