Wikipedia

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/GA2

< Talk:Thomas Jefferson
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Viriditas in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago202 comments9 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply


Please address the minor citation needed tag added yesterday, either by temporarily removing the material or adding a citation. Although there does not appear to be edit warring, the article is undergoing a lot of edits, so it's not necessarily stable. In any case, I will take on this review. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done Unsourced text moved to talk page. Re edit volume - exclusively in preparation for GA review. Almost no edit conflict. Hoppyh (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I'll try to be as quick as I can. I see that you're aiming for FA so I won't take up too much of your time with the review. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
No rush - delighted for your efforts - GA will be challenging for this one and a big deal itself - one step at a time for me. Hoppyh (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit
  Resolved
  Done I have inserted an alternate image. Hoppyh (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. However, the quality of that image is very poor (out of focus). Can you think of any other image that might work here? Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Image removed. I agree - no other alternatives I can find. I think we're okay without one. Hoppyh (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Infobox

edit
  Resolved
  Done. Yeah, it's at WP:DUPLINK. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done. Used ampersands per the title of our article. The Journal of William and Mary, however, writes out the "and", so I've left that one alone. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done. Well spotted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  Unresolved
  • Comment: The lead has that classic "too many cooks spoil the broth" feeling to it, reflecting the collaborative nature of building articles on Wikipedia. In terms of prose, the fourth paragraph engages the reader, but the previous three paragraphs leave a lot to be desired as they come off dry and detached. I'm wondering if there are details that shouldn't be there at all, or if the details can be more tightly integrated into the lead so as to show how Jefferson evolved and developed as a statesman in direct relation to the significance of the biographical detail, while at the same time keeping the reader interested. A simple way to do this is to introduce each paragraph with a deliberate structure so as to prompt the reader. Right now, the first sentences of the second and third paragraphs fail to do this, which contributes to a lack of structural integrity. To see a simple example of how to add structural prompts to each pargraph, take a look at the lead section for Bill Clinton, which while short, reliably prompts the reader at the beginning of each paragraph so that the structure emerges visually from the text, like an image in the mind's eye. Part of being an effective storyteller is being able to paint pictures with words. To give you an example from that lead section: the first paragraph provides a brief overview of the biographical highlights; the second paragraph illustrates his early life, education, and early political career; the third paragraph paints a picture of his presidential career and significant achievements during his administration; and the fourth paragraph is devoted solely to his legacy. I hope you see the embedded logic in the Clinton lead and can take away some tips from my explanation. I'm not using the Clinton article as a template here, just as an example of a simple, strucutred lead that takes a complex career and breaks it down into chunks for easy reading and comprehension. More importantly, when used appropriately, words can create images, and effective narrative can tell a story that keeps the reader interested and engaged. The problem with this lead section in this article, is that there is no coherent story nor any image that emerges from the text. Answer the question: who was Thomas Jefferson and why should anyone care? Once you answer that, you are well on your way to painting the landscape, drawing the figures, and making the reader think deeply about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Attempt made in the second lead paragraph per the above. Hoppyh (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Third paragraph has been edited also. Another editor will also be looking at this tomorrow for improvement. Hoppyh (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for those improvements. Please do not be afraid to follow the WP:LEAD and summarize the life of the biographical figure. For example, I'm sure Jefferson had an early life and education, but I cannot find it in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I had attempted this earlier but we had a couple of editors who thought it was inappropriate. I will add something. Hoppyh (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Info added. Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Nope. I agree that they should be de-linked as common terms. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Viriditas, per your "too many cooks" statement above, I've attempted to draft a slimmer lead for the article from semi-scratch. (This is no knock against Hoppy's draft, which I also like and have used a lot of). It's significantly shorter, but I think it includes more material, such as Notes, a more explicit mention of slavery, and a note on the huge success of his Virginia Dynasty (which still needs mention in the article as well). Right now I'm just keeping it in my user space, but V, Hoppy, and any other page watchers, what do you think? It's at User:Khazar2/TJlead -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Please re-read Viriditas' first paragraph in her comment on the lead, my attempt to address what she raised and her nod at the improvement. Hoppyh (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I didn't mean any offense against your draft (which again, I do like), and if Viriditas considers this one settled, I won't rock the boat. But since this still hasn't been checked off the template yet, I figured two options were better than one. The current lead has a lot going for it (and some dynamite phrasing that I stole for mine too), but at other parts it seems wordy. It also omits some vital topics like TJ's slave-owning and the long-term influence of Jeffersonian democracy (topics discussed in far more detail in RSs than things like Notes, the APS presidency, or language ability). WP:LEAD states the importance of not having lengthy paragraphs or too much detail, and of matching the emphasis of the lead material to that in reliable sources; my personal take is that we're getting closer but aren't there yet.
But Viriditas, I'm 100% willing to defer to your judgement here. I tend to prefer the concise end of the spectrum, but I know that's just a personal choice and not the word of the wiki-gods. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
As you both further improve the article, I'm sure the lead will change as well. I will have more comments later, after I've made more of a dent in the overall review. Instead of worrying about the lead at this point, try to work on improving the prose in the body. Let's prioritize what's important and come back to the lead as a finishing touch. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Makes sense to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In 1777 he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
    • Please don't drop important fact bombs like this without telling the reader why it is significant. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
      •   Half done I can't find the sort of quotable hyperbole we include on other accomplishments ("this law was the first, best law, and when supporters read it, their heads exploded with joy"). But I've explained more what the bill did, and touched on its complicated road to passage. Incidentally, I've clarified elsewhere in this section too that much of this legislation was drafted in the given years, but only passed later by Madison in TJ's absence. Does that cover it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • It's still just sitting there in the lead with no explanation as to what it was or why it is important on first mention. Don't expect the reader to know anything. Just briefly describe why it is notable on the first mention in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
          • Sorry, didn't realize you meant the reference to it in the lead. If it's a choice of one or the other, I would actually suggest that we cut it from the lead, rather than expand.
Re: the lead generally, I've refrained from editing this for a bit at your suggestion, but the balance of the current lead still seems badly off to me. Glancing at the indexes of the biographies on my shelf (to get a sense of page counts) suggests that we give a lot of emphasis to minor topics while ignoring some major ones. I'd like to significantly reduce the word space given to topics like the APS, Notes, his ancestry, his language ability, his correspondence, and his ban on the transAtlantic slave trade. Topics that I think do need to be mentioned include his famous support of the French Revolution and the longstanding struggle of historians to reconcile his slave-owning with his human rights beliefs. This draft shows what I'm picturing: what do you think? User:Khazar2/TJlead Hoppyh has unfortunately just left for vacation, but maybe between you and I we could combine the best of both versions.
In the meantime, re: the VA Bill specifically, perhaps we can just add the explanation instead of the long name of the bill itelf. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson was diversely talented
Isnt the word polymath, or has that fallen out of fashion? Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hopefully, this will make everyone happy. Abel (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • "In the aggregate, Jefferson is ranked by historians as the fifth most successful U.S. President." -- this may be a little too specific (or not specific enough?). I did add two recent historian surveys to the article, both of which ranked TJ #5. But I'm not sure we have a source yet that verifies an "all-time" aggregate ranking. Maybe we could rephrase this as the broader "Historians generally rank TJ as one of the most successful US Presidents" or the more specific "A 2013 poll ranked Jefferson as..."? (Personally I'd prefer the former). -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am the source of "the aggregate" - my use of that was merely referencing the WP ranking table that is linked in the sentence. I would not recommend any more references to surveys. We could leave it out entirely but almost all the other articles make the reference. Hoppyh (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Two possible problems there. First, the table seems to rank TJ 4th, not 5th. Second, I don't think we can use Wikipedia itself as a source here--this synthesis could be done or weighted many different ways, and even the Wikipedia page itself has a template asking if this column is improper synthesis.
I'd suggest removing this sentence for now and replacing it with something like "Historians generally rank Jefferson as one of the most successful U.S. Presidents"; the historian surveys cited below are enough to demonstrate this, since one spans three decades. What do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Hoppyh (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • "was an American lawyer, a Founding Father and principal author of the Declaration of Independence" -- could we cut "lawyer" from the list? He did almost nothing notable as a lawyer, and over the course of his life, my impression is that he did much more business as a plantation owner than lawyer. But it would be incredibly provocative to list "plantation owner" first here. =) Just a thought. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think his legal training is properly noted in the lead (despite his limited practice of law) since it was essential to his abilities to author the documents he did and to his monumental changes in the law. If we omit it at the beginning we will need to add it to his education in the lead. Hoppyh (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good point. Striking the suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as an Am. lit. PhD (excuse me while I whip this out), I'm surprised anyone considers it more important than The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Phillis Wheatley's poems, or Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation, to name just a few. Since the Notes article gives no source for that claim (and I haven't run into it in any TJ biographies so far), I'm slapping that with a citation needed tag for now.
I don't have any strong opinions about whether it belongs in the lead, though I think it's more significant than a few details we currently include (language ability and APS presidency). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Very brief mention...it illustrates well his interest in science and is a singular publication of his? Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
On second thought maybe The Jefferson Bible should count as one also. Hoppyh (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Notes is probably worth mentioning in the lead, but don't forget that you need to add a cited statement to back up " is considered an extraordinary scientific compendium for its time" further down in the article. Per WP:LEAD, we can't include significant info in the lead that's not the article's body. Thanks =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dcpoliticaljunkie and Viriditas: I have restored the lead from recent edits which downgraded the GA review. Discussion invited if needed. Hoppyh (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I note that dcpoliticaljunkie made the same assessment as Gwillhickers and myself on the Hemings note for the introduction. It would be enough to say about his domestic affairs that Jefferson was married to Martha and had a life-long relationship with Hemings following Martha's death, the passage as it stands seems overly long and ultimately unnecessary for the introduction altogether.
I'm still for going through the entire review in a first pass to try to make the article coherent stylistically, smoothing over the hundreds of edits from multiple editors over the years, and cleaning up the citations. I am perfectly willing generally follow Viriditas and to admit that Khazar2 and Hoppyh are doing the heavy lifting here, which I appreciate. I trust there will be a review of the r,opeview before final submittal for GA status.
I like adding West Point to University of Virginia in the introduction, which was also deleted in the excitement of restoring Hemings, but I want to defer making additions until the first pass of the review is complete unless there is a consensus at Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I agree on the slavery point but not on West Point - there I don't think TJ's envolvement was comparable to UVA? Hoppyh (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Folks, it should be easy to compromise and work towards stability using Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section to guide your edits. I can see the merits of chopping the slavery material in the lead, but not wholesale deletion. As for West Point, that could go either way. Just keep in mind that the average, general reader who we are writing for wants a streamlined, comprehensive lead that gives them a good general overview. What they don't want is a shoehorned, stuff it all in until it leaks out the sides lead section—so be mindful of density and ease of comprehension. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think Hoopyh is right. West Point is fairly important to Jefferson's presidency, but not even in the top ten of his life as a whole. And, as Viriditas says, cramming too much in defeats the point of a summary, which is what the lede is. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have today abbreviated the ref. to slavery and left out West Point. Hoppyh (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just for the record, as my edit sum suggested, I agree with Khazar2: nix WP form the lead - as for UVa, that is in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Early life and career

edit
  Unresolved
  • Jefferson showed little interest in learning about his ancestry; on his father's side he only knew of the existence of his grandfather. Jefferson's earliest memory was being handed to a slave on horseback and carried 50 miles away to their new home, which overlooked the Rivanna River in current Albemarle County. He was of English and possible Welsh descent.
    • @Hoppyh: on a second reread, this passage sticks out. What do you make of this detail? Why is it important for the reader to know that Jefferson showed little interest in his ancestry? And is this referring to his interest as a child or later? How odd. And where does the earliest memory fit in to the chronology? And why do we learn about his English and Welsh descent two sentences after his ancestry is discussed? Should this material be removed to a note or a daughter article, or is there a way to properly fit it into the narrative? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Viriditas: let me know if more work is needed here. Also making a note to review article for a "comma audit". Hoppyh (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Education
  • He was taught from 1758 to 1760 by Reverend James Maury near Gordonsville, Virginia, while boarding with Maury's family and there studied history, science and the classics
    • @Hoppyh: maybe it's just my reading, but the phrasing of "and there studied" is unfamiliar to me. I expected something like "where he studied", preceded by a comma following "family". However, I notice the use of commas is somewhat sparse and inconsistent, so please choose your preferred style. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson entered... Small introduced him to... He also improved.... Jefferson graduated... He read the law...
    • Because it's confusing whether the "He" in the third sentence refers to Small or Jefferson, I would change it to "Jefferson", and then reverse "He" and "Jefferson" in the fourth and fifth sentences so that it reads "Jefferson also improved... He graduated... Jefferson read the law..." Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done I used a different approach which should work. Hoppyh (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • It appears that a user (TrustTruth) in good faith created Thomas Jefferson and education in 2008, not realizing that the education of biographical subjects is generally treated in an article like early life and career of Thomas Jefferson and not in an article about the later life of the subject where the views of education are explored. Of course, one could conceivably make the case for overlap, but this argument is not just weak but confuses two different topics, and this is evident to anyone who looks at the daughter articles. By convention (and best practices), Wikipedia biographies usually treat education as part of early life, not as part of the subject's views on education. In other words, the link to Thomas Jefferson and education belongs in the "Later life" section where Jefferson specifically explores these ideas, not in education (which falls under early life). Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
As follows? - Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, at age 16 Hoppyh (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Marriage, family, and Monticello
  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson, who was accomplished on the violin and cello, often accompanied her musically
  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • For some reason, the en dash is being used in place of the em dash in this section. For example: "Martha read widely, did fine needlework and was a skilled pianist–Jefferson often accompanied her on the violin or cello", and "He emerged, taking long rambling rides on secluded roads with daughter Martha–by her description, "a solitary witness to many a violent burst of grief". I found that a bit confusing as I expected the em dash. The MOS says: "Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." For examples of relevant usage, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Quite right. I imagine the "some reason" here is simple error. I've replaced these two, and will keep my eyes open for other instances. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Mea culpa...I think I have the rules right in my head but I need to get my keyboard shortcuts straight plus my old and failing eyes struggle to make the distinction? Hoppyh (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
No worries at all, a very easy error and a very easy fix. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The lack of attention to chronology here is confusing for the reader and lacks narrative integrity. For example, this could be resorted as "Monticello, marriage and family" to create a more realistic narrative. I greatly dislike it when editors discard narrative chronology in favor of grouping content outside of narrative. As a reader, I've always felt cheated by articles that did this. When the reader is instead, immersed into narrative continuity, new insights emerge about the subject that were otherwise hidden. We should dispense with obscurity whenever possible in favor of clarity and insight. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I half-agree; I don't mind grouping by topic generally, but in this case I agree it's needlessly disjointed (such as Martha being alive then dead then alive in three consecutive paragraphs of one section). Right now it seems caught between two structures--instead of taking "marriage" or "monticello" out of the chronology entirely, they start out as part of the chronology and then go their own way. I'm sure I'm hanging around the 3RR limit after today's work, but will take a pass at restructuring this in the morning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done I think. Hoppyh (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Lawyer and House of Burgesses
  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Will address this with chronology restructuring. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Political career 1775–1800

edit

  Doing...

Declaration of Independence
  • Jefferson served as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress beginning in 1775 at the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.
    • Sometimes it makes sense to spread links out, but I would rather see American Revolutionary War linked here rather than the current link in the fourth paragraph ("and that the War of Independence was a natural outcome of being separated by the Atlantic Ocean"). That's just me, however, and other editors may feel differently about where to link here. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Presidency

edit
  Unresolved
  • Jefferson's administration began by eliminating the whiskey excise and all other federal internal taxes, stating that closing "unnecessary offices" and cutting "useless establishments and expenses" allowed for the discontinuation of internal taxes.
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Following the advice of Washington, Adams, Hamilton and others, Jefferson and the Congress in 1802 authorized the funding and construction of the United States Military Academy at West Point on the Hudson River. On March 16, 1802, Jefferson signed the Military Peace Establishment Act, directing that a corps of engineers be established and "constitute a Military Academy." The Act would provide well-trained officers for a professional army. The Academy officially opened on July 4, 1802, and began providing trained officers for a professional army.
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • On April 30, 1802, Jefferson signed a bill to allow Ohio to hold a state constitutional convention.[122] Ohio became a state on March 1, 1803, the first state admitted under the Northwest Ordinance.[123]
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • The sale also marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America, removing an obstacle to U.S. westward expansion....However, Jefferson's acquisition is generally considered a major accomplishment and a pivotal contribution toward America's western growth
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson and the Congress in 1802 established the United States Military Academy at West Point on the Hudson River. The Military Peace Establishment Act provided officers for a professional army—the Academy officially opened July 4, 1802.[1]
    • There have been previous concerns about this material. After rereading it, I found that it didn't really fit, and read as a piece of trivia tacked on without narrative continuity. Is there a more appropriate place for this tidbit, or should it stay in a daughter article? Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Moved to Later Years for context as part of his educational interests. Hoppyh (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson continued to pay the remaining Barbary States until the end of his presidency.
  Done Removed to talk page for clarification/omission.Hoppyh (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Haiti was founded in 1804 as the second republic in the world after its successful slave revolution in the French colony of Saint-Domingue. Jefferson refused to diplomatically recognize Haiti, fearing the success of the "slave republic" would rouse the American South's slaves to rebellion. Jefferson also supported an arms and trade embargo against Haiti.[2][a] Nevertheless, during the Haitian revolution, when Jefferson wanted to discourage French control in 1802–1803, he allowed arms and contraband goods to reach Saint-Domingue.[4]
The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson also uses Mathewson, and covers the material in greater detail, so there is no harm in deleting this passage here. But as a rewritten passage it could go to the linked article at least. Interestingly, the reference to Jefferson's policy in Haiti is not as detailed and tagged as without a citation. I'll try to return to this later this morning. I'm afraid I may orphan a citation in the Jefferson article, which can be found by running a Harvref sort. I'm a bit rusty. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
As you see fit. Hoppyh (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Without combing through edit history I believe it was @Cmguy777: who named the section and covered Hatai, the revolution there, et al, some time ago, apparently with the idea that the subjects were all natives of the New World that Jefferson had to deal with. Apples and Oranges. Yes, it seems the topic would be better covered elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Why is Haiti so unimportant ? There are Matthewson links provided. Jefferson was in charge of allowing or not allowing arms to Haiti. That is signifigant. Also signifigant this was done before the Monroe doctrine. Jefferson may have admired France but he did not want France or Napoleon to interfere in American sphere of influence. I do not recommend moving but recommend to stay in the Presidency section. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Cmguy777: Instead of asserting significance, please find a source that claims or makes the case that this is a significant part of his biography. While I was reviewing this section, I found this material at the end of a section on Indian removal. I fail to see the relevance or connection to the biographical narrative, nor how it fits. To me, this reads like shoehorned trivia and minor details that belong in a daughter article, but if you think it is significant (and can show a source supporting that contention) and can figure out how it can work in the biography, I wouldn't object to its placement, however, editors do have to stick with what the sources think is important and apply that framework. We just don't cover every minor detail in the biography. At best, this should appear in the presidency subarticle. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Viriditas: I don't understand. The references are given in the paragraph Matthewson (1996), p. 22; Herring (2008), p. 239; Matthewson (1995), p. 221 Matthewson and Herring found Haiti worthwhile. By your own arguement the paragraph should be included in the Presidency section. Jefferson was the final authority on either giving Haiti weapons or not giving Haiti weapons. Maybe Jefferson's policy on Haiti reveals an uncomfortable inconsistency of Jefferson's advocacy of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to Haitians. Regardless, Matthewson and Herring are reliable sources unless proven otherwise. I gave my opinon since Gwillhickers mentioned me in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Cmguy777: thank you for your comments. The question I'm asking isn't about the reliability of the sources; in this argument, that's a given. The question at hand is, how do the sources specifically assert significance? We can find sources to support just about anything, but we don't add material just because we can source it. For example, in this discussion you've asserted special significance several times. That's good, but you haven't given any indication that the sources themselves assert the same significance. This is a common issue and it comes up a lot, which is why I'm prepared to address it. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Viriditas: Matthewson found signifigance in Jefferson's Haitian policy, why else would Matthewson write or research Jefferson's Haitian policy. I don't speak for Matthewson. Are you saying Matthewson did not find signifigance in Jefferson's Haitian policy? I suppose what you are getting at is if only Jefferson's main biographers find signifigance in Jefferson's Haitian policy. Jefferson is a facinating historical figure and a founder of the USA. I personally believe Jefferson's actions are signifigant as a Founder. Jefferson feared the violent slave uprising in Haiti would lead to a violent slave uprising in the U.S. Source: Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power Jon Meacham (2012) pp 255-256 That is why Jefferson and Haiti are signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Cmguy777: you've made a good point. Would the material work in the slavery section? Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Viriditas:There are two issues concerning Haiti 1. Slave uprising and 2. Napoleon...Jefferson while President kept Napoleon from recapturing Haiti. That to me would belong in the Presidency section...Jefferson is establishing a Monroe Doctrine before the Monroe Doctrine. Maybe the section can be rewritten to focus more on how the French were trying to reestablish control in America particularly Napoleon but Jefferson was against this...and also mentioning the slave Haitian slave uprising. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Cmguy777: unfortunately, I was only addressing the relevance of the material to the slavery section. I think it's best if I focus on finishing the review. Please use the talk page to find consensus for the material. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Haiti was a slave state whose revolution occurred during Jefferson's presidency, but other than that, it's a bit out of place under the Slavery section in the Jefferson biography. However, as Cm' points out, it's covered by major Jefferson biographers and deserves mention under the Presidency section, as it was one of the major events Jefferson had to deal with while President. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ McDonald, 2004, p. 184
  2. ^ Matthewson, 1996, p. 22
  3. ^ Herring, 2008, p. 239
  4. ^ Matthewson, 1995, p. 221

Later years

edit
  Resolved
I like the solution. they could have played the Scottish game of bowls, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, but "Chess was one of Jefferson's favorite games, and one that he taught his granddaughter Ellen Wayles Randolph to play. In the summer, the two would carry the chess set outdoors and play under the trees on the West Lawn." [1] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Political and religious views

edit
  Resolved
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • He acted out of his republican theory that liberty could only be retained in small, homogeneous societies
  Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Clarified. Hoppyh (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Added link to Jesus. Hoppyh (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Jefferson was firmly anticlerical
    • That statement (or idea) should lead the paragraph instead of appearing in the middle. That way, it gives the appropriate context to the reader of what is to follow, namely the passing of legislation. Viriditas (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Note: the entirety of the three paragraph section on the "Benefits of rebellion" consists of almost nothing but seven separate quotes. And while the quotes are certainly significant enough to discuss, I must emphasize that this is not Wikiquote nor a critical reception section of a poorly written film article. This is a biography of Thomas Jefferson. Now, first things first: is the title of this section accurate? These quotes are misused by so many people, it is unfortunate that this article does not attempt to set the record straight on their interpretation but rather just cites them without commentary. Strange. @Hoppyh: could you reread the "Benefits of Rebellion" section and take another look? Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Hoppyh: The "Society and government" and “Benefits of rebellion” sections should be consolidated into “Society and government”. The text of “Benefits of rebellion” should be copy edited into the last paragraph as the following:

Jefferson was steeped in the British Whig tradition of the oppressed majority set against a repeatedly unresponsive court party in the Parliament. He sought to justify small outbreaks of rebellion as necessary to get monarchial regimes to amend their oppressive measures compromising popular liberties. In a republican regime ruled by the majority, he acknowledged “it will often be exercised when wrong” [Melton p. 277], but “the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.” [Meecham p. 213]. As Jefferson saw his party triumph in two terms of his presidency and launch into a third term under James Madison, his view of the US as a continental republic and an “empire of liberty” grew to be more upbeat. On departing the presidency in 1809, he described America as “trusted with the destines of this solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government. [Bober p. 264].

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I agree with your suggestion - you have provided the English history from which TJ was speaking - I would recommend we retain the Shay's rebellion quote - place it after the third sentence? I am so glad you had the gumption to write this. I am a bit gun shy...recalling Robin William's line from "Good Morning, Vietnam"..."Oh! I'm goin' to hell for THAT one!" Hoppyh (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
On second thought don't worry about the Shay's rebellion quote I mentioned above. Hoppyh (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The Meecham "remedy" quote is specifically in reference to Shay's rebellion. The pardoning policy is in fact what the Washington administration adopted in the Whiskey Rebellion. Meecham notes on p. 214 that Jefferson was speaking of Shay's rebellion in hyperbole, without specific knowledge of the facts on the ground. I don't think anything is gained by expanding on the Shay's reference. Maybe "upbeat" instead of "sanguine"? Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done In my view Hoppyh (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • While he believed most people could not escape corrupting dependence, the franchise should be extended only to those who could, including the yeoman farmer.
In theory, voting in a republic should be by those who are economically independent to allow free exercise of their reason. This includes the 80% males engaged in yeomanry farming in Virginia, but not tenant farmers. It did not include day laborers in the cities at first, for fear that they would vote vive voce in the presence of those hiring them to suit their employers — until he found political allies among them nationally in numbers in such places in Philadelphia, New York and Boston. Although women had reason, they were not free of undue influence from fathers, brothers and husbands.
At first Jefferson believed philosophically that only those who could escape the usual corrupting dependence of commercial city life should be able to vote, such as the yeoman farmers and artisans who made up a majority of his Virginia male population. Practically this meant he was for reducing property requirements in Virginia to expand the franchise to any man who owned a three-acre farm. Later he was for including any male who qualified for the militia such as city dwellers owning arms or paying taxes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@TheVirginiaHistorian: thank you for explaining. I am reminded of the role of the independent scientist (Gentleman scientist) from around the same time period. Can you think of a way to modify the current sentence (in italics above) so as to encapsulate or expand upon your description in the article ?Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • He remained less suspicious of working democracy than many of his contemporaries.
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Voter participation grew in Jefferson's two terms, increasing to "unimaginable levels" compared to the Federalist Era, with doubled turnouts.
  Done pulled voter turnout from presidential election articles/add links—we'll need to find other source. Hoppyh (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
The note at the chart at List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin reports: The popular vote was not recorded prior to the 1824 election. The same convention is followed at uselectionatlas.org.
In 1800 Virginia gave Jefferson 41,330 61.4%, in 1804 104,110 72.8%, an increase in total turnout from 67,282 to 143,029, or doubling the turnout (2.125 times). Madison gained 124,732 64.73% of 192,691 or nearly tripling the turnout from 1800 (2.864 times) see US President - National Vote 1800, 1804, 1808 ourcampaigns.com viewed November 29, 2015.
(This, at a time the population of Virginia grew from 1800 to 1810 from 807,557 to 877,683 (1.087 times) [2]). If it seems that Meecham reported breathless astonishment at the time, it was perhaps because the increase was startling in a time of monarchy...it certainly would be today, even in democratical times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Please edit and source as you think best. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • John Quincy Adams noted following Jefferson's 1804 election, "The power of the Administration rests upon the support of a much stronger majority of the people throughout the Union than the former Administrations ever possessed."
  Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done ?? Hoppyh (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I tried out a second draft, but I'm still open to further copyedit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Strike three by me. Hoppyh (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's better, thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Please note this section has been cleared by Viriditas—if the suggested addition of detail on church and state results in a downgrade by the reviewer, an appropriate edit to restore the section will be obligatory on my part as the GA nominator. So, I would suggest you run it by the reviewer first. I am indeed more confident about the issue in your hands.Hoppyh (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Slavery

edit
  Resolved
 – This could easily be cut down in size, but I'm going to pass in its current form. Personally, I find it far too wordy with too many long quotes that would be better paraphrased in brief. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Paraphrasing used and redundant quotes removed—refs with quotes included. Hoppyh (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Jefferson–Hemings controversy
  • Four paragraphs on the Jefferson–Hemings controversy in Jefferson's biography when it already has its own article? That seems excessive to me. Two paragraphs should do. Perhaps others disagree? Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's hard for me to say. I feel like a lot of the weight of this article is out of whack, and is going to need some tinkering. Right now I think Lafayette's two-week 1824 visit gets as many words as the Louisiana Purchase (though both have subarticles), and Jefferson's activities during his last week get more words than the LA Purchase. So I don't know whether I should say, yeah, it's not reasonable to give Hemings more space than the Louisiana Purchase, or no, it's crazy to give Hemings less space than TJ's architectural ideas for U Va.
So many topics here have subtopic articles spinning off (Jefferson and slavery, and religion, early life, education, every war and law, even Lafayette's visit) that it's probably best to imagine we're writing it as a standalone article, giving weight where weight is due. I'd hate to see this main article end up emphasizing all the stuff that's not important enough to be a subtopic. How many paragraphs Hemings should get under that plan, though, I don't know. The controversy is a huge topic in the last two decades of Jefferson studies, but Jefferson's life is so stuffed with accomplishment that it's still hard to judge how much weight each topic should get. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Khazar2, it sounds like you have a good idea as to what the secondary sources consider important and what isn't. It would help greatly if you could start trimming the unimportant as much as possible, and if you can, make a brief list of the things you removed on the talk page. Anyone who has a problem can easily add the material back in with a page history undo, so if you can, please be bold and start trimming away at the fat. As you know, brevity is the sine qua non of good writing. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Will be glad to try, thanks (and I agree on the brevity). My rule of thumb for cuts so far has been that if a detail doesn't regularly appear in one-volume TJ biographies, it's a higher level of detail than we need for an encyclopedia. Balance between sections will be trickier, but again we can try to use the RS biographies as a guide. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Maybe   Done? I reduced this to three paragraphs. I'm not sure it can get much shorter than that, since it has to cover the contemporary controversy (Callender), the later historical controversy, and details about TJ's probably-second-family. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hey Hoppyh, I notice you dropped the subsection header here with an edit summary about it being just one subsection. My understanding of the MOS is that this is okay (see my GAs United Nations, Auschwitz concentration camp, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, etc.). So I've restored that for now; I think it's helpful for the reader to be able to break that into chunks. (especially since the Hemings chunk is probably the most popular part of the article). But if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning, feel free to revert me and we can talk further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I stand corrected. Hoppyh (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I also restored the "Memorials and Honors" section break, just let me know if you disagree. Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I made a correction here that I wanted to note in case it proves controversial. The article previously stated that Hemings was freed following Jefferson's death by his daughter, but this is only half-true; per Annette Gordon-Reed, SH was allowed to live free but still remained legally a slave. The article's previous citation relied on Fawn Brodie's 1970s work for this information; hopefully most editors here would agree we should follow Gordon-Reed's 2007 Hemings of Monticello instead, since it's widely respected and won every award under the sun. (For example, Gordon-Reed is who Meacham follows in his 2012 biography). Hopefully this correction won't be a big deal to anyone, but I know the Hemings stuff can be a live wire.
Looking quickly at this section, it has another big issue: in each paragraph, the minority reports on TJ-Hemings (he didn't) are given more space than the majority view (he did). This is the exact definition of undue weight. Let's try to expand the findings of the majority reports and more briefly summarize their critics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
On the earlier correction sourced by Gordon-Reed, I count the legislation expelling slaves manumitted in Virginia as a part of its decline as a polity, society and culture from 1800-65. It is difficult to set the context for the minority white concern for enslaved Virginia families. Not sure it can be done here, but if you can see your way to convey credit to Jefferson’s daughter for the practice of allowing Sally Hemings personal independence and family proximity under the constraints of a declining regime, it would be interesting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, let me work on that phrasing--maybe add a footnote? Gordon-Reed says in her epilogue that S. Hemings probably wasn't legally freed because of the legal obstacles to doing so in addition to the need to keep the family secret. So Patsy probably took the kindest option available in the system. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Does this address what you're saying? Please don't hesitate to revise/expand if it doesn't. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  DoneHoppyh (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Interests and activities

edit
  Resolved
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • In the field of architecture, Jefferson helped popularize the Neo-Palladian style in the United States through designs for the Virginia State Capitol
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Historical reputation

edit
  Resolved
  • @Hoppyh: please take a look at the use of quotes in this section. The Meacham quote, for example, is quite long, and quotes like that are usually presented as blockquotes. However, this seems like it could be better presented as a shortened paraphrase, but I will defer to your judgment. The Wilson quote left me somewhat confused, not just because his reputation is on the rocks these days, but I have no idea what it means when he says that Jefferson was "not a good American". The reader in me wants to know why. Again, this seems ripe for paraphrasing instead of quoting. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Paraphrasing used and Wilson's progressivism noted. Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

See also

edit
  Resolved
I'm thinking this could come out altogether; what do you think? Hoppyh (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do whatever you think is right, but there is a place in the "Democracy" section near the landed gentry part. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done (removed) Hoppyh (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Hoppyh (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm uncomfortable with this one. Jefferson wasn't Minister to France until 1785, four years after Yorktown and two years after the Treaty of Paris--it seems disorienting for readers to head this section with "France in the American Revolution." I personally think this link is better left in "See Also". -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's understandable, as I didn't intend for it to be used in the heading but in the body. How about as a dab link to french hero of the American Revolutionary War in the third paragraph: "While in France he became a regular companion of the Marquis de Lafayette, a French hero of the American Revolutionary War..." Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
That works for me--good suggestion. Moved down there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
These links appear to be standard for US presidential articles. (For example, there's one in the "See Also" for the George Washington GA). But if you feel it conflicts with the GA criteria I don't mind removing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no strong feelings on this, but in full bodied article like this, see also links should be used sparingly if at all. In smaller articles, see also links often help to build topics that are not yet written. As a reader, I expect to see links like this in the article or in the footer template. Again, if you want to leave it in the see also, that's fine too, but I agree with Hoppyh. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
My preference is they should be either linked in the article or removed. Hoppyh (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Fair enough. Removed this link. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing

edit

Viriditas, I think all of the primary source citations have now been replaced or backed up by secondary source citations. So that's hopefully a big   Done. One question about sourcing Hoppy and I weren't sure about: is there any problem with using older (say, pre-1900) secondary sources? I don't think we have anything important or controversial sourced to these, but I wasn't sure how they fit in Wikipedia's RS policies. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have attempted to use Tucker (1837) to cite facts not in dispute. Review of Tucker's work has noted an unbiased review of TJ. —see George Tucker. Biographers Malone and Peterson include the work in their bibliographies, which represent a positive factor for RS. Inasmuch as the work is more contemporary to the subject than modern works, I would say it brings unique value - untainted by time. Hoppyh (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
If Malone and Peterson both trust it, I agree that's probably the best endorsement it could get. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
That sounds exactly right. Of course, if you are citing the primary through the secondary, using the as cited in format helps set that frame. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's what I've tried to do for the letter quotations we had before. Tucker is actually an early secondary source, so he can probably stand alone. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    Lead: unresolved
    Early life and career: unresolved
    Political career: in progress
    Presidency: unresolved
    Later years: resolved
    Political and religious views: resolved
    Slavery: resolved
    Interests and activities: resolved
    Historical reputation: resolved
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Education: use of section template indicating summary style is off. "Education" is not a summary style of Thomas Jefferson and education but of the aforementioned early life and career of Thomas Jefferson, which is properly linked below section one only once. The daughter article on Thomas Jefferson and education refers to a topic he explored in his later life, not his education in his early life
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:  
    Concern about primary sources raised in relevant discussions
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused (see summary style):  
    Slavery section could benefit from tighter, more condensed summary style
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    No edit wars, but the article is actively undergoing major edits and revisions
    Edit wars have recently occurred during the review.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    Question about Tuckahoe Plantation image (see above section labeled "Images")
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Instability over a one month period has led me to fail this review. I took two weeks off from the review (one week last month, one week this month) in the hopes that you folks would get a clue. Instead I saw two different edit wars, major rewrites and revisions of content I had already reviewed, and cluelessness over the GA criterions which have been explained ad infinitum. I can only conclude that this article was not ready to be nominated. While the primary reason for failing is a lack of stability over a one month period, the secondary reason is a failure to understand the summary style criterion. The third reason is recent concerns over close paraphrasing that have neither been addressed or fixed to my satisfaction due to confusion over the differences between quoting and paraphrasing. Before nominating this article for any future review, I suggest y'all decide on a stable version that doesn't change from day to day. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply



Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Jefferson/GA2&oldid=694066970"