Talk:John C. Calhoun/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Oceanflynn (talk · contribs) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I highly disagree that this article should be nominated as a good article.

Lacks inline citations

While there is a long list of references, there is far too much content that lacks inline citations. Future editors who will re-organize content can easily unhinge content at the end of a long paragraph, for example, from the "potential" citation which appears at the beginning of the paragraph.

Essay-like

The article reads like an essay.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Does not reflect 2016 status as a divisive, controversial historical figure for his strong defense of slavery

There is too little mention of ongoing controversies surrounding his role and place in the history of slavery for example, and no mention of those who challenge whether his name should remain on historical monuments.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Does not reflect historiography of 2016

Although many additions were made to this article in 2016, the article reads as if it was written in the 19th century or at the latest 1950 with no contextualization in terms of pivotal and relevant current social issues such as race in the United States.Oceanflynn (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oceanflynn, j'accuse! you are adding pure POV to the article, and therefore you are a disgrace to wikipedia. What you are persistently calling a NY Times "article" is an "op ed" piece, a pure OPINION piece, and not even the opinion of the NY Times. By calling it an article (and removing edits pointing out it is an opinion piece) you are giving this opinion false credence; the NY Times is famous for fact checking accuracy, and this opinion piece is not. You should not only remove your changes, you should be ashamed of yourself. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oceanflynn and 68.175.11.48, I have removed the additions made to the lead. Oceanflynn, please keep in mind that you, as reviewer, are not supposed to be making major changes to the article. I will work to fill in the "citation needed" templates that you added while also adding a section detailing the things which you mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Oceanflynn, thank you for taking the review. This is my first GA nomination, so I suppose that there will be some errors. I can certainly add details in the next day or so about ongoing controversy surrounding his status a fervent defender of slavery. As for the rest of the issues you raised, those being the lack of citations and essay-like wording, these were present in the article in an even more obvious way before I began working on it in December, and I suppose that I did not do enough to change them. I think the article has improved greatly since I began work on it, and I appreciate any further feedback that you can give me. Thank you again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Oceanflynn, I expect to have my work done on the article by the end of the weekend at the absolute latest. Rjensen and I have done some reorganization and source cleanup/addition that I believe has helped to improve the article. There are only 3 "citation needed" templates left on the article. I noticed in your review that you mentioned a problem with the article reading like an "essay." Can you point out any specific places in the article in which it still appears to read too much like one, so that I may alter these parts with more encyclopedic wording? If you or Rjensen have any other concerns that I have not been addressed already in the review, please let me know. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

the term "essay" in Wiki style means a personal unsourced rumination. I see none of that here. I added some cites & took care of 3 "citations needed. Note that citations are not usually needed in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Kudos to Rjensen and Display name 99 for all the hard work on this and similar articles. I am currently on vacation in my real life and I am unable to do a more in-depth review on a schedule of one week-the usual time expected for a review. If you wish to ask for a second reviewer to replace me at this time, I am comfortable with that.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Oceanflynn. Sainsf and BlueMoonset are two editors with significant GA experience whom I have come into contact with at other reviews. Would either of them be willing to take the time to examine this? I believe that all of Oceanflynn's original concerns were addressed. I'm willing to listen to others. Display name 99 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would be happy to help with this. This is a gigantic article, it might take me a few days to do a thorough check as I am a bit busy. I would request Oceanflynn to wait till I finish posting my comments on the whole article, then we can put this on hold for a week. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, thank you for volunteering. I understand your statements regarding the article's length. I think this was partially why it took so long for someone to take the review. Please take your time. Display name 99 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nullification

"Nullification" is a central issue in Calhoun studies which does not appear to receive its central place of attention in the article. Could it, along with its definition, be made more prominent in the article. Also, where is the term defined in the Calhoun article? When I link to the "Nullification" article then I find the following adequate definition: "Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts." The Calhoun article currently does not have this type of simple definition which might be helpful to the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Review comments by Sainsf

Thanks for your input, Fountains-of-Paris. You are right, the article needs to cover this significant point to pass the "broad in coverage" criterion. There is a short definition in the lead, but I believe we need greater emphasis. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list of comments from my side: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

General

• There are quite a few duplicate links in the article. You may use this tool to fix them. Note that you can retain duplinks if they ought to be there though already linked (say it was quite a while since you last mentioned it).
• Say any one of "United States", "U.S." or "US" consistently throughout the article

Lead

 Done

• Link "slavery" at first mention

Done.

• for leading the South What is "the South" here?

I don't think an elaboration is necessary here. The American South is roughly defined as the area of the U.S. that legalized slavery up until 1861 and/or seceded to join the Confederacy. I think people will understand that.

• before dying in 1850 Sounds awkward, better say "before his death in 1850".

Done.

• viewed as unconstitutional You need to clarify that it has to be unconstitutional from the POV of the state.

Done: Added "that they."

Early life

 Done

• What is the source for Note 7?

I had to delete it-I have no printed text available to me that offers an in-depth look at Calhoun, and was unable to find an Internet source. I must have missed the CN marker.

• I think it is best to give the full name of the person when you begin with the main article.

Done.

• 17-year-old John Calhoun Here, you can simply say "John".

Wrote "Calhoun" instead. WP policy dictates that people should be referred to by surnames.

• Source for When his father became ill, 17-year-old John Calhoun quit school to work on the family farm ?

Done.

Will continue. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sainsf. I made most of the edits that you suggested to the "Marriage and family" section as well. In addition, changed the title to "Personal" to recognize those parts dealing with his religion and personality, while also adding sources. However, while I did add a source for the list of children, I kept their list in the body of the article. Such a lengthy list would look even more clumsy in an infobox. Furthermore, sources are very rarely cited from there. The "however" that is used indicates that, while Calhoun's wife was an Episcopalian, he was at least somewhat active in Unitarianism for a period of time. I do not believe that any clarification in the article is needed there. Finally, the last paragraph, I find, deals mostly with is religion and not his personality. Therefore I did not separate it in the way you implied that you desired. However, I did separate the quotation from the rest of it. Thank you for doing the review and I look forward to its completion. Display name 99 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes made, but I strongly feel the list appears clumsy (mainly due to the numbering in the list). I have never seen a list as this, perhaps we could omit this? I am getting an impression that only Anna Maria is someone notable among them, perhaps we should limit the list to just the number? Any interested reader can look up the source you cite. Please keep updating this page about the changes you make, preferably where I enlist them. I'm busy this week, but I should be able to complete the list in the next few days. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, I removed the numberings from the list of children and replaced the semi-colons with commas. Perhaps this helps. I couldn't find as much information on the children besides Anna Maria. I personally think that the list should stay, but that the way that it was presented from before needed revision. Display name 99 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Oceanflynn's concerns about the article not reflecting 2016 historiography and Calhoun's status as a historical figure have been addressed. The fact that the "Legacy" section is still dominated by a review of the ways he was honored is at stark odds with his actual status. I'm worried about the balancing in the article re: NPOV. I'm not sure how much non-reviewers are welcome to comment during these reviews, though, so I'll hold off on saying more. Warm Worm (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Review comments from interested readers and reviewers should be included here @Warm Worm:. You can list them below or in a new subsection here for your list of comments. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Warm Worm and Fountains-of-Paris, thank you for your comments. I added a mention of a Calhoun monument being defaced here. I think that your concerns have been dealt with now. There are two significant mentions of negative perceptions of Calhoun, along with ways in which he is honored. In addressing the concerns previously brought up by Fountains-of-Paris, I call to mind that there is a mention of nullification in the lead, a section entitled "Nullification," which includes a definition, as well as a whole section entitled "Political philosophy," which is largely a summary of Calhoun's views on states' rights and slavery, which is fairly detailed. Therefore I must disagree with your belief that nullification has not received its due prominence. It is important to remember that his career in the House of Representatives and as Secretary of War deserve attention as well. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion of "Nullification" in this article on Calhoun needs to be at least as good as if not better than the other page which defines Nullification. At present the article at "Nullification" gives a much clearer and well-stated definition of this very basic Callhoun term than the one which is found in this article. Why are you showing a preference for what appears to be a much weaker form of the definition and not as strong as the definition found on the Nullification page (which I have quoted in the section above)? Why do you prefer the version here and not replace it with the stronger version? A GA candidate article should have the stronger version of the definition of this key term in Calhoun studies if the article is to move towards a peer reviewed article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 Added comments below Fountains-of-Paris and Warm Worm, please keep adding your comments here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, I'll take a look at what you've said in about a day or so. Fountains-of-Paris, I'll see what can be done about your concerns by then as well. Thank you both for your efforts to improve the article. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Continuing,

Personal

 Done

• The list of children appears clumsy here, use the infobox for this. What is the source for this?
• Is Anna Maria the only notable child?
• It would be good to add a few words on the Petticoat Affair as we have not discussed this yet.
• Who is an Episcopalian?
• However he was a charter member Comma after "however". What contrast does "however" denote here?
• Who is Margaret Coit? A writer? On which subject? Same for Wilson.
• Link Calvinist
• The part from However he was a charter member till the end of the section describes more of his personality than his personal life. Can be separated out into a separate section with, if possible, more material on his personality.
• I have renamed the section, please check.
• Mention "President Jackson" by his full name and wikilink it
• What was the Great Awakening in the South?
• Calhoun's fourth child, Anna Maria, married Thomas Green Clemson, founder of Clemson University in South Carolina. Source?

War of 1812

 Done

• powerful committee on foreign affairs Suddenly saying "powerful" may be confusing for someone not acquainted with this.
• ringing phrases--the committee report Write "ringing phrases – the committee report" (use spaced endash)
• One colleagues hailed him as "colleague" or did you mean something else?
• Wikilink Napoleon
• Disasters on the battlefield made him double...a national hero out of General Andrew Jackson. Source?

Postwar planning

 Done

• Historian Ulrich B Phillips, has traced No comma needed, period after "B". Link his name only at first mention
• Historian Ulrich B. Phillips says Simply say "Phillips"

Rhetorical style

 Done

• Historian Ulrich...national power." Repeated from the previous section.

Secretary of War and Postwar Nationalism

 Done

• Why not "postwar nationalism" in the title?
• help the industrial Northeast Why not "northeast"?

1824 and 1828 Elections

 Done

• Why not "elections" in the title?
• Source for the last line?

Nullification

• Most of the discussion on this includes the comments above. I would propose adding good quotes as done in "Political philosophy"
• Jackson had invaded Florida during the...deteriorated further. Source?
• This section appears choppy due to short paras toward the end, please combine them

Petticoat Affair

 Done

• Why not "affair" in the title?
• thereby assisting Jackson in facilitating...President and Calhoun. Source?
• Now the last line looks unsourced

First term in the U.S. Senate

 Done

• his chances of becoming President were very low "were considered very low"

Agrarian republicanism

 Done

• Here you need to state who Cheek is. Historian? Put it like "In a 2001 work (you may give the name), _____ Cheek distinguishes..."
• American republicanism—the puritan tradition I think we need a spaced endash here
• Calhoun emphasizes the primacy "emphasized"?

Slavery

 Done

• which required the co-operation Hyphen is not used in similar cases earlier (see "reelected" in Second term in the Senate)
• Patrick Calhoun, a prosperous upstate...substantial number of slaves. Should be moved to Early life, and briefly mentioned here.
• Historian Ulrich Bonnell Phillips explains how No link needed, simply "Phillips" should do

Concurrent majority

 Done

• I think the quote from the Disquisition should come under the subsection "Disquisition on Government"
• Source for "States could constitutionally take action to free themselves from an overweening government, but slaves as individuals or interest groups could not do so"?
• Politicians and bureaucrats would succumb the only para not to explicitly say "According to Calhoun..." In my opinion, the paras are too short and many, please combine them. This is an important section, try to group ideas for a better presentation.

State Sovereignty

 Done

• upon Calhoun's arguments. Place ref. 110 after this if it is the source for this as well.

Film and TV

 Done

• It should be clear what these movies portrayed – what was Calhoun's role in them? As of now, we just know how he was portrayed, not the "why".

• Any idea about the second movie? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Legacy

• If there have been more controversies surrounding him, please add.

• Wish to know if something new has been added. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• one lake of the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis "a lake of"?
• Sources for the 1st and the 4th paras?
• one of the University's twelve residential colleges Repetition.
• John C. Calhoun's name will remain Why no just "Calhoun"?
• as the United States "most egregious racist" "States' "
• a "an avowed white supremacist." Remove "a"

Rest looks good. This is all from my side. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary Brake

Sainsf, I have made nearly all of the changes that you have suggested, and I thank you for your good and thorough review. I kept the word "Affair" capitalized in the section "Petticoat Affair" because I believe that this can be considered a proper noun, as it refers to a singular event. I will let you know once the discussion of the coverage is nullification is concluded, so that you may make a final decision.

Fountains-of-Paris, the idea of nullification is discussed and defined in the 3rd paragraph of the lead. The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Nullification" section quotes Calhoun's own definition of Nullification: "the right of a State to interpose, in the last resort, in order to arrest an unconstitutional act of the General Government, within its limits." I have added it so that it may appear like this:

Calhoun proposed the theory of a concurrent majority through the doctrine of nullification—a concept which allows states to declare null and void certain acts of the Federal Government viewed as unconstitutional. In Calhoun's words, it is "the right of a State to interpose, in the last resort, in order to arrest an unconstitutional act of the General Government, within its limits."

This seems like a reliable definition. I also added a quotation from Calhoun's speech against the Force Bill further down in the section. In my opinion, it gives a good idea of where he stood publically on the issue. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The amplifications you have put in are a plus, and I think that the material as you have it in the Lede can be supported further by adding one sentence at the very start of the Nullification section. Please note that the Lede only summarizes what is already in the article and not vice versa. If you can fork the following opening sentence from the "Nullification" article directly into the very start of your Nullification section here in the Calhoun article then the rest of your mods can stand as you have already done them. This is sentence you can fork directly into the section: "Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts." It should work nicely with the rest of your section there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, I am reluctant to do this because I feel that as it is now, the section flows rather smoothly by first introducing the controversy leading to the Nullification Crisis, explaining what nullification is, and how Calhoun and the others came up with it. Currently, the first sentence in the section is:

"Calhoun had begun to oppose increases in protective tariffs, as they generally benefitted Northerners more than Southerners."

Now let us try it with the sentence from the nullification article in this article:

"Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. Calhoun had begun to oppose increases in protective tariffs, as they generally benefitted Northerners more than Southerners."

This is choppy and does not flow well, and would not do so even if we were to divide the sentences into separate paragraphs. In addition, to place this sentence at the beginning would create issues of redundancy with what I have recently added to the second paragraph and with Calhoun's own definition. Labeling it there as "a concept which allows states to declare null and void certain acts of the Federal Government viewed as unconstitutional" would be entirely unnecessary if we were to define it already in the same section. And yet, I believe that the second paragraph the best place to define the term, as it includes the history of the theory and references to the concurrent majority.

I thank you for your concern for the article. However, I think that what is already in the article is enough for the reader to understand what nullification is. "Nullification" is defined at least 3 times in the article: in the lead, in the "Nullification" section, and in the "Concurrent majority" section. I do not see a need to add another definition. If you are satisfied by my response, are there any other concerns with the article which you would like to bring up before I ask Sainsf to give a final decision regarding its pending promotion? Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've previously mentioned your starting the enhancement of this section. The reference to "concurrent majority" which you are still using remains unreferenced and uncited by quotation attributable to Calhoun himself and appears to be original research in the article. Unless you have a quote of Calhoun using this exact phrase as being used to define Nuliification then your current version can be marked by any editor at Wikipedia as being WP:NOR. Nullification is a front-and-center issue for Calhoun, and the centrality of this definition is usefully given by the version of it on the main page for Nullification. If you don't like it as your first sentence, then you have a good option to simply replace the definition currently used (attributing it as a sub-form to "concurrent majority") by using the definition which appears on the main page and which I have already quoted above. This would solve the problem of the Calhoun definition of Nullification. Otherwise you would need to include the citation and page number for Calhoun's usage and definition of Nullification in order to avoid original research on Wikipedia and to defend your use of "concurrent majority" as your defining term. If you stick to the definition used on the Nullification main page then you avoid completely this original research issue. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, I have added a source to the end of that paragraph in the "Concurrent majority section." Sainsf, I believe I have made the recommended changes to the best of my ability. I wish to know if it would be possible for you to give a final decision on the article's proposed GA status sometime soon. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Checked the improvements and struck out resolved issues. You can let me know what you think of the remaining. For convenience, I merged the comments on the earlier "Marriage and family" section into "Personal". I will wait till Fountains-of-Paris' concerns are addressed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 00:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, the reason for "Northeast" being capitalized is because, when referring to regions, things are often kept capitalized. For example, we may say "The store is five miles south of here," while also saying "The South lost the Civil War." The reason why "Postwar Nationalism" was kept capitalized is basically the same as why "Affair" was kept capitalized as well. I therefore propose striking those as well. I suppose we can await a comment from Fountains-of-Paris, whose concerns I think were addressed and dealt with, to confirm that his/her approval of the changes that have been made. I will hopefully begin checking back over the other points within about a day's time. Thank you again. Display name 99 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

All right, checked that. For your convenience I am placing "done" tags for completed sections. Have the two issues under "General" been resolved? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue of Sovereignty is the central one for Calhoun on the issue of Nullification, which asserts Calhoun's opinion that the Sovereignty of individual states exceeded that of the Confederation of States; which therefore allowed individual states to nullify legislation from the Confederation of States as any individual state might determine was in their own best interest. The approach of User:Display does not represent this view but moves to a more abstract definition on "majority consensus" which User:Display does not at present give a direct quote for from Calhoun. I have requested that the definition from the main page for "Nullification" be inserted to replace the weaker definition which User:Display is using currently with the stronger version of the defintion which states: "Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts." @Oceanflynn:, the original reviewer, can make the decision of whether the version from the main page for Nullification, which is accurate, should be used in the Calhoun article as well for consistency, over and against the currently used weaker abstract definition of Nullication based on an unattributed concept of "majority consensus". Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, I believe that I have now solved the remaining issues besides the ongoing discussion on the coverage of nullification. Rjensen, I'm sorry to keep bothering you, but I would appreciate any help you might be able to give in examining the arguments made by Fountains-of-Paris in order to see what changes might be necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

When I was a student at Yale I was quite annoyed by the naming of the college after him. However the positive memory includes his pioneer leadership and making minority rights a central feature of the American political system – one that does not exist in most of Europe. So I added the memory to that effect under Legacy, with citations: "The decision-making process in this country resembles John Calhoun's 'concurrent majority': A A large number of groups both within and outside the government must, in practice, approve any major policy." says Malcolm E. Jewell, Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy (University Press of Kentucky, 2015) p 2. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rjensen. However, I wish to know if there are any recommendations you could make regarding changes to the "Nullification" and "Concurrent majority" sections based on what Fountains-of-Paris has said. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Jdcrutch, do you have any ideas for what could be done to address the concerns raised by Fountains-of-Paris? I personally don't understand why he/she is so insistent on inserting that particular definition into the article, which I see as merely the same in essence as what is already in the Calhoun article with only a variation in wording. However, I think a different perspective would be nice so that this issue can be settled. Display name 99 (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Thanks for this flattering request. I'll have to do some reading, but will try to come up with an intelligent response shortly. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your extra requests to other editors should help. If you have a quote from Calhoun using the key words "concurrent majority" then you might list it here in Calhoun's own words, if such usage by him exists, of this phrase being used by Calhoun to define Nullification, in order to avoid original research concerns. Otherwise you can simply use the definition from the main page for Nullification which is not dependent on the phrase "concurrent majority." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I find a lot of duplicate links still, they must be fixed. And I would like to know if you have mentioned all controversies that you could find reliable sources for (as Warm Worm pointed out). Those tasks done, all my comments would be addressed and, after the issues raised by other editors have been resolved, Oceanflynn will take the final decision. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf, I have removed several more duplicate links. The two main controversies surrounding Calhoun in the "Legacy" section are by far the most notable that I could find, aside from the fact that Calhoun's promotion of slavery is generally ill-remembered, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph to that section. I also want to note that, with no disrespect to Oceanflynn intended, I would prefer for the person making the final decision on this article's promotion to be someone who was not totally absent for the majority of the process of reviewing the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to ask Fountains-of-Paris if they feel the nullification issue raised by then had been satisfactorily resolved, so that at Kraft it isn't an obstacle in the promotion. As I am not acquainted with the topic very well, and the debate here would take long to read and understand, it would be better if they could directly tell me their views on this. This done, I propose to wait for three days to let Oceanflynn make any final comments about article and make the decision. If they are not able to do this due to some business, I would be happy to promote this myself. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Either Sainsf or Oceanflynn can make the final decision on this, with Sainsf doing the most effort in the general review, and Ocean being the reviewer on record. In the question of the definition of nullification, I have given two useful options to Display and Display can select either one. Option (1) is to simply utilize the definition already given on the main page for the Nullification article which seems completely adequate. Option (2) is to write the definition in terms of State Sovereignty as I paraphrased it above and which was Calhoun's own preference. The other option does not seem as strong, though as I've stated, either Sainsf or Oceanflynn can make the decision on this. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, please see the change made here and let me know if you find it adequate. Display name 99 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf I am quite willing to step aside here and let the reviewers who've invested considerable time and effort into this process while I was on vacation, make the final decision.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That new sentence you wrote needs to be recognized as an improvement to the paragraph. Its sufficiently strong that you no longer need the old opening sentence in that abstract and distracting first sentence at the start of that paragraph which should be dropped. If you start that paragraph directly with your new wording then many editors will be able to support the new paragraph. Just start that paragraph with your new wording: "Nullification is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. In Calhoun's words, it is "the right of a State to interpose, in the last resort, in order to arrest an unconstitutional act of the General Government, within its limits", followed by the rest of the paragraph. Then I can support the paragraph, and either Sainsf or Oceanflynn can complete their review. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, I replaced the opening sentence with this similar version: "Calhoun supported the idea of nullification through a concurrent majority." I felt that there needed to be something at the front of the paragraph to show Calhoun's connection to nullification, while also including the very important words "concurrent majority" in the section. Defining the term right away may cause the reader to at first question its relevance. I also think that this new sentence is more straightforward than what I had removed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Now we can have a formal review:

• Is the article well-written?

• Does the article use adequate and reliable sources, and make frequent citations to them? Does it contain original research?

• Is the article broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects but at the same time remaining focused on the main subject?

• Is the article neutral?

• Is the article stable?

• Are the images relevant, having suitable captions? Are they tagged with their copyright status or are properly licensed for non-free content)?

• Final assessment: ✓ Pass

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion. Great job, Display name 99! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf and others, thank you for all that you have done to help improve the article. I understand that, as my first GA, it had several issues in the beginning, but I'm pleased that they were dealt with. Just so that I know, do you have any suggestions for what I could do in case I ever want to nominate this as a potential FA at some point in the future? Thank you again. Display name 99 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Display name 99 That's a good plan. I have come across George Tucker (politician), which I reviewed for GAN and is now at FAC. It's receiving a lot of positive reviews, so you can design this article on similar lines, and talk to User: Hoppyh, who had authored many FAs in this field. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)