Talk:Federalist No. 3

Federalist No. 3 has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 1, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federalist No. 3/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting read on your journey of Federalist GAs—on hold. Over to you! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna I've addressed each of your notes. I've also added another image to the article–something I'd like to do with these articles whenever possible–though I'm wondering if there's a better image that could be added. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; looks good! I really like the current image you added as it adds a lot of context. I think such images are a good idea for the other articles as well. Passing per your changes implemented. P.S. I was waiting for you to get to this before I started on Federalist No. 4, which I will get too within the following day or so. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go. Only flags it gives are regarding the long title (The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence), so no concerns there.

File(s)

The portrait of John Jay is of good quality, copyright-free and relevant to the article.

Prose

"He explains that the most wars are caused by violations of treaties or acts of violence" – for personal clarification, is he arguing that the majority of all wars are caused in this way or that a lot of wars are?
- He wrote that "for the most part" it's one of these two, which I understand to mean the majority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"acts of violence, and he says" – he is not necessary here as it is mentioned at the start of the sentence; removing he also removes some redundancy from the rest of the paragraph.
- Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"diplomatic incidents" sounds somewhat vague IMO. How about "diplomatic disputes", "diplomatic conflicts" etc, or does Jay refer to something vague himself?
- I've dodged the issue entirely by changing it to diplomacy. I figure it's better to keep it simpler when writing summaries like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pedantry, but the successive four sentences each begin with "[number], he argues" which gets quite redundant. Could you rephrase some of them? The last sentence is fine as it is unique enough since it concludes the paragraph.
- Changed the wording. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a need to italicise powerful. If he did that himself for emphasis, add [Jay's italics] next to it.
- I've removed the italics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we need to wikilink treaty (this goes for the lead as well).
- De-linked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend wikilinking the British Empire and Spanish Empire. I reckon a number of readers would know little to nothing about these polities.
- Linked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is genuinely exceptionally well-written, and I could find no further concerns…

Refs

Passes spotcheck on refs 1, 5 (cited four times) and 8 (also cited four times).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.