Talk:Rubel Phillips/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems like quite the character. I'll get started on this review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The article would benefit from better transitions between sentences. For example, He served for four years, including duty in the Pacific Theater of World War II. He retained an officer's commission in the force until he completely retired from the navy with the rank of commander in 1963. He graduated from Millsaps College and the University of Mississippi School of Law. He married Margaret James and had two sons with her. Each of these sentences seems to exist on its own, unrelated to the others. I'm not going to hold the review on this, but it's something to keep in mind throughout the article. If two sentences in a row begin with "he", it might be worth combining them with a conjunction or another transition word.

Reworked some with a little more specific info on his marriage. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor wording changes of my own for readability. Feel free to review them or change them as you feel is necessary.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead mentions his death year twice. The last sentence of the lead should be expanded to elaborate on the place/cause of death or it should be removed.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Sources are presented appropriately.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
All sources appear reliable and all opinions/statistics are cited.

C. It contains no original research:
Spot checked the sources that are available online with one concern. The associated source does not mention that he opposed Kennedy, and I don't see any mention of the word "socialism". Maybe instead of socialism, the article could mention his invocation of Jeffersonian democracy.

"For more than a hundred years we have followed, with almost blind loyalty, the National Democratic Party, and today we find our country at the brink of socialism." Look at page 10A of the DeLuaghter article. It's hard to clip and cite multipage articles from newspapers.com with only a single url cite parameter, so the second clipping is easy to miss. -Indy beetle (talk)

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Passes WP:EARWIG test. Copyright notice on talk page is from three years ago and seems to have been resolved.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
A few areas that should be checked to see if more can be written:
Is there anything more that can be said of his military record? The article seems to skip over it. If there was nothing interesting, then it might not need to be mentioned in the lead.

Can't find anymore on his Navy service, so I've removed it from the lede.

Why did he oppose Kennedy? If possible, it might also be good to add a few words mentioning the significance of unpledged electors in the Mississippi election instead of voting for Nixon or voting directly for Byrd.

He declared in one campaign appearance, "I was born a segregationist, I am for segregation now, and I will be for segregation when I die." Does the source mention George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address? I get the impression that this is an allusion to Wallace's infamous line. Not important, but it would be a nice thing to add if that turns out to be the case.

Not confirmed by the source. It's possible, but such comments were fairly common during the time, even if Wallace's was the most famous. Even William F. Winter said in the 67 gubernatorial race, "I was born a segregationist and raised a segregationist. I have always defended that position. I defend it now."

Why did Phillips moderate his positions in his second gubernatorial campaign?

This is already explained. He wanted to replicate the success of moderate Republicans elsewhere in the South in the 1966 midterms. Crespino notes: "Of course, there was little alternative—few candidates short of a Klansman could have run to the right of Williams on civil rights." I've clarified that Williams was a segregationist.

Phillips also backed education reform, civil service reform, and right-to-work legislation. He opposed sales tax increases. Could more be said about this? I notice that the section for his second campaign has more detailed policy positions. Are they the same in both elections, or did his policies change?

Hathorn was being specific to each campaign, at least in how he presented this information. I imagine that aside from the race issue Phillips' proposals didn't change too much; things like keeping low taxes, opposing unions, and encouraging governmental reform were standard fare for a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the South at the time (Robert L. Gavin of North Carolina is a good example).

Why did the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party endorse him? I see the cited source doesn't go into detail. Does that information exist anywhere else?

Added that their stated reason was his call for reducing restrictions on black advancement, an allusion to his opening televised campaign speech. Phillips for his part alleged that they were bribed by his political opponents, since having the black people publicly behind you in the South in the 1960s was a good way to get all the white people to vote against you.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No unnecessary detail.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Do other commentators share Bill Minor's opinion on the party switch? If not, then it may be undue.

His opponent Paul B. Johnson Jr. felt similarly, as the article notes, saying Phillips ran as a Republican to get top billing in the election without having to slog his way through a crowded Democratic primary. Other than that, I haven't found too much discussion of Phillips' motives. Somewhat outside of what sources explicitly discuss, Minor's assertion doesn't seem far fetched, considering Phillips' complete ideological flip-flop on race from 1963 to 1967 in an effort to win votes. Also, while researching this article, I found speculation like this and this in the press from several years before the elections speculating that Phillips wanted to run for governor, and that he would be facing formidable opponents to get the nomination. None of these observers apparently anticipated that he would run as a Republican until right around he declared his party switch, see this from September 1962 where Emmerich explicitly anticipates Phillips running as a Democrat. Despite his defense of the Republican Party's conservatism -especially in the Goldwater wing- and his argument for some free market changes like disbanding the Milk Commission, the notion that he had long wanted to run for governor and simply saw the GOP as the best way to get there doesn't seem a fringe idea. Bill Minor was also the preeminent political journalist in Mississippi for decades, so it's harder to count his opinion as UNDUE more so than some of his less influential contemporaries, though he was a Democrat for his entire life and supported civil rights and opportunities for blacks long before other whites in the Deep South did, so he may have thought that Phillips was cynical and self-serving by switching parties and his platform on race as it suited his political career.

Would it be possible to add a bit more in the article to show it wasn't just one person's view? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Johnson (who's rhetoric is already mention), I haven't found anything that could really be added here. If it's much trouble I can remove it. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be fine as long as it's attributed. The important thing is that it doesn't misrepresent the sources, and I'm satisfied that it doesn't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
All recent edits are by nominator. No recent discussions on talk page.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One image, public domain.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image is of subject, but it is not captioned. I see that the image page says it is from 1957. Do we know if this was when the image was taken or if it's just when the source was published?

1957 is the date of publishing.
If we don't know when the portrait was created, then no caption is necessary per WP:CAPLENGTH. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Article approaches GA criteria. It has one example of original research and there are a few topics that warrant a search to see if sources exist for them. I'll hold the review so they can be addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the concerns have now been addressed, either through changes or an evaluation of the sources. To finish up the review, I added a few words to the lead to provide context. The only major concern was criterion 3, but as the information does not appear to exist in reliable sources, these concerns no longer apply. With that, I can say that this article passes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or Fail: