Talk:American Creation

Going for Good Article status

Just wanted to post a courtesy note here that I'll probably be trying to bring this up to GA status in the coming week or two; if anyone's still active here, I'd welcome your input. My plan is to expand the content section a bit more, to add a few of the book's major themes as elaborated by critics and Ellis himself, a bit more background on the book's writing, and its critical reception. Thanks to everybody who worked on this before me for getting it started -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 18:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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):

   The writing meets applicable guidelines. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

There are a couple points in the summary that will need to be changed:

The section about "Treaty" should be reworded to reflect the fact that although the Treaty of New York was signed successfully, that Georgian intransigence and McGillivray's double-dealing led to the de facto nullification of the treaty. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanded accordingly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Argument" section should explain that Madison overcame Henry by pointing out how the Confederation government failed during the war. The current verbiage is confusing and implies that shared sovereignty and what we now call federalism was the winning play, when Madison never sought that solution. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Expanded to include both. Ellis does call the blurred sovereignty part "the clinching argument" (124), so it seems worth emphasizing here. Does this address your concern? Thanks for both of these suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that Madison as a reluctant Federalist wanted a stronger central government only for purposes of strong emergency response. While Ellis makes the point about blurred sovereignty being the successful argument, I suspect that it was a compromise that no one really wanted as it was too weak for the New England merchant class and too strong for the Southern planter class. Regardless, your edits addressed my concerns. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In the "Winter" section, Washington never changed strategy. Ellis makes plain that Washington was unsure about how to proceed. It was Maxwell, Duportail, and ultimately Greene who advocated holding the countryside and forcing the British to continue the occupation and attempt to strike the Continental Army. According to Ellis, Washington never made up his mind about the strategy and waited until the British attacked into the Carolinas. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to rewrite this to address your concerns; let me know if you find it sufficient, or what wording you would prefer. Thanks again for the suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article includes a short synopsis as well as some critical reaction. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article fairly depicts the book's contents and mentions journalistic reviews of the book. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Except for User:Khazar2's improvements, activity on this article has been slow. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

4. 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):

   The only applicable image is the cover, and the image is labeled for fair use. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your comments so far. Just let me know what else is needed. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading this book over the past few days. I should be done shortly. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're going above and beyond! Well, hope you enjoy it--I really appreciate your doing that. There's no rush on this, obviously, so take your time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to the aggregate that this review has taken as long as it has. It seemed to me that I should read the book upon which the article is written. Once I had started to read, it occurred to me that I may as well give as thorough an examination as I could rather than simply ensure GA criteria was met. I intend to finish this GA review on time as originally predicted. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries--I've been in plenty of 2- or 3-week GA reviews. There's no deadline, and I really appreciate both your thoroughness and the good suggestions above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I approve this as a GA. I'd like to make some other comments for work to be performed concurrent with a review at the A-class or FA level:

• You might include reviews from the Virginia Historical Society, BookReporter, and the Pittsbugh Post-Gazette. You might also include interviews of the author by BookTV and Vermont Public Radio in the External links.
• Sadly, the reviews of this book have been journalistic, not academic. I certainly hope there's some academic analysis of this book, as this article would benefit. There are two academic points that could also be discussed here when there's the necessary academic study. First, Ellis posits the "evolution as revolution" argument that helps explain why early US institutions were so conservative, modeled on the British example. The US had one of the most conservative revolutions in human history, especially compared to what happened in France only several years later. The fact that women's rights, Native American settlement, and slavery were not adequately addressed stems from this deliberately slow-paced evolution from the British monarchy and society. Second, some reviews have examined this book in comparison to subaltern studies academics that have raked the dead white guys over the coals as of late. Ellis's book does not pointedly reject the subaltern criticisms of the founders but he does differ with those academics about their approach.
• I have twice added the free and direct URLs for references that had been linked via HighBeam Research. I am under the impression that free use of HighBeam is not widespread across the wiki. I burned a 7-day free trial in order to examine the references for this review. I don't know how long the free links will be accessible in comparison to the paid HighBeam service, so I think keeping both URLs makes sense, although it does double the sources. If Template:Cite web had an option for a second URL, this would be the time to use it.

I appreciate User:Khazar2's acceptance of me as a recruitee to perform this review. Certainly I need the training experience and without nominator consent, I would have been out of luck. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to review! It's turned into my first-ever two-GA day (Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution also passed). I'm unlikely to try to take this up to A-class or FA myself, but with luck a future editor can make use of these good suggestions. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)