Jump to content

Talk:Federalist No. 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Federalist No. 9/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave these comments on the talk page but figured why not do the review. Also I had seen No. 9 on the 2024 Yale Directed Studies syllabus—so just a tiny little bit more clout in the shadow of No. 10. :)

Structure

[edit]

These would likely apply to the whole Federalist Papers series so starting by asking for my edification because I'm sure you've had these a few times already:

  • Shouldn't the beginning of the lede explain what the essay is about? Seems to wait until the second paragraph to explain what the essay is.
    • I usually have a sentence explaining the premise in the first paragraph, it looks like I forgot to write one here. Added.
  • Some background would be helpful for a general reader/breadth to understand why these were written, how they function as a series, what role they played in ratification. Given the niche topic, as a reader, I expected to read a Background section to explain its context before going into the Summary.
    • I figured that "to explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it" was sufficient for the individual articles, leaving details for the main article.
      • Since these are standalone articles, they should contain everything the reader needs to know about the topic (hence the "standalone"). I don't think it needs to be much but to understand the motivation for writing, the process of writing, the effect of the writing, those are all within scope of a standalone subarticle. (For example, American pavilion § Background sections on all the national pavilions at the Venice Biennale articles gives background that the reader shouldn't be expected to know as background so that the rest of the article makes sense.) I would think this would be part of GA breadth for setting up the reader. czar 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What level of depth are you thinking? Does it need to get into what the constitution is and where it came from? Like I said, I'm satisfied with the statement that it was an argument to ratify the constitution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article treats #9 as a standalone noteworthy entity, so what is the origin of that entity? General details akin to what The Federalist Papers' lede would contain if completed, e.g., that it was part of a rapid-fire defense of the Constitution's federalist approach in response to the Anti-Federalist Papers; these were published in New York to persuade NY to ratify it (already included); that Hamilton architected the series and didn't write all of them, but did write this one, that Publius was a pseudonym shared by the group (already included), that the Papers likely had negligble impact, etc. That's just me cribbing from the main article but the gist is that there's basic background that someone reading this #9 article alone would need to know to fully understand #9. It doesn't need to get into what the Constitution is, just like it doesn't need to get into Hamilton's biography, but it should discuss Hamilton's motivations and process in his capacity as #9's author because that's basic breadth about #9 as a standalone entity. czar 03:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            czar I went back to the Library of Congress source to expand the background a little. It now specifies that the publication came out of the Constitutional Convention and that Hamilton was not the only author of The Federalist Papers. I don't feel comfortable trying to cover how much impact the Federalist Papers had as a whole, as that could vary between essays. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.e., the current section infers that Hamilton was Publius rather than that being a communal pseudonym.
  • Why did Hamilton get this topic?
    • I've never seen any explanation of why they each wrote about what they did, or really considered that they might be "assigned". My understanding is that they each brought their own ideas.
  • Are there no reliable, secondary references to source the Summary? It seems like much of the Analysis covers the core of the Summary, so I would expect sources to be available for the Summary.
    • It would be inconsistent. If only the parts thoroughly described or repeated in secondary sources were included, each one would likely have a few gaps.
      • Inconsistent across articles in the series or inconsistent here? czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Inconsistent here. For example, the essay itself might cover A, B, C, D, and E. Then the first source I check will discuss A, C, and B in that order, then the next one will discuss B and E, and so on. Having the summary be its own thing like this lets it flow continuously. 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
          • Without sources, these summary sections commonly become free-for-alls with drive-by edits adding whatever detail they choose to make prominent. If you have the sources, adding direct secondary source references prevents this. This is only my suggestion, as it's debated whether this counts as "plot summary" per GA criteria 2b. czar 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Aftermath the best description of that section? Reads more as Response or Legacy. Most of its contents are not fallout or consequences.
    • I've always been hesitant about titling sections like this "aftermath", but the alternatives don't sound right to me either. "Legacy" could work, but that still doesn't feel like it quite encapsulates everything.
      • It would give better shaping to the section, i.e., if it's not an aspect of Legacy, then is it worth including or trivia? czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can change it to "Legacy" if you think that's preferable, but my approach is to include everything deemed relevant in the sources about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't "Aftermath" so I suggest an alternative. As for the whole source, this #9 article is already a niche topic so it's fine to include the more prominent places where it is mentioned as part of its influence but I recommend discussing those mentions in detail rather than as simple statements. That becomes the difference between it being trivia and an acknowledgement. For instance, I'm not sure what the reader gets from the Heath v. Alabama reference (doesn't explain how #9 added value apart from being mentioned). If it must be mentioned, it would be fine to say it was invoked in the case, but even then, it's trivia unless it's making a point about the work's effects (or legacy). That Hamilton repeated his belief in Lycia as the ideal republic in #16 matters not to #9 and doesn't enrich the reader here (maybe it belongs in #16?). I'd consider this part of the breadth criterion (WP:GACR3b). czar 14:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've changed it to "Legacy". I also added "offering a more refined version of the argument" for the reference to #16, as that's the reference point the source uses to indicate their relevance to one another. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it" What provisions did #9 explain?
    • The answer to your question would likely be some or all of Article Four, but the sources don't usually linger on what specific text of the constitution it's covering.
  • Wouldn't a scan of the first edition text be a more appropriate infobox image to identify the subject?
  • Some sources appear to italicize Federalist in "Federalist No. 9" but not the numbers. What's the thinking behind not italicizing here?
    • Maybe I'm mistaken, but I see it as a style preference that could go either way.
      • Agreed but then what is the logic we're following? My first read was that "Federalist" is short for "The Federalist Papers" and would still be italicized as a creative work. But if "Federalist No. 9" is an essay title, then I'd expect it to show in double quotations and not italics or without quotations. czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I checked how each of the main sources does it, and yes, it looks like italicizing Federalist is the most common standard. I've made this change to the article (including the DISPLAYTITLE), and at some point I'll go through the other ones. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text

[edit]
  • Lede: No. 9 was "the eighth of The Federalist Papers" where is this sourced?
    • In the article I pasted this from before editing it. Oops!
  • "He criticizes those who think that republics are not feasible" how? If summarizing his argument rather than giving a blow-by-blow, as a reader I'm generally looking to understand his main points for and against.
    • I added the developments he cites to support his argument.
  • "too large for this to be an effective argument" how/why?
    • I expanded this a little bit.
  • "enlargement of the orbit" unclear what this is, or why the reader should want to know it became "extending the sphere"
    • Neither Hamilton nor the source elaborate, so I've removed this. Nevermind, Authority of Publius covers it, so I've added some information about the concept.
  • "Unlike ... this view" what view?
    • Replaced with "his thoughts on scientific progress"
  • Made in-line copy edits – feel free to take any here for discussion
  • Is Algora a reliable publisher?[1]
    • I can't find much about it, or about the publisher that's listed at Google Books (Agathon Press). But the editors and the author are all subject-matter experts.
  • Life without the Internet Archive is hard but there appears to be some additional coverage in The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers, pp. 126–128
  • What role did No. 9 play in the series?
    • It introduced the ideas of No. 10, and The Authority of Publius let me add a little more about that.
  • "How to apply developments in political science has remained a controversial issue." unclear what this means
    • Reworded to "The practical application of political science remains a perennial issue", but I'm open to other suggestions if that still doesn't work.

Will pause there for now czar 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-checks

[edit]

Levinson

  • Hamilton's dismissal of the ancient republics was reminiscent of Niccolò Machiavelli, who criticized the viability of ancient Italian republicanism. Source says the opposite: Machiavelli "wrote admiringly" of republicanism.
    • It says "wrote admiringly, if often despairingly". The idea is that both Hamilton and Machiavelli support republicanism but understood the issues with ancient Italian republicanism. It might be a bit much, so I've removed it unless you have any other ideas.
  • this view presents an optimism derived from Enlightenment philosophy Feels like a stretch since the source only likens Publius to an "Enlightenment optimist", not crediting its its origin.
    • I believe that this is an appropriate paraphrasing, and a Google search suggests that others have written about "Enlightenment optimism". I'm open to another way to approach this if that's not sufficient.
  • to counter an argument by Montesquieu that was raised by the anti-federalists The source doesn't attribute the argument to the anti-federalist.
    • I swapped it with a citation from the new source which does cover this.
  • p. 40 okay but again doesn't back up that the Montesquieu argument was presented by the anti-federalists
    • Removed this portion.
  • p. 41 okay

White

  • though No. 10 addresses the issue more directly Where does the source say that #10 address the enlargement of the orbit more directly? It says #10 discusses its effects on factions in more detail. Also I didn't realize until I saw this source that #9 and #10 are contrasting—that wasn't clear from only saying that they were rival dissertations, which could just mean that they were competing. The source points out the Hamilton/Madison contrast in scholarship, which might be worth saying more explicitly here, or at least explaining the contrast.
    • I fixed this while working on the things higher up—I removed the "more directly" part as it didn't really add anything, and (while I feel that "rival dissertations" expresses the idea) I added a couple sentences from the new source on this subject.
  • Rest okay but unclear now why the mention of #14 is relevant to #9's legacy
    • It's another one of the Federalist Papers that later covers this topic, and the source deemed it relevant enough to describe the two together. This is part of the reason why the section isn't called "legacy".

Might return to spot-check, given that there were more liberties taken here than I had expected.

Scott

  • Is the publisher A&C Black or Bloomsbury, per the Google Books link?
    • It's A&C Black, which is owned by Bloomsbury.
  • Montesquieu had argued ... a large group of people could not share the same culture and values Where is this on p. 70?
    • The Anti-Federalist Agrippa warned that "on an average one thousand miles in length, and eight hundred in breadth, and containing six million of white inhabitants all reduced to the same standard of morals, of habits, and of laws is, in itself an absurdity, and contrary to the whole experience of mankind." Any suggestions on a clearer way to paraphrase this?
      • Is it Montesquieu or Agrippa making this claim? Perhaps: "One anti-federalist claimed that six million people was too large a population to share a common moral and legal standard" czar 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • p. 68 okay
  • modern understanding of political science as an advantage Where is this on p. 70?
    • Publius refers to his enterprise as following the new science of politics in which the principles of politics are now well understood.
  • p. 69 okay but it wasn't as anti-experimentation as much as assertion that if it has not been done it cannot be done
    • I've added believing that if it could be done successfully, then it already would have been done
  • Where does p. 68 say Madison wrote #10 and that it was the most influential? I see where it says it was the most famous.
    • I see it as synonymous in this context, but I've changed "influential" to "well-known".
  • p. 70 okay
  • p. 71 borders on original research since it doesn't say a confederacy today is a looser collection of states (also unclear how "Modern political terminology has affected the meanings of union and confederacy.") It would be more direct to say that Hamilton refers to a confederacy as a form of federalism, unlike modern usage. More likely, I'm not sure the reader profits from the mention here.
    • Removed.

If the above p. 70 checks confirm that the assertion was unsupported, that would be a higher rate than I'd expect. I would recommend revisiting the article's references to ensure there is the source supports the article text. czar 05:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See comments above
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Comments on lede above
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    Based on the spot-check, looks like Montesquieu is being conflated with their contemporary anti-federalists though the text does not make this connection
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig okay and from spot-check
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    Updated with US rationale
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Scan of original publication?
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Thank you for this interesting read. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this series. On hold for the standard seven days for replies and edits. czar 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czar I've replied to the comments above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czar I've replied to the notes about Scott (2013). Were there any points higher up that still needed to be resolved? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some replies above—all points surmountable czar 14:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federalist_No._9&oldid=1253226476"