Talk:Federalist No. 26

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federalist No. 26/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoping to get to this later today! Note: this is my first politics-related GAN, so please bear with me. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding was that summaries of written works do not need be cited and that nothing in that section is one of the types of statements that requires citation under the GA criteria (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons). With that said, I generally find Wikipedia citation guidelines to be unclear and self-contradictory. All other notes have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response! Regarding this, I must admit I have not read his paper, but I presume that as an essay, especially one written this long ago, it might be possible that Hamilton's work could be interpreted in different ways? Especially for an argumentative piece like this I would prefer citations as to avoid WP:OR, assuming that his writing could be ambiguous. If it was a fictional work, like a book or a film plot, then I would definitely agree with you. But, what do you reckon? 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This sort of thing is why I haven't touched the other Federalist Papers articles yet; I'm really not sure. Like I said, I find citation practices to be self-contradictory and I often just find myself taking my best guess. I did give the issue some thought while writing the article, which is why there are separate summary and analysis sections. But I really don't have any strong thoughts on what the "best" way to organize the article is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, upon looking at other similar GAs (approved after 2016 of course), it appears the summary generally does not need citations, including for essays. With this, I am now happy to pass this article for GA status. Congrats! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 02:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

Files

The image used is relevant, high quality and copyright-free:

• File:Alexander Hamilton A17950.jpg: valid public domain rationale.

Prose

• I would replace Publius with Hamilton to avoid confusion with later sections.
• Summary is completely unsourced. (!!)
• "power in the name of private rights" – wikilink private rights.
• "regulate peacetime armies." – wikilink peacetime as first mention in the body.
• "power over the military as one such as example" – remove as.
• "from the experiences of the American Revolution." – wikilink American Revolution and unlink its mention in "much emphasis in the American Revolution"
• "identifies the common man as generally" – I would add quotation marks to common man or replace it with commoner instead to be gender neutral (assuming he was talking about all peoples?).

Refs

All sources used are RS. Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 3, 6, 8, 9 or 11. I had access to refs 6 and 9 via the Wikipedia Library.

Other

Templates, External links, nav and cats good.

• Add WP:ALT text to the image. I believe there should be an alt = paragraph?
• Move the short description to the way top of the article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.