Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that this article gives a comprehensive coverage of Harry Truman's 1948 presidential campaign. Truman won the presidency, when almost all the polling companies and media strongly predicted a victory for his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey. Elmo Roper, a major pollster even discontinued polling, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." On the election night, boldly anticipating Dewey to win, an early edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", which proved to be wrong. Truman's picture holding the erroneous headline has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory". Almost all possible sources are consulted, article is copy-edited, it passed its GA review, and I aim to nominate this for Featured article. – Any, any possible comment is more than appreciated. Thanks – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I intend to get to this soon; ping me if it's been a week and I haven't started my review. Hog Farm Talk 04:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 17:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm – Thanks a lot for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Do let me know if you have any other suggestions. And would appreciate your comments on article's sourcing, and possible shortcomings. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stands out as particularly problematic in the sourcing to me. Hog Farm Talk 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would try to nominate it for FAC soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanCherek

[edit]

Great work on the article! DanCherek (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek – Thanks a lot for your comprehensive peer review comments. Much appreciated. I have addressed all of them. Do let me know if you have more comments. And in your opinion, is this article somewhat near being "ready for FAC"? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 reply above, and thanks for the info about the ½ vote :) I'm a little reluctant to give FAC advice because I don't have too much experience (haven't nominated any myself yet and only reviewed one in the past), but I think the article is looking good and I don't have major concerns. DanCherek (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]