Talk:Federalist No. 4

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. 4/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Will review. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the prolonged wait. I have not forgotten about this; I am ill right now and have no motivation to peer review any GANs at the moment. I am ideally hoping to get to this within two days or so when I feel a bit better. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There we (finally) are. On hold; over to you! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

LunaEatsTuna, I've replied to your comments below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesomesauce! Happy now to pass. Congrats! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 02:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

File(s)

The portrait of John Jay is of good quality, copyright-free and relevant to the article.

Prose

• Could "He describes the personal reasons that an absolute monarch might seek war and lists economic reasons that may cause European nations to come into conflict with the United States" be elaborated upon? I am curious to know why he thinks this. Like, does he think that the US is weak and that nations could go to war at any time they see fit or that nations might seek war whenever there is a specific benefit that can be identified or quantified etc.?
  • I added the reasons that he provides.
• "through union of the states" – I would wikilink to U.S. states.
  • Done.
• Wikilink militias for reader context.
  • I added a few wikilinks. One to militia in the lead, and then the more specific Militia (United States) and Militia (United Kingdom) in the summary.
• "This, Jay says, is not true of thirteen individual militias" – is true of correct? Apologies if this is standard in American English (which I do not speak).
  • Changed to "true for".
• "Jay argued that nations are run by people, and people are naturally prone to conflict" – I would rephrase the first line since nations are indeed run by people.
  • Removed the part about nations being run by people entirely.
• "This was a point of divergence from Federalist No. 3" – how about "This marked a point …"?
  • Done.
• "In Federalist No. 4, Jay argued" – how about contended here as argued has been used quite a bit?
  • I changed a different use and then reordered the wording in the next one.
• "example of the 13 states" – you used thirteen in § Summary.
• Changed.
• "several colonial territories near the United States" – could we perhaps have some examples here?
  • Specified that it's the British Empire and the Spanish Empire.
• "Hamilton would later" – full name.
  • Done.

Refs

Passes spotcheck: refs 1–3 and 8 are good.

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.