The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:26, 7 May 2012 [1].

Federalist No. 10[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Federalist No. 10

Featured article review/Federalist No. 10/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Christopher Parham. Projects: Law, United States, Politics, Books, GLAM/NARA.

I placed a talk page notice about two months ago that had no response.

1a There are weasel words scattered about and at least one confusing passage marked with clarify.
1c The obvious is the lack of citations throughout the article. Direct quotes need citations.
2c Of what citations currently exist they're missing retrieved on dates and publication dates.
Minor problems not worth a mention at this stage. Brad (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focused mainly on prose and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No acknowledgment of the FAR and other than a bit of copyediting, nothing has been worked on. Brad (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the above concerns—"many other essays^[which?] ... saw much wider distribution⁸" If this is what the source states, is it reasonable to demand more? In cases where further detail was in an available source I added it.¶ The cn in the lead was accounted for in the later section Application.¶Direct quotes were clearly attributed to brief works. I referenced them to online copies.¶"missing retrieved on dates ": added.¶I added a brief preceding section on how and why the Constitutional Convention met. 86.44.26.64 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! Thanks for the effort.
If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays...blah blah" So essentially a quote.
An article on WP shouldn't be cited with the contents of original documents. There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves. It's not an ideal situation. Brad (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there are precious litte raised issues outstanding.

If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays..." I disagree. It sounds like you are mistaking the statement for opinion, whereas it is a sourced statement on the facts. Do you think "many" is opinion? what about "several", or "multiple"? It would be very odd indeed to attribute a statement like this, as it would imply there was something singular or opinionated about it. When a work states something on the facts, or shows that the statement is true, the thing to do is cite it, not attribute it to the author. Otherwise we must attribute every sourced line on the site. The source for the article's statement is Kaminski. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves You requested specific references for direct quotes. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having time to contribute to this, but as to citing the original document, my impression is that the precis of a work itself is regularly cited to the work. That seems to be the practice still even in recent FAs, e.g. plot summary sections. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Do any reviewers have an opinion on the current state of this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does not meet FA standards. Just a couple of examples:

The claim that "Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy" is supported only by a popular poll conducted by newspapers.
"Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan" only has several court rulings that quoted the essay to back it up. Such a statement is only tenable if you can produce a source, or preferably several sources, that actually say that. Listing several cases where the essay was cited in this way and concluding this statement from that is original research at the very least.

There are many more problems. Just fixing these two won't make this a featured article. They just serve as examples.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The prose leaves much to be desired. There are some phrases that are unclear and some that are weaselly.

"The essay is the most famous of the Federalist Papers" This phrase doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. I was under the impression that we concern ourselves with notability, not fame.
"No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history." Did they share that slot? Or was No. 51 somewhere else on the list?
"David Epstein, writing in 1984, described it as among the most highly regarded of all American political writing" Who's this guy?
"A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry" I'm not sure that it's possible for a state to be focused on something. Mammals and books can focus on things, but states and other landmasses cannot.
"Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan." I'm not a fan of the use of "classic" here. This statement is presented as a fact when it is actually an opinion of an unnamed author.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.