|
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment underway and I'll try to have the comments up shortly after the week-end. Separately, and by the way, there is a FAC assessment currently underway for James Madison which you might have interesting comments for either support/oppose, dealing with his contributions to the Federalist Papers (I'm mentioning this in case you might have an interest in the other authors of the Federalist Papers). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thebiguglyalien: I'm noticing that there is much inconsistency in the article about caps or no caps for "Anti-Federalist" in its various word forms, both in the article for GAN and for the main article for that subject. The regular preference is to treat it in the same way as "Federalist" and to use caps. These need to be cleaned up at the least for this article submitted here for GAN. Ping me when its ready, and I'll need to hear from you about this question. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ErnestKrause. Hardly a major issue, fixed it with a find and replace. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some prelim questions. It looks like you may be planning to do all of the Federalist Papers one by one, though I'm not aware of a project page for this on Wikipedia. Is this your own project? Are you planning to do all of them as a long term project? By yourself, or with others?
- This would be a large project, and I'm not sure that your one-paper-at-a-time approach is in agreement with the way the Federalist Papers are normally organized by scholars, as shown for example on the Talk page for the Federalist Papers. Usually they are grouped into related papers, and it would not be unusual to see #2-#6 grouped into one article. How did you decide to do them one at a time, and not by the standard groupings as shown on the Talk page for the Federalist Papers on Wikipedia.
- Adding another observation comment now, isn't a little perfunctory to tell readers that paper #2 comes after paper#1 and that it comes before paper #3? I mean isn't this a little on the self-evident side to the point of possibly offending reader's sensibilities? More later, I'd like to see your answers to the above serrious questions; I did the successful GAN for James Madison last year and he was a principal author here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles were created long before either of us joined Wikipedia. They are all
notable in their own right, so they all have articles. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to have navigation links and some context on what was covered by the immediately preceding and succeeding essays. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [reply- The GAN for the Federalist Papers essay from 15 years ago is rather old and dated; I think a review today would cause it to be delisted. The lede section there is something very peculiar by today's Wikipedia standards, with numerous footnotes in the lede normally not used or seen in GAN articles today. Are you also objecting to the Talk page outline which is listed there at the article for the Federalist Papers? Doesn't that look like a better structure for presenting the Federalist Papers in detail? (If you disagree, then let me know why you believe that organizational table is not better than a simple enumeration of the papers one-by-one, which is typically not done by contemporary scholars in their studies of the Federalist Papers). ErnestKrause (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I didn't nominate
notable topic and warrants its own article. We don't merge articles just because their respective topics are often covered in the same place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [reply
Procedural Note: I'm noticing that you have 3 GANs in line and that you appear to have not been following Wikipedia policy for promoting articles on behalf of the project pages which provide ratings for the articles they cover. The Wikipedia policy is fairly direct in stating that "any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article...", can do the assessments but not the contributors themselves. You were the contributor and I'll be reverting your self-promotions to all three articles today; they appear to be start and stub articles to my reading and I'm reverting your self-promoting them to B-class which appears to be against Wikipedia policy.
This adds to the direct difficulty to addressing the assessment of these start/stub articles which appear to have been improperly nominated and are all three not ready for considered promotion according the Wikipedia Quickfail instructions for GAN nominations. Both the main Federalist article and the sub-articles you've been nominating appear to need significant work in order not to be de-listed. I've already started to explain to you above that the Federalist article is in poor condition apparently from over-edits over 15-20 years, and you appear to have stated that you don't care since its not the article you nominated. Your current 3 nomination I'm Quickfailing as not yet ready for GAN nomination due to their still being start/stub articles with what appear to be poor lede sections, and very rudimentary contents barely covering material being useful. When I suggested that you consider pulling together the Jay letters together, then you appeared to reject the idea outright despite the fact that its the way text books normally would present and organize this material. Possibly you can re-nominate if you consider pulling these early Jay papers into a single article; that might move them further than being stub/start articles which do not appear to be either B-class or even C-class articles. This is a Quickfail according to Wikipedia policy and I'm requesting that you no longer self-promote article on behalf of Wikipedia projects without informing them of what you are doing. Article is Quickfailed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
