Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm going to take this one on. From having done the Fourteenth Amendment yesterday, I know these sort of articles get rather complex, so I just want to claim this one before I start, lest all my work is lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam. I'll be off Wikibreak tomorrow and will dive into this one, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Would it be worth briefly summarising the Twelfth Amendment when it's mentioned? Something like "...more than sixty years had passed since the last amendment to the Constitution (the Twelfth, which revised the rules for electing President and Vice-President) had been successfully ratified."? Or is that getting too off-topic? Use your judgement, I suppose. I've done a little copyediting of my own.

I think it may be a little too much detail for the lead, but I don't have strong feelings about it either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either. One possibility might just be to wikilink "the last amendement to the constitution" and leave out the parenthetical. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that out. See what you think, feel free to revert. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I found it a little comical in our previous draft to point out that the Twelfth Amendment was the one that preceded the 13th. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the United States

I'm not quite sure what the term "sectional tensions" is meant to mean. Tension between sections of the country? Best to clarify.

Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is incredibly unclear: "The American Colonization Society, in contrast, called for the emigration and colonization of African American slaves, who were freed, to Africa." I think this is referring to the split in the abolitionist movement between integration and emigration, but the next sentence states that it was an alternative to abolition, so I really don't know. Make this clear, please. Also, isn't "African-American" hyphenated when used as an adjective?

Style on that hyphen varies, in my understanding (this has come up before in my professional work). I recently consulted the MOS about this and didn't find any specific reference.

As for the ACS, I don't think it's correct to call them a branch of the abolitionist movement. It included some abolitionists but also many Southerners who just wanted to ship off free blacks while maintaining slavery. Eric Foner, the source for this material, describes them as separate and opposing movements. But I'll admit I'm not deeply read on the ACS, just following my source. Is there a source you could suggest as an opposing view? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took another pass at clarifying this this morning. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I poked at it a bit myself. I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I think that explaining a little bit about it helps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As the country continued to expand, the issue of slavery in its new territories became the dominant national issue." - "the" implies it was the only dominant issue; wouldn't it be better to say "a dominant national issue"? I mean, it was pretty big, and the Bleeding Kansas events it inspired were a major cause of the Civil War, but it seems...

Sorry, I just wrote a paragraph contrasting the subtle variations in meaning between "a" and "the". I'll just change it.

I hope you don't mind, but I restored the original phrasing, which seems to me a more accurate summary of our reliable source: "The issue of slavery in the territories became the defining issue in the years that followed." (emphasis Goodwin's) To be clear, do you think the sentence isn't a fair summary of Goodwin, or do you just disagree with Goodwin? As above, I'm fine with looking at other sources for opposing views. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's definitely what the source says, I'm fine with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing! I appreciate the assistance and feedback. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier proposed amendments

This section seems mis-placed. It comes between the history leading to the thirteenth amendment, and the actual passing. It should either come right after the lead, or right at the end of the article, in my opinion.

Good idea--

Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that appears to be it for me. References look food, so once the things above are fixed, I think we have a GA. I'm open to reasonable compromises if any of my suggestions are stupid.

Also, I have made some copyedits while reviewing. If you care to check I haven't changed anything inappropriately, here's the batch diff for all of them. [1]. Individual justifications are in the edit summaries for the individual edits. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going back in now for a (hopefully final) review. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For something that had to combine a history of slavery with politics and constitutional law, this was already extremely good before I came here. There were a few bits to work through, but they were a tiny, tiny proportion of the article, and everyone involved here deserves a lot of praise. I would hope you take this to FA, although you may want to get one or more experts to review it first - I am not a constitutional expert, nor a lawyer, nor anything more than an amateur historian, after all. ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes but slavery was ended. Try 14th Amendment. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]