Talk:Caleb Strong

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Caleb Strong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cdtew (talk · contribs) 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to begin this review shortly. I'll have a full review by tonight. Cdtew (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is really well-written, and I only have a few suggestions for you. I won't place this on hold yet, since I think these can be done in the next day or so fairly easily. Feel free to dispute any of my points, as they are just my opinion! I think this is potentially FAC-worthy with some more expansion. Cdtew (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Prose review

• I made a number of stylistic changes; if you disagree with any of them feel free to revert! (I won't take offense).
  • No problem, your edits look fine. Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• One stylistic change I made that I do support strongly, though, is the removal of parenthetical statements. I use those a lot in my own writing, but I think they're oftentimes a relic of conversational speech, rather than a good prose writing tool. YMMV with that thought,
• You alternate between Democratic-Republican and Republican (which history books do to). I'd say pick one (likely Democratic-Republican) and stick with it.
  • Actually, I use D-R on first use (which is I think the name by which most people learn about this party), and then stick to Republican. Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that's fine, although now that I think about it, Madison et al referred to it generally as the Republican party. I reviewed a few of my books on the era, and they stuck to that as well. You may be better off just nixing the hyphenated form and sticking to republican throughout, with a link to the Democratic-Republican Party. Cdtew (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• "he navigated the state through the early years of the 19th century as the rest of the country became progressively more Republican" - perhaps make clear that he navigated the state in a Federalist direction? And that Mass as well as the rest of the country was becoming increasingly Republican? Clarified Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• in American Revolution: Why did he refuse service in the Continental Congress? There may not be an answer, but I think most readers would wonder, especially those who don't realize how unrewarding such service was.
  • Alas, sources do no not say. There are any number of candidate reasons; I personally suspect his wife was sickly (given he was called away from the constitutional convention on her account), although money and the onerous duty certainly also qualify. Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem, then Cdtew (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• In United States Senator: Nitpick, because the Constitution refers to them as "second-class senators"; you could fudge and say "what is now known as Class 2 Senator, or leave it as is. Seems like Class 2 is less contemporary. Rephrased Magic♪piano 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• This may be a nitpick, but the 11th Amendment initially barred suits against one state by citizens of another; it was only in the late 19th century that the concept of sovereign immunity was expanded as far as your statement takes it. Clarified the limitation. Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• It probably bears mentioning that the Jay Treaty not only angered Revolutionary France, but also the Democratic-Republican establishment (since this would tie into Strong's later issues with the D-R's). Done Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• In First term as governor: There are a few areas I think have some NPOV/Words to Watch issues:

• "the patriotic Hawley" - not sure how to change this, but is there a way to re-word it to say that Hawley was perceived as patriotic?
  • I wasn't aware that it was at all controversial that Hawley was an adherent of the Patriot cause (or biased to say so). Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's not particularly controversial that he was an ardent Patriot, but being patriotic and being a supporter of the Patriot (American Revolution) cause are two different things to a lay reader. "Patriotic" alone gives an unusually positive connotation. Cdtew (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've rephrased this. Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• "bloated and inefficient" - is there another way to say bloated that doesn't seem as damnatory?

• While I'm not entirely sure what all of the reforms were, I don't have the source in front of me (and others aren't particularly forthcoming). I've temporized it to a known change, but may revisit this next time I see Hart in a library. Magic♪piano 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• The section on the 1806 election troubles me (not for my own bias - I'm a Federalist sympathizer from a state where D-R's ruled!), but I think the statements about how the "legislature scrutinized the returns in a partisan manner" and "the partisan nature of the analysis", as well as the "further, less biased, analysis". I realize this is a tricky thing to write about -- and that the D-R's may have done something under the table -- but if they did something unethical, and the historical record supports it, why not say so?
  • There is an account by Morison of what the legislature did, but I didn't think it was necessary to delve into it in detail here. (Among other shenanigans they discarded ballots with misspellings of Strong's name but not of Sullivan's using the somewhat lame excuse that those of Sullivan sounded right.) If you think it should be elaborated, I can certainly add more detail. Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose my concern is that the account sounds as if it's being written from a slightly-pro-Federalist viewpoint without that background information. I think since it concerns Strong's election itself, that information would be pertinent, and the addition of an explanatory sentence will remove any NPOV concerns. Cdtew (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've added more words on this. Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Back up in the second paragraph, this might be another area to indicate to the reader where exactly the Republicans were gaining power during Strong's tenure (ie: both in Mass and the U.S.). Done Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• "as opposed to a plurality" - I'm not sure the whole sentence fragment needs to be wikilinked. Maybe just wikilink to "plurality"? Rephrased Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• in Second term and War of 1812: Who convinced Strong to come out of retirement? Added explanation. Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• When talking about disputes between the state and the federal army, it may be worth mentioning to which side the players belonged (ie: Dearborn, Cushing, etc.) Something as simple as "regular-army General" or the like. Done Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• It may be worth clarifying what is meant by "the district militia, which was ironically dominated by Republicans, objected to the agreement and to command changes that violated its spirit" Violated what's spirit? And why would people who objected to an agreement also object when the spirit of the agreement is violated? I get what you're saying, but its a little confused. Rephrased Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is there anything in the sources that says what Strong did after retirement? I think that would work towards 3(a)- Breadth.
  • The Lodge memorial (which is by far the longest biographical piece on Strong) only mentions that he retired. (It also doesn't say what he did between 1807 and 1812 beyond refusing the 1808 nomination, which is potentially more relevant since he may have maintained some level of political influence in that time.) Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, not a problem then. Cdtew (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Finally, take this or leave it, but you have redlinked the S.S. Caleb Strong. Based on my recent participation in AfD discussions regarding merchant marine, auxilliary, and commandeered civilian ships, I think it's unlikely that a liberty ship, without having participated in some action or having some distinguishing feature, would pass muster in AfD with everyone wringing their hands about WP:GNG. For instance, see the guideline in WP:MILUNIT. You may want to just create a redirect for S.S. Caleb Strong that leads to this page, which seems to be in vogue these days among the deleterati.
  • The statement is generated by a template. The main thing that the ship seems to be known for is that a bag of its mail was lost and finally delivered in 1986. I don't know if this is sufficient for the deleterati or not. Magic♪piano 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation/Copyvio review

• No copyvio detected on a random copyvio check.
• Have you considered using harvard refs along with the sfn's you have? This is obviously not a requirement, but I think they make overall sense.
  • Someday I will get in the habit of using harvard refs... Magic♪piano 14:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Per WP:WHYCITE, image captions should have citations when the information isn't present and cited in the article itself. In this case, the Fort Adams and Gen. Sherbrooke images need cites for their captions. Done Magic♪piano 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise, pics and captions look good, and all pictures are public domain.

I think I've addressed all of your substantive issues. If not, let me know. Thanks for taking the time to review this! (If you liked this one, you may find the next one interesting too.) Magic♪piano 02:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Review summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nova Scotia letter

The citation for Governor Strong's letter to the Governor of Nova Scotia, the Morison book seems problematic to me. I'm writing a book on the subject and I've never seen in "The Urban Federalist" any reference to this. I'm actually looking for a primary source of this event or a copy of the letter it self. Where did you find this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlambert11 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't generally deal in primary sources here. You are correct that mention of this doesn't seem to appear in Morison, but 30 seconds in Google Books turned up several secondary sources that specifically mention a mission to Nova Scotia in November 1814. Magic♪piano 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)