Talk:Earl Landgrebe

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earl Landgrebe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 14:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on US politics but I am happy to review this against the criteria. I will do the review piecemeal, whenever I have bits of time. On occasion I might make a minor edit in the article instead of describing what should be done. I hope you don't mind.

Overall I think this is a great article. Just some nitpicking which I hope you think will improve it.

Lead

• Perhaps the opening sentence could be a bit stronger. Just a suggestion, with tweaks to links and word order, would be this:

Earl Fredrick Landgrebe (January 21, 1916 – June 29, 1986) was an American politician and businessman who served as a Republican senator in the Indiana Senate and member of the United States House of Representatives.

• For the second sentence I'd suggest a few tweaks to the links:

During the Watergate scandal he defended President Richard Nixon, which cost him his seat in the 1974 congressional election.

• "In spite of his defense ... and House of Representatives" --> Perhaps split this rather long sentence in two?

• In the lead there shouldn't be any references, unless it is an extraordinary or controversial claim.

Body

• "On June 9, 1943, he founded his transportation business, Landgrebe Motor Transport, with one truck using $2,100 in savings and would later grow his business to one hundred employees." -->

This makes it sound as if that exact day is significant. How about this? He founded his transportation business, Landgrebe Motor Transport, in 1943 using $2,100 in savings. Starting with just with one truck, he would grow his business to one hundred employees.

• "was succeeded by Al Williamson following his election to the state senate in 1958." --> I don't think who succeeded him is notable enough to feature in this article, or am I wrong?

• I think the section State Senate could be renamed Indiane Senate. It would help people who just scan the article see which state.

• "On March 21, 1958, he filed " --> I would use his name here at the beginning of a section instead of "he"

• "On March 21, 1958, Landgrebe filed to run in the Republican primary to succeed retiring incumbent John Wilson Van Ness for the Indiana Senate seat from Jasper County, Newton County, Porter County and Pulaski County and defeated " --> I assume he didn't defeat them on March 21, so perhaps this is less ambiguous: "On March 21, 1958, he filed to run in the Republican primary to succeed retiring incumbent John Wilson Van Ness for the Indiana Senate seat from Jasper County, Newton County, Porter County and Pulaski County. He won the primary, defeating Mayor John E. Wiggins and William A. Woodworth." That source, [8], by the way only states he is running against, not that he won it.

• Overall, a few more links would be good. Democratic in "he defeated Democratic nominee Maurice Mason" is one example, but there are quite a few names mentioned as well, maybe some of these already have articles on WP. Plus the first time Richard Nixon is mentioned in the body, he should be linked.

• "In 1962, the Supreme Court " --> I would prefer to add the US here, plus a link: "In 1962, the [U.S. Supreme Court "

• "alongside twenty two Democrats" --> according to MOS:NUMERAL it's either twenty-two or 22. And whatever the choice, this should be applied consistently across the article. I'd add a comma after Democrats as well.

• "In 1962, he announced" --> That's the second paragraph in a row that starts with "In 1962". A rewrite would be good.

• "and won the Republican nomination without opposition and" --> that's maybe a bit too much of "and" in one sentence.

• "and state representative Robert D. Anderson" --> Perhaps better to end the sentence and start a new one: ". State representative Robert D. Anderson.."

• "governor of Indiana" --> I believe it is Governor of Indiana

• "senate committees although Landgrebe" --> Is that word "although" quite right? How was the assignment affected by being in the minority? Maybe just replace although with a full stop?

• "His service in the state senate ended" --> Langrebe's service in the Indiana Senate ended

• "a primary recount with a plurality of 21.76% and only eighty votes" --> Source 23 is about running, so should be moved to the previous sentence.

• Is there nothing about his 1968 race against the Democratic nominee? And by how much he won? And when? We now have this imbalance of dates for announcement to run but no date for victory or first day on the job.

• "He represented Indiana's 2nd congressional district ... Agricultural Labor." --> source missing

• "Landgrebe was criticized " --> By whom? I assume by the challengers but that should be made clear

• "During the campaign Landgrebe spent $39,334 on his campaign and Sprague spent $57,918 on his campaign" --> that's 3 times campaign in one sentence

• Source 26 only backs up the $ amounts and the 1,240 votes. We need another source to back up "The Democratic Party fared well nationally during the 1970 House elections"

• Perhaps a few words to explain what the Twenty-sixth Amendment entailed would be good.

• "fifty one member " --> fifty-one members

• "During the primary Landgrebe .. to Boehning." Quite a long sentence. Better to split it up. One of the "and" should be an "as" I think.

• "He narrowly defeated Boehning with 34,813 votes for 54.20% against his 29,417 votes for 45.80% of the vote" --> Perhaps simpler, and thus easier to understand is this: He narrowly defeated Boehning with 34,813 votes against 29,417 (54.2% against 45.8% of the vote).

• "and in Indiana where he " --> is he referring to Nixon or Landgrebe? There are two "he"s and two "and"s in this long sentence.

• Source 33 mentions 76,000 instead of 72,000. It also doesn't seem to back up all the info from this and the previous sentence.

• "He gained a reputation" --> again, I'd use his name here

• due to him distributing Bibles which he did due" --> repetition of "due"

• "He was a stalwart defender of President Richard Nixon" --> "Landgrebe was a stalwart defender of President Nixon". Only the first reference should be a link. Plus as a general rule only the first time should the full name be used; just Nixon or President Nixon subsequently

• to begin the impeachment hearings --> overlinking again

• "one of the 4" --> one of the four

• "64,950 votes for 38.94% of the vote to Fithian's 101,856 votes for 61.06% of the vote" --> 64,950 votes to Fithian's 101,856 votes (38.94% vs. 61.06% respectively). This statement plus the following sentence lack sources.

• "The vote in the House 329 in favor and 7 against with Landgrebe as one of the seven nays" --> verb missing

• "He initially supported the invasion of Cambodia .." --> this was already mentioned earlier. I'm no expert so don't feel I can make a judgment call, all I can do is ask questions. Is this so important that it warrants being mentioned twice? It feels fine here, but perhaps not the first mention. Unless of course that statement there is needed to back up the claim "a unique brand of conservatism"?

• criticized the Supreme Court --> probably better to add US here, as the previous statements are about Indiana.

• source 1 is a dead link.

I have done a spotcheck of the sources. Apart from what I reported above, all looks fine. All in all a fine piece of work! @Jon698: Hi Jon698, I have finished a GA review of your Landgrebe article. I spotted you had nominated it quite a while ago and nobody had picked it up. I have no expertise in the matter, but it passes the GA requirements as far as I can see. I have listed some nitpicking comments. Looking forward to discuss. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thank you for your review of my article. I have instituted the vast majority of your suggestions except for a few which I will explain why.

• 1. "In the lead there shouldn't be any references, unless it is an extraordinary or controversial claim." The reference does cover an extraordinary claim as it is showing that despite Landgrebe's fanatic defense of Nixon during Watergate he was criticized before for not being supportive enough of Nixon.
• 2. ""On June 9, 1943, he founded his transportation business, Landgrebe Motor Transport, with one truck using $2,100 in savings and would later grow his business to one hundred employees." --> This makes it sound as if that exact day is significant. How about this? He founded his transportation business, Landgrebe Motor Transport, in 1943 using $2,100 in savings. Starting with just with one truck, he would grow his business to one hundred employees." From my experience it seems that the exact date should always be used if it is available.
• 3. ""He initially supported the invasion of Cambodia .." --> this was already mentioned earlier. I'm no expert so don't feel I can make a judgment call, all I can do is ask questions. Is this so important that it warrants being mentioned twice? It feels fine here, but perhaps not the first mention. Unless of course that statement there is needed to back up the claim "a unique brand of conservatism"?" Correct, the reason it appears twice is to back up the claim of his "unique brand of conservatism" and as it also relates to his foreign policy beliefs.

That is all that I disagreed with out of your entire list. I hope you will be able to send a quick reply. Thank you once more for your review since I have been waiting a long time for this. :) - Jon698 Talk 18:09 24 April 2020

That all is fine with me.

Pass: This article passes all Good Article criteria: Well written prose, verifiable from reliable sources, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated. Great work. I enjoyed reviewing this article. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)