Talk:Dewey–Stassen debate

Dewey–Stassen debate is currently a Politics and government good article nominee. Nominated by Thebiguglyalien (talk) at 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: 1948 United States presidential debate

A fact from Dewey–Stassen debate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 January 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first modern U.S. presidential debate between Thomas E. Dewey and Harold E. Stassen (pictured) in 1948 was heard by approximately 40 million people?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/January.

Wikipedia

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dewey–Stassen debate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. This a very interesting event I've never heard of. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Cites all sources using SFNs.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All citations are to books from reputed publishers.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 9.9%.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are clearly related to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial comments

Two of the photos (Dewey with his supporters and Dewey accepting the nomination) are sourced to the Bettman Archive via Getty Images, but Getty Images does not list them as being public domain. Have you verified that these photos were published without copyright notices?

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Both candidates gave a 20-minute speech on his position, and ~~after both had spoken,~~ they were both given 8+1⁄2 minutes for rebuttal. since the word "rebuttal" implies it came after.
Stassen's political career effectively ended in 1948 but the article only says it began to decline in 1948.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Link "delegates" to United States Electoral College, in case readers don't know the concept.
Stassen again took advantage of Dewey's itinerary in Nebraska feels like unnecessary phrasing. The rest of the sentence is clear enough.
I've made some minor copyedits myself throughout the article.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing a debate

You say "most recent Gallup poll" but don't say what that's relative to.
as Stassen's height and build made him an imposing figure next to Dewey. Dewey stood 5 feet 8 inches, compared to Stassen's 6 feet 3 inches. → as Stassen's build, at 5 feet 8 inches, made him an imposing figure next to Dewey, at 6 feet 3 inches.
Stassen ~~reportedly~~ told Swafford

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to outlaw the Communist Party

floated the idea → first brought up the idea as it feels like an unneeded idiom.
He argued that it did not violate the constitution to criminalize attempts to overthrow the United States government, and he cited the Guarantee Clause to justify the constitutionality of his position. → He cited the Guarantee Clause to justify the constitutionality of criminalizing attempts to overthrow the United States government.
fewer than 50 technicians and campaign aides. Also present was the press, 24 members in the room and 62 more observing from the next room through a window. → fewer than 50 technicians and campaign aides, as well as 24 members of the press, with 62 more observing from the next room through a window.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debate

Stassen's four questions would be more clear as a direct quote.
I think a statement like giving him an air of authenticity is more of an opinion and should probably say something like "which audiences perceived as..."

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Stassen made himself vulnerable to accusations of extremism feels like unclear phrasing. It would be more direct to say that he did receive accusations of extremism.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]