Talk:Federalist No. 4

Federalist No. 4 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 9, 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. 4/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the prolonged wait. I have not forgotten about this; I am ill right now and have no motivation to peer review any GANs at the moment. I am ideally hoping to get to this within two days or so when I feel a bit better. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There we (finally) are. On hold; over to you! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEatsTuna, I've replied to your comments below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesomesauce! Happy now to pass. Congrats! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 02:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

File(s)

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

Prose

Could "He describes the personal reasons that an absolute monarch might seek war and lists economic reasons that may cause European nations to come into conflict with the United States" be elaborated upon? I am curious to know why he thinks this. Like, does he think that the US is weak and that nations could go to war at any time they see fit or that nations might seek war whenever there is a specific benefit that can be identified or quantified etc.?
- I added the reasons that he provides.
"through union of the states" – I would wikilink to U.S. states.
- Done.
Wikilink militias for reader context.
- I added a few wikilinks. One to militia in the lead, and then the more specific Militia (United States) and Militia (United Kingdom) in the summary.
"This, Jay says, is not true of thirteen individual militias" – is true of correct? Apologies if this is standard in American English (which I do not speak).
- Changed to "true for".
"Jay argued that nations are run by people, and people are naturally prone to conflict" – I would rephrase the first line since nations are indeed run by people.
- Removed the part about nations being run by people entirely.
"This was a point of divergence from Federalist No. 3" – how about "This marked a point …"?
- Done.
"In Federalist No. 4, Jay argued" – how about contended here as argued has been used quite a bit?
- I changed a different use and then reordered the wording in the next one.
"example of the 13 states" – you used thirteen in § Summary.
Changed.
"several colonial territories near the United States" – could we perhaps have some examples here?
- Specified that it's the British Empire and the Spanish Empire.
"Hamilton would later" – full name.
- Done.

Refs

Passes spotcheck: refs 1–3 and 8 are good.

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.