This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The first paragraph of the announcement section discusses the Civil Rights Act, which passed in July 1964. This was several months after Goldwater started his campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The intent was to discuss Goldwater's objection to the act, which had been initially called for in June 1963. Johnson, shortly after JFK's death, encouraged Congress to pass the bill. Goldwater's opposition during this time period (not only of the '64 bill but federal civil rights legislation in general) was the primary driver of his rise in popularity in the south. We can reword if necessary. Tyrol5[Talk] 18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Then it should be discussed from that perspective. Discussion of the impact of the actual passage would be better placed in the general election section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/ William. It would be better to discuss the proposal of the Act (as it was at the time of Goldwater's announcement) in that section rather than the passage of it. Since the actual passage didn't take place until several months after Goldwater announced his candidacy, mention of the passage may confuse or mislead readers, though that clearly was not the intent.--JayJasper (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see many issues here. I went through and checked for spelling and grammar issues, and fixed a couple words. I also added wikilinks to a couple words. You should go through the article again to make sure that any word that a general reader may want to look up is linked (I linked "Midwest" and "front-runner", for example).
Too many sources for me to check individually, but a thorough scan of them doesn't raise any red flags for me. All appear to be reliable enough. The OR question-mark is related to the neutrality comment below.
Done I've addressed the neutrality/OR concern. Tyrol5[Talk] 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The use of the terms "far right wing" and "right wing" may be appropriate, but they should be supported by the references. In the first use of "far right wing", I checked the supporting ref (St. Petersburg Times), and could not find the term. So it's WP:OR from my reading. Go through the article and make sure instances of this are checked.
Done Should be good to go. Tyrol5[Talk] 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problem here.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Several of the campaign images have inadequate fair-use rationales: make sure that the copyright holder is specified for non-free images. All images require alt-text. Please improve some of the captions for the images. Rather than just saying "Nelson Rockefeller, c...", give a caption which clearly states the relationship of the image's subject to the article's text.
YPartly done I've added alt-text to all of the images and expanded the captions. Which images specifically had insufficient FUR's? Tyrol5[Talk] 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The campaign slogan images do not show who the original copyright holder is. The same is true of the Reagan "time for choosing" image. You might ask an editor who specializes in non-free images to take a look at them. I think increasing the specifics of the fair-use rationale for the Reagan image will be enough for GA, but for FAC, you may need more for the other non-free images.AstroCog (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Done I've expanded the fair-use rationale for the Reagan image, and will address the slogan images before FAC. Tyrol5[Talk] 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Overall: Not many issues. This article is very close to GA status. I'll put it on hold for 7 days.
Improvements made to fix issues. Article will be promoted.
Thank you, Astrocog, for your comprehensive and helpful review of the article. Tyrol5[Talk] 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem. If you found the review helpful, please help review Good Article Nominations, particularly for this month's backlog elimination drive. AstroCog (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality and lack of serious historical sources
I'm reading Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party by Geoffrey Kabaservice right now. It's about the ideological right turn in the GOP that started in the 1960s. I was curious about how this would be described here on Wikipedia, and I was very surprised that virtually none of it was mentioned in the GA on Goldwater's campaign.
According to Kabaservice, who has based his work on interviews, archive material, contemporary newspapers and other political histories, there was an extremely bitter contest between moderates and conservatives for control over party control. The conservative wing is described as polarizing minority at the time that pushed through Goldwater as a nominee by more or less wholesome organizational maneuvering and by isolating moderates at the '64 RNC. His candidacy is described as a complete disaster for Republicans, not just nationally, by locally, and a major step in the direction of making the GOP a distinctly ideology-based party with less room for moderates.
This perspective is basically absent in this article and from what I can see, it is quite partial to Goldwater's political views, even to the extent of smoothing over his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act by pointing to his own underlying ideological motives. From what I've read in Rule and Ruin his vote against the Act, and many other of Goldwater's views, were seen as political poison by many Republicans, and was what caused the catastrophic results in the elections. Yet the article describes it more as a long term victory by pointing to the establishment of a far right wing Republican party in the Deep South, even though the losses in other areas and minorities were far more serious.
How do we fix this, and how does it reflect on the article's GA status?
I prefer not to mess about with GAs in any major way based on only one book and minimal previous knowledge of the topic, even if I might have suspicions that it's off the mark. I'm trying to solicit discussion about this, since I assume that 1960s U.S. political history might also be somewhat controversial. You know, consensus-building and all that.
You seem to have experience with writing about presidential campaigns, William, and I gather that you've helped with this article. Do you have any thoughts on the topic?