Talk:Reconstruction Amendments/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 06:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at this article. I should have some preliminary comments within twenty-four hours. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

• To meet the broadness criterion, this article must "address[] the main aspects of the topic." The topic here is the Reconstruction Amendments as a whole, not the individual amendments. For that reason, I think it's necessary to add enough information to enable the reader to understand the Amendments as a single concept, not just three distinct ones. Based on that, I recommend adding the following two sections: 1) Background. How are the Reconstruction Amendments situated in the broader context of the Civil War and the Reconstruction era? Why were they necessary? What was the political and social situation at the time of the Amendments' adoption? Scholars have thoroughly debated these issues, and understanding them is necessary to understanding the Amendments. 2) Legacy. You ably discuss the consequences of the individual Amendments, but a discussion of their joint impact seems to be missing. These Amendments, considered together, had an immense impact on civil liberties, federalism, Congressional power, and the Constitution itself. Eric Foner's recent book on the subject termed the Reconstruction era "The Second Founding". How have the Reconstruction Amendments changed the course of American history?
• Some of the referencing still needs a bit of work. For instance, court decisions are generally considered to be primary sources, which means that they can't be used for analysis and interpretation. While including them isn't necessarily bad, it also doesn't move the needle very much in terms of criteria 2b and 2c. So, e.g., a statement like In the twentieth century, the Court interpreted the amendment more broadly... requires a citation to a secondary source, as does The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution....
• In dealing with the above, you may find it helpful to incorporate the scholarship found in journals. Google Scholar finds many useful things, as will JSTOR and HeinOnline (both available free via WP:TWL). Including such articles will both make the job of referencing easier and provide additional perspectives on the issues at hand.

This may take a bit of work to resolve, although your job is made somewhat easier by the plethora of sources available. I'll put the GAN on hold, although I can also fail it if you decide you need more time. I'm in no hurry, so take as long as you need. Let me know if you need any clarification. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@DannyS712: It's been seven days, and I haven't heard anything from you. Are you intending to work on this article? Let me know what your plans are. I'll gladly hold the GAN open for a bit if you like; if I don't hear anything in the next few days, I'll close the review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ: Sorry, yes. Real life has been busy - I'll try to work on the article this weekend DannyS712 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, worked on this a bit. Court decisions are primary sources, but they can be used as a source for what the decision was. I thought I had removed the part about the fourteenth being the most litigated, have fixed. I have split up the fairly long lede to have separate background and litigation sections. I've also added some sources DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Regrettably, I'm going to have to fail this, for the reasons I explain below. That being said, the content here is fundamentally good, and so I hope that you continue developing it. (I can't help but noting that, if this article ever gets to GA status, it could be the lead article for a good topic. The other three articles are already at GA status.)

• 1a: Pass, although a thorough copy edit probably wouldn't hurt.
• 1b: Pass.
• 2a: Pass.
• 2b and 2c: Fail. The main issue for both of these criteria pertains to primary sources, such as court decisions and statutory text. WP:PRIMARY places strict guidelines on the usage of primary sources: one cannot "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" them without reference to secondary sources. By my count, at least four paragraphs rely entirely on primary sources, and they are heavily used elsewhere, too. Clear statements of interpretation like 1) In the twentieth century, the Court interpreted the [Fifteenth A]mendment more broadly, 2) The promise of these amendments was eroded by state laws and federal court decisions throughout the late 19th century, before being restored in the second half of the twentieth century., and 3) The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution are cited only to primary sources. That raises serious issues of both reliability and original research. In addition, the reliance on non-scholarly sources raises reliability concerns.
• 2d: Pass.
• 3a: I don't have a firm opinion on this. The scholarly literature on this topic is very expansive, so I do feel that there's plenty more to say about the Amendments, their context, and their impacts. That being said, the standard is not comprehensiveness, so one needn't say everything that there is to say. I have no need to decide this either way, but a subsequent reviewer might raise issues about it.
• 3b: Pass.
• 4a: Due weight requires that all major scholarly perspectives be reflected here. I'm not convinced that this is happening, either. Fairly reflecting the various scholarly debates about the Amendments' purpose and meaning would seem to be necessary; much of this will happen automatically as the article moves away from primary sources.
• 5: Pass.
• 6a and 6b: Pass. All images are public-domain.

Thanks for your work on this article. Writing about such nuanced and controversial topics isn't easy, and I hope you find my comments constructive and not discouraging. Feel free to renominate once you've dealt with these issues. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)