Talk:Federalist No. 9

GA Review

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)

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

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

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.
• I.e., the current section infers that Hamilton was Publius rather than that being a communal pseudonym.
  • Should each article say "shared pseudonym" or something to that effect?
    • Only if it's ambiguous but I think it is here czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Added "shared". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
      • 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)
• "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?
  • Maybe. The images of the authors long predates my work on these articles and I've never paid them much attention.
    • Looks like scans are available in America's Historical Newspapers czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't seem them in the actual Chronicling America archive. It just has the libraries where microfilm can be found, unless I'm missing something. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
      • 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)

Text

• 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
  • Thank you for finding this, there was a lot of useful stuff here.
    • The Library of Congress also recommends this bibliography, if you haven't already seen. Also this University of Wisconsin source has details on its publication history. czar 03:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

Source spot-checks

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.

Criteria

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)

Czar I've replied to the comments above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)