Talk:Johnson desk/GA1

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Found5dollar (talk · contribs) 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: DrOrinScrivello (talk · contribs) 14:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to review this article as part of the ongoing GA backlog drive. I'm a fairly new reviewer, so a more experienced reviewer will be by eventually to make sure I did everything correctly. I've already read through the article and on a first pass it seems like it's already well on its way to GA status. I'll be starting the review with a source spot check then I'll get into the prose. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside DrOrinScrivello, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Source review

I'll be reviewing ref numbers 1, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 20, 23, 26, and 28, as of this revision. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

1: The article says A central foot stretcher was originally upholstered with leather, but the source says the foot stretcher is upholstered in leather. Has something happened to the leather since?

I worded it this way because in the images of the desk from Johnson's time in office and in the museum you can not see a foot stretcher. I have no source to say if it was removed or covered, but i do have a source saying how it looked when first created, i used that word "originally" to show what is sourced.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Y Fair enough. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

4: Y Good

6: Y Good

12: The article says Johnson did not move into the Oval Office for several days, possibly at the request of Robert Kennedy, but the source says Johnson maintained that Robert Kennedy kept him out of the Oval Office for "several days". The source's wording, along with the context later in the paragraph suggesting Johnson's overtures to the Kennedys were "rejected", makes it seem harsher than a "request". I'd suggest a slight re-word or maybe including the "kept him out" in quotes and mentioning it was Johnson who suspected it.

I used the softer wording because, legally speaking, once Johnson was sworn in the Kennedy's had no standing to order or even request anything from Johnson. the quotes in the article say "President Johnson did not move into the Oval Office for several days." and "Johnson maintained that Robert Kennedy kept him out of the Oval Office for "several days." The only fact here is that Johnson did not move in and he claims it was because of Robert Kennedy. I have changed the article to say After President John F. Kennedy's assassination, Johnson did not move into the Oval Office for several days. Johnson claimed that Robert Kennedy "kept him out" of the office for this time.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Y Looks good to me. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

13: Y Good

Second half to come. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

18: I think I'd like to see a little clearer attribution here – Dallek writes According to one journalist who knew him beginning in 1957, Lyndon had what amounted to a harem. I think the fact that he's quoting a journalist should be mentioned, and "harem" should probably go in quotes. additional attribution should be given for the last quote in the paragraph (see the User:GA-RT-22's comments section at the bottom of this page for context).

I added a sentence for the further attribution. it now is During Johnson's presidency he was known for having extramarital affairs with what Robert Dallek in his book Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and His Times called a harem of women. Dallek was referencing a journalist who knew Johnson since 1937 with this remark. and Dallek describes an encounter Johnson had with an unnamed White House secretary who claimed they had "casual sex on an office desk." I think this covers the issues brought up.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Y Looks good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

20: Y Good

23: Y Unfortunately the link in this citation is dead, but I was able to find the referenced conversation at this site and verified the quote. I recommend updating the cite.

added archived link--Found5dollar (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Y Good DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

26: Y Good

28: N The cited link is a 2015 announcement of the TV movie without any stated release date, and can't be used to verify the 2016 release.

Added an additional cite stating the day it premiered from the day after it premiered.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Y Looks good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

These are mostly minor issues that should be easy enough to fix. I see no reason not to continue with the prose review, which will follow shortly. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Y All verifiability issues have been resolved. An Earwig search brought back only proper nouns and phrases covered by WP:LIMITED, and the source check showed no reasons for copyvio concerns. Article passes Criteria #2. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose review

I went ahead and made a few small, hopefully uncontroversial edits for some grammar and an MOS fix. The following are general comments about the prose and breadth; I'll be including a few suggestions that aren't part of the GA criteria, and you can implement or ignore those as you see fit. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead

I'll be doing the lead last to make sure any adjustments made to the body are properly reflected here.

• Coming back to this following the rest of the prose review, I wish the lead were a little bit more fleshed out but I can't pinpoint anything specific that needs to be added. Maybe a little about the desk's design? If you can identify a way to fill it out some, great, but the GA won't hinge on it.

added Each pedestal of the desk contains two writing slides, three drawers, a hinged door cabinet, and sits on four bun feet. and moved a little bit around to fit this in.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• The "currently" statement in the final sentence either needs an {{as of}} template, or to be reworded to make sure it can't go out of date (e.g. "Following Johnson's presidency, the desk was relocated to...")

Added your wording suggestion--Found5dollar (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Design and markings

• Built in 1909 This isn't really necessary in the 'Design' section and doesn't fit as an introduction to a sentence about the mirrored aspect of the desk's design.

removed--Found5dollar (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Senate years

• The first sentence is clunky and hard to parse. I recommend starting with "The Johnson desk was designed by... and built by... under contract to...", and then as either a separate clause or a separate sentence, say "[and] it was one of 125 identical desks constructed for the Russell Senate Office Building" or something thereabouts.

changed to The Johnson desk was designed by Thomas D. Wadelton, a New York cabinetmaker, and built by S. Karpen and Bros. in Chicago under contract with George W. Cobb, Jr. It was one of 125 identical desks constructed for the Russell Senate Office Building.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• and was created to alleviate overcrowding "created" is an odd word for a building. Suggest "built" or "constructed".

switched to "constructed"--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• The new structure provided 98 new suites Either nix the second "new" or substitute "additional".

Switched to "additional"--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• According to the Senate, besides the desk this set included Substitute "in addition to" for "besides"

switched to "in addition to"--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• one set for each of the Senators from the then 46 states I think this sounds better as "the then-extant" or "the then-existing". This may just be personal preference though.

Switched to "then-existing"--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Many of the pieces continue to be used in Senate offices to this day. This needs an {{as of}} template, and couldn't be dated any later than the publication date of the source.

changed to As of November 2020, Many of the pieces continued to be in use.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Johnson had the room refurbished in vibrant colors and it picked up the nickname "Taj Mahal". I feel like some context would be helpful for someone unfamiliar with the Taj Mahal. Either an explanatory clause or at least a wikilink.

added a wikilink--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• forcing the then majority leader, Mike Mansfield, Suggest "the majority leader at the time"

Updated to your suggestion.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Oval Office

Back at it. I've made some more small changes in the article, and what's left are mostly re-phrasings for clarity in the prose. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• When he entered the Oval Office, a series of changes were made to the room that were planned by Jacqueline Kennedy, but not completed until that point due to updates to an air-conditioning system, including a new red rug and white drapes. Move the "including a new red rug and white drapes" in between "room" and "that" and set off by commas, change "were planned" to "had been planned", and remove the comma after "Kennedy".

Updated per your suggestions--Found5dollar (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Juanita Roberts, chief personal secretary to President Johnson, spoke about the transition of objects into and out of the Oval Office when Johnson assumed the presidency in a 1969 oral history interview. The "in a 1969 oral history interview" needs to come earlier in the sentence. Probably works best to begin the sentence with it, or put it after "spoke".

Moved to after "spoke"--Found5dollar (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Post-presidency

• Johnson called Gordon Bunshaft, the architect for the forthcoming Johnson Library and Museum, on October 10, 1968, to discuss the presidential library he was designing and his desire to have the Johnson desk moved to it. Similar issue here with "on October 10, 1968" - this should probably open the sentence.

Moved to the beginign of the sentence.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• De-link Mike Mansfield, he's linked already in 'Senate years'

Done--Found5dollar (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Besides this desk the museum holds... Substitute "Aside from" for "Besides"

Done--Found5dollar (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Replicas

• I know it's linked, but I'd still like some context in the article about All the Way and why the replicas are used. Just a sentence like, "The play depicts Johnson's efforts..." similar to the opening sentence in the play's article should suffice.

added This play dramatizes Johnson's first year as president with the first act chronicling Johnson's work to achieve the Civil Rights Act and the second act centering Johnson's struggle to be reelected.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

That's all for the body. I'm going to revisit the lead then add a comment or two about breadth of coverage. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Breadth

• I find myself wanting more of the desk's history, particularly during LBJ's presidency, but I imagine the lack of material in the article is simply due to a paucity of sources – there just hasn't been as much written about it as, say, the Resolute.

I am right there with you! There is a reason this is the last Oval Office desk to go through GA review. I have dug and dug and wish there was a more full history of this desk. I literally took a trip to Austin to see the desk myself and take pictures because of the lack of images of it. I check the Johnson Library website every few months as they are actively digitizing documents and I keep crossing my fingers more information will show up.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that the presidential library photo was your own work and wondered if you just happened to live close to it. I appreciate the dedication to improving the article! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I will say that I was surprised not to see Robert Caro's fantastic The Years of Lyndon Johnson used as a source. I don't imagine Caro spent multiple chapters on the desk or anything, and it's been too long since I've read it for me to remember, but I would think there'd be something of use. With that said, since I'm not sure it contains anything not already covered by the article, and since I don't expect you to pore through a four-volume behemoth of a biography for this review, I'm not holding its absence against you. I recommend giving it a read, though, should you find yourself with a spare few months of leisure reading time, and I'll look for a few desk-related terms in its index the next time I lay hands on it. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried looking into that book series but it was just so intimidating without a digitized copy I could search with keywords. I know my local library has a copy, maybe I will try taking it out again to see if I can find anything else out about the desk in it. In any case, I will add it in as a "further reading" to the article.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Great idea re: the further reading section. Hopefully one of us can work it into the article sometime soon. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Images

• Y All images and media are used appropriately and have proper license tags.

• This is a personal preference, but I think the lead photo's caption is too wordy for an introductory image. Can it be pared down at all? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I have tried pairing it down before, but I keep on going back to that the image needs this much context to understand what is going on. The easy part would be to remove "on the phone upon Robert Kennedy's death" but I feel that information contextualizes the image in a way the article would be worse off without. --Found5dollar (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, no worries. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

User:GA-RT-22's comments

The problem with quoting "harem" is that we don't know if that was the word the journalist used or if it was Dallek's interpretation of what the journalist said. Also, later in the same paragraph there is another similar attribution problem. We make it sound like Dallek is saying the casual sex on the desk actually happened, almost as if he witnessed it, when in fact he's saying that the secretary said it happened. (Are we supposed to intersperse our comments or put them at the end like this? Please move if necessary.) GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair point about putting harem in quotes, and good catch with the later quote. That should probably read with an unnamed White House secretary who claimed they had "casual sex on an office desk".

As for where comments go, typically with GA reviews the reviewer engages with the nominator, who responds to each issue in turn (usually indented under the reviewer's comment, from what I've seen). However, the GA FAQ page says everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, so I went ahead and divided this section off here for your input. I didn't notice until after starting the review that the nominator (courtesy ping to Found5dollar since I've yet to do so) hasn't been very active lately, but hopefully they'll be around soon. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Found5dollar's responses

DrOrinScrivello, Thank you for beginning this review. You caught me right at the end of my first semester on a tenure track and in the middle of a family health emergency. I will try to begin responding to your review tomorrow but please give me a little grace with response times. I look forward to working through this with you.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Found5dollar, absolutely no worries at all, I wasn't intending to rush you, and I'm sorry to hear about the family emergency. I'll likely finish adding my prose comments today, but take your time responding, I'm in no hurry. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

DrOrinScrivello, thank you for all your wonderful suggestions! I believe I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if there is anything else you see that needs addressing. --Found5dollar (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Found5dollar: All of the fixes look good, thanks for being open to the feedback and for helping craft a well-written article. With that, I believe that it meets all of the criteria to become a Good Article. In keeping with the rules of the ongoing GA backlog drive, I'm going to go ahead and ping IntentionallyDense so they can take a look and make sure everything's kosher before I make it official. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Things look good to me! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic. Well then, I think we're done here. Congratulations to Found5dollar and everyone else who contributed to this Good Article! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:48, 21 May 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.