Talk:1981 Mississippi's 4th congressional district special election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Spirit of Eagle (talk · contribs) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this shortly. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC) You seem have a lot of your sources mixed up. There many places where the cited source either does not back up the claim, or where it dances around it; however in many of these instances other sources cited in the article are dead-on. There were also a number of articles that are split across to two pages, but for which you only provided links to the first page.

Eek, thanks so much for writing such a thorough review. I'll be addressing your points bullet by bullet below and I'll ping you once I've made all the changes per your comments. Going to work from the top down. Nomader (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: Hey Spirit of Eagle-- I've addressed most of your comments and asked a few follow-up questions on some. Let me know if you have any further comments or concerns. Nomader (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be reviewing your changes shortly. I'll cross out anything I think has been fully addressed or corrected.

Thanks! Also, I was so busy searching through newspapers.com that I missed a couple of other sources. Specifically, Treyens who was the Clarion-Ledger beat reporter for the race also worked on a WaPo story that actually goes into the racial element of the Jon Hinson scandal more than any other contemporary local news articles do (I think it was 'unspoken' kind of stuff from what I can tell). Article is here: [1]. I also found a book which includes quotes from stories that I'd been unable to find of voters' very racist reactions to the incident, but I can't get access to the bibliography without paying for the book (linked here: [2]). I'll be adding these sources in as well within the next 24 hours. Nomader (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Well written

• The first and third paragraph of the lead section are kind of repetitive. You should probably re-arrange the opening so readers aren't getting the same information twice.

Beyond this, I have no objections regarding the manual of style.

*"Democrats mostly stayed out of the fray, with Governor William Winter saying "it is not for me to judge" and local newspapers wrote editorials calling for Hinson's resignation"

I had to read this sentence twice to understand what it was trying to communicate. I'd advise breaking it up into at least two sentences.

Broke out the Democrat part and removed the newspaper part for reasons below.

*"Hinson announced in March that his resignation would be effective April 13, 1981 in a letter to Governor Winter"

This sentence is unclear and should be re-arranged. It would gets its point across better if you said something like "In a March letter to Governor Winter, Hinton announced he would be resigning effective April 13, 1981".

Used your language here, correcting spelling of Hinson.

*"Williams did not concede defeat on Election night, although he conceded the next afternoon at a press conference where he blamed his loss on complacent supporters who saw him as the front runner after the first round."

Run-on. Break this up into two sentences.

Broken up.

*"Polling workers successfully avoided the social security number issue that had plagued precincts in the 4th district during the first round"

This is a rather convoluted way of stating that the pollworkers didn't ask for social security numbers. Also, the statement isn't entirely accurate since there were some isolated requests for social security numbers in Hinds county. I'll go over this in more detail in the relevant section.

Here, the sentence would be clearer if you said something like "Voters were generally not asked for their social security number, although...". When poll workers ask for social security numbers, then they are directly responsible for the problem. The wording here makes it sound like the question was out of their control.

2.Verifiability and citations

*"The election must be held between 40 to 60 days of the Governor's call".

This is nearly a word for word copy of the quoted source. Please rephrase.

This still needs to be addressed.

Missed this before, my bad. Changed (not sure if I like the wording here though, but I'll leave up to you if it needs to be changed again)

Good enough

*"...and to being one of the survivors of the Gay Cinema Follies fire in 1977"

The source doesn't specifically mention the name of the disaster that Hinson survived.

Added a reference there to his WaPo obituary which specifies it and changed the sentence somewhat to match it.

*"Hinson decided to preempt his opponents from leaking the information and held the press conference..."

The article stated that there was speculation that this was Hinson's true reason for making this revelation. However, Hinson's official reason was that he was tired of living in fear of a disclosure.

I haven't changed it yet, figured I'd flag here that Hinson's exact quote for his reasoning was: "I was reasonably certain that others had the information, but I didn't know when it would come out. I was simply sick and tired of worrying about it." I haven't changed it yet, happy to see your opinion on this one.

After mulling it over for a few minutes, I think your right. The quote, and article in general, indicated that Hinson was trying to pre-empt the release of the information. Going into why Hinson wanted to pre-empt the release is going into too much detail.

*"Hinson went on to win re-election in 1980, and many supporters cited his denial as reason to continue to support him."

The article in question was from 1981, and was published a few days after the incident in the Library of Congress. You need a different source for this claim.

I went ahead and deleted the 'supporters cited his denial' piece-- I looked through a lot of articles just now and I can find individual op-eds, but nothing that talks about the body politic's views as a collective like the timeline source does.

*" ...and Haley Barbour among others in the state's GOP delegation and leadership called for Hinson's resignation"

I didn't see any reference to Barbour in either of the sources.

Put in the correct ref, cited the wrong AP article there.

*"Democrats mostly stayed out of the fray, with Governor William Winter saying "it is not for me to judge" and local newspapers wrote editorials calling for Hinson's resignation"

The source only mentioned a single newspaper, which was not stated to be a partisan source.

Jackson Daily News was a standard newspaper and it was a standard editorial-- but I removed it because I can't find the editorial itself when I search for it (and I should have access on newspapers.com).

*"The Democrats did not hold a comparable convention and allowed all its candidates to run on the ballot."

The cited source does not state this.

I finally found a source for it!

*"Hinson did not endorse during the special election ..."

The cited source doesn't say this.

Removed it.

*"The district was expected to be competitive, due to Mississippi's historical Democratic lean that seemed to be shifting as President Ronald Reagan won both the state and the 4th district"

The cited source doesn't appear to say this. Looking at the newspaper itself, it looks like that the article continued on another page that you don't have the clipping for.

Deleted the sentence. The second page is kind of helpful, but it doesn't out right state it and dances around it. I'd look at JSTOR for a good scholarly source about it but I don't have access. Should be re-added in when something's found for it.

*"The Republicans coalesced around Liles Williams..."

The source says nothing about Republicans coalescing around Williams after he received his nomination.

Edited wording and changed source to add in the new one about the Dems complaining about it.

*"The largest issue in the first round was the amount of money the campaigns had on hand"

You should syat his was one of the largest issues, since this is more in-line with the source.

Changed.

*"Other candidates tried to carve out niches to make it to the runoff.[11] Robert Weems ran for the Republican nomination with the campaign slogan of "Vote Right, Vote White, Vote Weems", and was kicked out of his leadership position with the Ku Klux Klan after attending a Jackson house party attended by neo-Nazis. Singletary tried to capitalize on his role as the Democratic nominee in the 4th from 1980, and Senator Ed Ellington attempted to use his experience in the state legislature as a way to make the runoff."

The Cash Clash ups ante source would be a good addition to this section.

Added

*"The Clarion-Ledger felt that Williams was a lock for first place, and that the real battle was for the second slot in the runoff to face him."

The cited source does not say this. It looks like the article continues onto another page; if this is the case, you should upload that portion as well.

Added source

*"Williams had a $300,000 to $200,000 cash advantage over Dowdy, and Williams was widely seen as the favorite to win the runoff."

The cited source says nothing about Williams being the favorite to win, and I'm not sure where you're getting the numbers from.

Yeah it was definitely from another source but I'll be damned if I can find it. Put in the exact numbers from a week out per the source. Also added an article that talks about Williams as the favorite.

I know I saw the source when I was reviewing later on, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. I'll post it if I stumble on it.

• "Williams ran his campaign sticking closely to President Ronald Reagan's policies-- the 4th district had backed Reagan in the 1980 presidential election"

Cited source does not say this. If its on the second page, please provide the clipping.

So here's the thing-- added an article that talks about how Reagan was effecting the race, but I kind find anything that specifically says Reagan won the district. I did find this image on Wikipedia that shows it (the 4th is in the bottom left corner of Mississippi here): File:1980 Presidential Election, Results by Congressional District.png. I'll keep looking, but I may just remove the 'reagan won the district' part of it.

Check the Missisippi Board of Elections (or equivalent government agency) website. I wrote my senior thesis on turnout in presidential elections, and I know that most states keep election data going back several decades.

I couldn't seem to find it online either there or on their GIS site (some states will have that info there instead). I called them and they told me they'd get back to me tomorrow. For now I've removed the second half of the sentence, but if I get a good source, I'll put it back in.

*"Another key point was the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Williams supported modifying and Dowdy supported keeping."

The source only mentions that Dowdy favored an extension of the VRA.

Edited.

*"In an upset, Wayne Dowdy won a narrow election by just 912 votes".

The newspaper article shows that Dowdy won by over 1,000 votes. I imagine that you used numbers from a later, more accurate source. If you want to keep the "upset" language, add in a later source and make a footnote about why the numbers in the newspaper article don't match.

Made the footnote per this comment.

*"Williams did not concede defeat on Election night, although he conceded the next afternoon at a press conference where he blamed his loss on complacent supporters who saw him as the front runner after the first round."

I've been searching far and wide for it and I know that I read it, but unfortunately I just can't find it. Should have clipped it. I've removed the sentence (but kept the part about conceded the next afternoon at a press conference that's backed up by sources).

*" Polling workers successfully avoided the social security number issue that had plagued precincts in the 4th district during the first round."

This is a bit inaccurate since there were some requests for social security numbers in Hinds county.

Fair point, changed.

*"Congressman Dowdy continued to serve in the U.S. Congress until he decided to run for the open U.S. Senate seat in 1988 and lost to Congressman Trent Lott."

In the source, Dowdy merely stated that the election may be his last; this is not a definitive statement.

Hrm, he never served in Congress again. Do you have any suggestions for what kind of source you're looking for here? I basically wanted the last line here to be "he served in Congress until he ran for Senate" and not worry about the pieces afterwards as it's an article on the election, not Dowdy.

I'm going to withdrawal my comment. After reviewing the GA criteria, I don't think this even falls into one of the categories needing a source. Even if it did, I think the source you did cite would be sufficient. I think a later source directly saying something like "Dowdy did not serve again" would be preferable, but this is a nitpick far outside the bounds of this review.

3. Broad in Coverage

*Why did Hinton check himself into a hospital?

• • Added

*You should note that Hinton eventually plead no contest.

• • Noted

*You briefly note that Hinton would go on to become a gay rights activist. If you want to include a later life section on Hinton, you should probably move it to a new paragraph and expand it somewhat.

• • Pushed it out and expanded it a good bit, take a look!
    • Nice work!

*When was the first round of the general election?

• • It was on June 23-- I had in the lead but not in the prose, put it in there.
• Expand on how money was a big issue- you note that two candidates attacked Williams for raising too much money, but you don’t note that there were conflict of interest accusations.
  • Not sure what you mean here, sorry
    • Sorry. The cited source that two of the Democrats accused Williams of being unduly influenced by his donations. This should probably be noted in the article.
      • Added a sentence about it.

*” [Weems] was kicked out of his leadership position with the Ku Klux Klan after attending a Jackson house party attended by neo-Nazis.”

Why? Aren’t neo-Nazis and Klansmen supposed to be BFFs?

Super interesting if you read the source, it's because they had a policy of not associating with Nazi groups. Added it in parentheses.

As a suggestion, I'd drop the word apparently, and make the explanation a footnote.

Appreciate it, changes made here.

*"The election itself was marred by poll workers asking for social security numbers from voters, which was heavily criticized by the League of Women Voters and local residents".

I would describe this in a bit more detail, since it was an important aspect of the election day. Two or three sentences to describe the need for the social security numbers, the reactions (such as phone calls), and the general chaos should be sufficient.

Added to it.

6. Illustrated

The picture of Dowdy is in the public domain because it is an official federal government publication. The political cartoon's fair use explanation is valid.

Final nitpicks

This is almost ready for good article status. I have a few minor nitpicks that need to be addressed, and the unresolved issues above should be resolved. *" One poll worker when asked did not know why they were collecting the social security information, and a District Commissioner had to go on local radio stations to stop poll workers from asking for the numbers".

Break this into two sentences.

Broken.

*"…and to being one of the survivors of the fire at Cinema Follies, a theater frequented by the LGBT community, in 1977”

This isn’t mandatory, but the sentence would read a bit smoother if it said “of the 1977 fire at Cinema Follies” instead of adding the year after the description of the theater.

You're a legend, changed it.

*Is Liles Williams currently alive? If he's deceased, you could add a newspaper picture of him under Fair Use.

• • Fortunately for Liles but unfortunately for the photo here, Liles is very much alive as far as I can tell. He just finished a term at the Mississippi Workers Comp commission as a commissioner (article about his replacement: [3]). Nomader (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing Thoughts

At this point, all of my concerns have been addressed. I'm going to do a final check-through before posting the results. By the way, if you can find an edition of the Almanac of American Politics from the early 1980s, it should have a bunch of analysis of the 4th district. The almanac is an absolutely incredible source, and is carried by pretty much every college or university with a government/ political science department carries the almanac. If the GIS doesn't have what your looking for, the Almanac definitely will.

I added a citation to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress for the claim that Dowdy retired after losing a Senate election in 1989 (the point was still kind of bugging me). At this point, I believe that the article fully complies with the Good Article Criteria, and I am happy to pass it. Congratulations! You clearly worked very hard on this article, and should be quite happy with how it turned out. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice! I'm now a few years out of college so I no longer have easy access to the almanac easily but I may make a search of my library system and see what's sitting around for it. Really appreciate the thorough review and thanks for working through the kinks with me! Nomader (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)