Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Report of 1800
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.
Report of 1800 edit
Recently created, trying to get it to FA while it is still fresh in my mind. Thanks for any comments. Selfnom. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very very nice. I fixed a couple of things here and there, but I had two questions. The first question I had was whether Spencer Roane's quote capitalized "republicans" or not. The second was whether it was necessary to consider "Report" as a proper noun in so many places (e.g. the lede), or whether the remaining uncapitalized occurrences of "report" should be capitalized. Otherwise, great article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and capitalized it everywhere. The Roane quote is accurate to the source from which I took it; I would assume that either he is deliberately conflating small-r republicanism with big-r Republicanism, or that it is simply an example of the fact that they didn't care much about spelling at the time. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and capitalized it everywhere. The Roane quote is accurate to the source from which I took it; I would assume that either he is deliberately conflating small-r republicanism with big-r Republicanism, or that it is simply an example of the fact that they didn't care much about spelling at the time. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After reading through the article, the prose is of high-quality, it is well-referenced with reliable sources, and it is comprehensive. CloudNine 12:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well-written and appears comprehensive. I would, however, move the alternative names of the report into the lead rather than leaving them in the footnotes. Karanacs 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nicely done, and in a short time, too. bd2412 T 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Excellent. Though I have some comments from the beginning of the Argument section:
- "The first major goal of the Resolutions was to bring about the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts though a groundswell of public opposition expressed through the state legislatures." do you mean through a groundswell? this phrase could be stronger.
- and "Contrary to the Sedition Act, the federal government had no power to protect officials from dissent or libelous attack, excepting the protection it accorded to every citizen"... excepting?
- I really enjoyed reading this.-BillDeanCarter 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point was definitely an error and has been corrected. The second point I am not sure what your concern is, but feel free to clarify the statement however you wish. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't it be "expecting"? — BQZip01 — talk 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No... Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't it be "expecting"? — BQZip01 — talk 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point was definitely an error and has been corrected. The second point I am not sure what your concern is, but feel free to clarify the statement however you wish. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weakly oppose I'd like to see some references in the first paragraph of the Background section. Otherwise, pretty well-written! — BQZip01 — talk 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What statements do you feel are likely to be challenged? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much a matter of what will be challenged as I would like to know where the assertions came from: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Where do I go to verify it? You have statements that I don't know not to be true (a bit of a double negative there), but I have no way of knowing the given information. "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." For example:
- What statements do you feel are likely to be challenged? Christopher Parham (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Madison, a member of the Republican Party, was elected to the Republican-dominated Virginia General Assembly from Orange County in 1799." No major problems here, but a reference would be helpful and easy to find on google.com.
- "A major item on his agenda was the defense of his 1798 Virginia Resolutions." A very specific claim that should be documented. How major was it? Why was it major?
- "The Resolutions, usually discussed together with Thomas Jefferson's contemporaneous Kentucky Resolutions, were a response to various perceived outrages perpetrated by the Federalist-dominated national government." Usually? when weren't they discussed? When were they discussed. Why were they discussed? Who discussed them? Where? Is "contemporaneous" necessary or appropriate (how about "comtemporary")? What were the Kentucky Resolutions? Federalist-dominated national government needs a reference. Again, specific details, but no source.
- "The most significant of these were the Alien and Sedition Acts, four laws that allowed the President to deport aliens at will, required a longer period of residence before aliens could become citizens, and made it a crime to publish malicious or defamatory material against the government or its officials."
- Why were they the most significant? Again, specific claims, but no source. "...and made it a crime to publish..." way too wordy; rephrase: "...and criminalized malicious or defamatory material..."
- There is a difference between criminalizing malicious or defamatory material and criminalizing its publication. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Republicans were outraged by the legislation..." Which ones? source for this claim?
- "...and Madison and Jefferson had orchestrated the passage of highly critical resolutions through the Virginia and Kentucky state legislatures." Passive voice; delete "had". Which resolutions did they orchestrate? Specific claim, no source.
- Again, this is just an example of what I am talking about. Please make similar changes throughout. I am not saying that this article is bad. merely that it doesn't yet represent the best Wikipedia has to offer. — BQZip01 — talk 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added one footnote to clarify a point and provide some historical detail. The rest seems to be pretty basic history, and certainly common knowledge in the field. In general such common knowledge is not footnoted in the text as it is unlikely to be challenged. As to the last point, the resolutions they orchestrated are the resolutions that are being discussed in the paragraph. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then make it clear "...orchestrated the passage of these highly critical resolutions..." Basic for those in the field, fine, but this is supposed to be accessible by all. Consider your audience. — BQZip01 — talk 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added one footnote to clarify a point and provide some historical detail. The rest seems to be pretty basic history, and certainly common knowledge in the field. In general such common knowledge is not footnoted in the text as it is unlikely to be challenged. As to the last point, the resolutions they orchestrated are the resolutions that are being discussed in the paragraph. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.