Nice article, no flaws that I could see.-LtNOWIS 22:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: this will bring a knowing smile to many faces... ;-) --Plek 22:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- let's let everyone in on it--The_stuart 00:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Object. This article presents arguments as fact and uses weasel words. To take one paragraph, "Hamilton did this brilliantly and forcefully, setting a high standard for administrative competence." "Arguably, Hamilton set the path for American economic and military might." I also think that the method of referencing would be of very little use to anyone who would try to fact-check this article later. Two very general histories are cited without any mention of what came from them being inline or in notes. It has a geographic bias in using America as synonymous with the Colonies or with United States.119 23:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Reads like the Alexander Hamilton fan club newsletter. A bit more on the Bank wars and a lot more justification of the claims highlighted by User:119, or a bit of toning down, in their objection would be welcome. Filiocht 09:47, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Didn't Robert McHenry find some flaws in it? We need to be real careful about this one; this ought to be showcase piece, a rebuttal of his argument in action. Everyking 02:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and they were fixed within days of his article coming out back in November or something. Then the disputed facts were cited to two biographies of Hamilton. The power of the Wiki way. But object because I still think the article has innadequate references, and the contended facts could stand to be cited more directly to the most authoritative sources available. I believe there are some strong unresolved criticisms on the talk page too. - Taxman 13:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to actually read McHenry's piece. Many of the flaws are still there. The one sentence he cites as an example of poor writing is still there, unchanged, and the same sentence is mentioned again in the first objection on this page. 68.118.61.219 03:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, having now read McHenry's piece for the first time. He makes the point there that earlier verisons of of the article were better, and I agree. Sadly, the reason for their superiority is the fact that they were based closely on an article from a U.S. govt. source. It could well be said that the subsequent history is a case study in the dangers of the Wiki way, rather than its power. In addition to the sentence cited above and by McHenry, some further weaknesses include: numerous instances of redundant repetitions of the subject's name (where pronominalisation would make for a better reading experience), a number of sentences where missing introductory clause commas cause some confusion, the extraordinarily glowing pro-Hamilton tone of much of the prose, the equally POV dismissal of post-duel Aaron Burr. The fact that the article has been posted here with so much still in dispute on its talk page also beggars belief. Filiocht 08:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Object, on the reference issue, if no other. The two books cited were not the sources for the article. I know because I'm the one who added them. I used about 2 pages of each of those books to settle the date of birth question, and they were later moved to a separate references section, as if they were references for the entire article. I have no idea what sources were used; the only input I had into the artice was the settling and referencing of that issue (brought to wikipedia's attention by the Robert McHenry article mentioned above), and some minor cleanup. Much of this is discussed on the article's talk page. -R. fiend 16:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Concurring Object--ZayZayEM 08:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)