Talk:Federalist No. 29/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 17:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Patrick Welsh (talk · contribs) 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs), I realize that I should tag you so you know that someone has started this review. The article looks to be in good shape, but I do have a few suggestions for improvement that you will find below. Should you be busy over the holiday season, just let me know; I would have no problem putting this on hold. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Welsh I've replied to each point below. Let me know if any of them could use further elaboration or changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I'm going to use this as a space for general comments.

• Should the article explain the pseudonyms Publius and Cato? Most people don't know Latin or know anything about Cato (except that his name has been affixed to a prominent think-tank).

• Personally I think it's sufficient that those are the names they used. The main Federalist Papers article could go into depth about that if it doesn't already.

• Hmm. I'm sure there have been very long discussions about this, and I have not read them. But I think that this and other articles on the individual Papers would benefit from boiler-plate description of what they are.

An alien-related analogy: I've recently been (re-)watching some of the X-Files and sometime looking at Wikipedia articles on (mostly GA) individual episodes. They reliably contain a paragraph describing the basic premise of the show—even though this is almost certainly familiar to anyone reading an article about an individual episode. But I do not think this level of familiarity with the Federalist Papers can be assumed among people directed to this article.

I know what the Federalist Papers are because I took AP Government in the U.S. and because I sometimes read history books for fun. But this and other articles on the individual papers would benefit from a paragraph of context so that they can stand on their own. The danger of repetition seems worth it to me: it's easier to skim past familiar information than it is to follow a wikilink to another longer article.

Also, although young dudes are apparently really into Ancient Rome these days, I doubt that the average reader is familiar with the difference between the Republic, for the sake of which Cato fell on his own sword, and the Empire featured in major motion pictures.

What I mean is that for this particular case, the origin of the pseudonym is trivia that doesn't help with the understanding of Federalist No. 29. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I concede that going into the origin of the pseudonyms would probably be trivia in this case. I guess the significance of the names for me was their connection to the larger political and philosophical context, which, for the Framers, had strong ties to the Roman Republic.

This article is linked by 158 other articles. Some readers not going to have any concept of what this debate was and how it was carried out. I think it would benefit from even just a little bit more here—even if interested readers should obviously visit the main article for a more complete picture.

What about adding a one-paragraph version of The_Federalist_Papers#Origins to Federalist_No._29#Background_and_publication? Also, should this section also appear before the synopsis? That would make more sense to me just in terms of article flow, but feel free to disregard if you disagree or there's something in the MOS governing the order.

Anyways, I'm not going to flunk it on the basis of just this editorial suggestion. I'll wait for your response here, and then give it one more read. Patrick (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Posse comitatus" should probably be in italics as a foreign-language term. It should also be defined in the article so that readers do not need to follow a wikilink to learn what it means. (I, for one, did not know.)

• Italicized and specified "to raise a citizen militia"

• It would be good to have a sentence or so saying who Hamilton is. Probably everyone reading is familiar with him, but some would benefit from a reminder of his specific significance.

• Added "a Founding Father of the United States". Let me know if you had something more specific in mind.

• Paradise Lost also merits some kind of descriptive identification.

• Described it as an epic poem.

More specifically about Lucifer and the Fall?

Added which tells the story of Lucifer's fall and rearranged it a bit so that flows with the sentence. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Should some context be provided upon mention of the Anti-Federalist Papers?

• Added "which argued against ratification of the constitution"

1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   • Levinson, Sanford (November 24, 2015). An Argument Open to All: Reading "The Federalist" in the 21st Century. Yale University Press. pp. 104–108. passes spot-check. (I don't love the polemical tone, but it more than meets WP:RS requirements.)

• I'm not a fan either, but it's also had some of the most useful information I've found for these articles.

1. • Scott, Kyle (2013). The Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. p. 95. checks out.
   • Seimers, David J. (2020). "Publius and the Anti-Federalists". In Rakove, Jack N.; Sheehan, Colleen A. (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to the Federalist Papers. Cambridge University Press. pp. 24–26. checks out. The title of the volume, however, does not include "Papers". It's just "The Cambridge Companion to The Federalist".

   • Oh dear. I have copied and pasted this reference so many times. I already plan on going through and doing some housekeeping on all of the Federalist Papers articles I've written so far, I guess I'll add this to the list. In the meantime, I've fixed it here.

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   This is not required for GA, but some of the citations include page numbers inside them and some appear in the superscript after a colon. It would be nice to have a consistent format.

   My thought process was that most of the sources only use one or two pages so it doesn't warrant Sfn, but there are a few where page numbers need to be specified. Since Rp is intrusive on the text, I applied it minimally where necessary.

Some page ranges appear in superscript and some appear only on mouse-over. The article would look cleaner with just one or the other (my preference being for the latter, or for sfn templates—but, as you know, this is not a GA requirement).

1. B. 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):

   I read the text of the Paper against the Summary section and find it to be faithfully represented. Other sections are appropriately supported by HQRS.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Passes Earwig with flying colors.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. 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:

   Images are in the public domain and pertinent to the article.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The Paradise Lost image is quite hard to make out in thumbnail form. Is there possibly another demon image that would look better at such a small scale? Also, I would include a parenthetical credit indicating artist, title, and year.

   I'm not happy with this image either. I looked through the subcategories of commons:Category:Paradise Lost, and this was the best depiction of Paradise Lost demons I could find. I'd love to find a better image for the article, whether it be the demons or something else, but I spent a lot of time looking through them when writing this and didn't have much luck. In the meantime, I've added the parenthetical.

What about this one: [1]? It's been more than 20 years since I've read the book, but I dimly recall Beelzebub being fairly prominent—and Satan pretty much steals the whole show.

Works for me. Cropped and added, though it isn't clear who produced this particular image so it doesn't have a parenthetical. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the artist either. This [2] is the result of a reverse image search. But this [3] is as much detail as I could find. If you can find anything more, that would be great, but I'm going pass the article on this criterion. Patrick (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: