Talk:Proclamation 4483/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA review

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I should have my starting comments up within a day or two. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The lead will be up first:

Lead

• Not convinced it's appropriate or beneficial to use the "click to read full document" parenthetical in the caption of File:Federal Register 1977-01-24- Vol 42 Iss 15 (IA sim federal-register-find 1977-01-24 42 15 7).pdf. You'd be better off just mentioning how it's the cover sheet of this pardon.
• I would link to 1976 United States presidential election instead of "1976 United States elections" (which surprisingly is a separate page).
• "the second Nixon administration"..... I'd link to the main Richard Nixon article and go with "Richard Nixon's second term of office" or maybe "the second term of Richard Nixon's presidency". We shouldn't assume all readers know who Nixon is, especially those outside of the United States.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Legal precedent

• Don't hide "American" when linking the American Civil War per WP:NOPIPE. Keep in mind that other countries have had their own civil wars, and non-Americans might first think of other places when hearing the term.
• Per WP:REPCITE, there's no need to use citations more than once in a row within a paragraph, so the first paragraph only has to implement ref#1 at the end of "granting the president the power to issue blanket pardons and amnesties".
• When the case of Knote v. United States doesn't have or appear to warrant its own page, WP:REDNOT discourages such linking
• Almost every sentence from the third paragraph starts with "The", which feels repetitive, so I recommend revising for some variation.

Up next will be the "Draft evasion in the Vietnam War" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft evasion in the Vietnam War

• "incredibly controversial" → "highly controversial"
• Link the instance of Vietnam War used in this section's first paragraph instead of the second
• The use of "disproportionately" from "disproportionately consisted of racial minorities" feels inappropriate when the term carries a negative connotation

Amnesty debate

• You've misused "but" within "but he lost the election"; it's not like George McGovern's support for amnesty affected his choice to run in 1972
• When mentioning Richard Nixon for the 1972 election, his victory and Republican party affiliation should be added, especially when it seems the text on Nixon is meant to show his contrasts with McGovern and the Democratic party
• "The clemency program received multiple extensions until its closure on March 31, 1975"..... when was this initially scheduled to end?

I ended up getting more done than I expected for this batch. When the "Jimmy Carter's position" section looks larger from a glance, that might just be all my next set of comments focuses on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's position

• No copyright issues with File:Carter on campaign.jpg
• "disproportionately poor men"..... see my above comments on the use of "disproportionately"
• Don't use italics for "amnesty", "blanket pardons", or "pardons"
• For the same rationale I gave on Nixon contrasts, let's add how Gerald Ford was a Republican too with Carter being established as a Democrat (and I forgot to mention before how placing the party affiliation in "Amnesty debate" would also be fine)

Overall, the chances of this passing its nomination look good so far. When I return to assess "Executive order", it might also include the rest of the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Executive Order

• More WP:REPCITE in the first paragraph; ref#8 doesn't have to be placed at the end of its first sentence when already contained within "through Executive Order 11967" from the second sentence.
• What exactly constitutes a "less-than-honorable discharge"? Merely giving a link within the prose doesn't help clarify how it differs from an "honorable discharge".
• Try not to start consecutive sentences with the same word; the last two of the second paragraph begin with "it" and that feels repetitive.

Sorry for the delay, but my next batch of comments will be the final one when going through "Aftermath" and the rest of this page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Without further ado, let's finish this off!

Aftermath

• See my above question on discharges being "less-than-honorable"
• "mostly come to an end" → "mostly ended"
• Is it known whether the bill from Cranston and Thurmond had a name? If so, then I would implement that.

Notes

• This section's title is misleading; it would be more appropriate for in-text notes instead of citations implemented within the prose

References

• NPR shouldn't have italics

Overall

• Prose: Could use improvements
• Referencing: While a bit of formatting needs correction, all references appear credible
• Coverage: Some elaboration on the parts I mentioned before would be nice
• Neutrality: Almost there
• Stability: Nothing of concern
• Media: One of the images used has questionable presentation
• Verdict: This nomination will be placed on hold for seven days. It should be adequate time to address everything I wrote in the review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

  SNUGGUMS, I was unable to find information about the clemency program's original end date or the existence of any official title for the Cranston Thurmond bill. Notes/References is probably the most common way to sort this citation style and is encouraged by MOS:NOTES. NPR is italicized automatically by the citation template, but I'm not too worried about a minor detail like this since minor formatting and style details aren't part of the GAN process anyway. All other suggested changes have been made, minor or otherwise. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• FYI you can use "agency" or "publisher" fields to avoid the automatic italics that "work" provides, and after making some minor adjustments, I'll pass the nomination now. Very good work! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.