Talk:Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is generally well written. The prose is both clear and direct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs to be expanded and should give a brief summary of the doctrine, per WP:LEAD. The lead has been expanded, and the article now conforms with applicable portions of the MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Excellent job utilizing inline citations to substantiate factual assertions.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No problems here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments. This article satisfies the breadth requirement.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article has been stable since August 29, 2015.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are not protected by copyright.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments. Excellent use of images.
	7. Overall assessment.	See comments. I am proud to say this article passes this GA review. Well done!

Comments from Notecardforfree

This is a well written article about a fascinating topic. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed before this article can pass this GA Review.

1. Defining the Doctrine: You provide the nice quotation from Washington's farewell address, and you also have the nice Jefferson quotation, but you never define the doctrine in your own words. The lead section should include a brief summary of the doctrine in your own words to help readers understand what the article is about (see WP:LEAD).
2. Broad Coverage Requirement: Although the Good Article Criteria have more liberal length requirements than FA length requirements, this article is still too short and does not go into sufficient depth with this topic. At the moment, the article only cites six sources and devotes only four sentences to an explanation of the doctrine's significance. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of articles that discuss George Washington's philosophy on foreign relations. See, for example, this article, this article, this article, and this article. You should go into greater depth and breadth with your discussion of the significance/impact of this doctrine. You may also want to take a look at the article for George Washington's Farewell Address, which discusses Washington's perspectives on foreign relations (and cites to relevant sources on the topic).
3. Background Information: This is similar to my second point, but you should provide an explanation of the background conditions that inspired Washington to adopt this philosophy. You should include a paragraph or two that discusses U.S. foreign relations during the Washington administration. See, for example, this article.
4. Historical Antecedents of the Doctrine: Washington didn't pull this doctrine out of thin air. Which political theorists influenced Washington? Did this theory already exist in some form or another?
5. Pictures: First of all, it seems odd that that there isn't a picture of George Washington here. Second, I think the caption under the Jefferson picture is a little misleading. By saying that Jefferson "set out" the doctrine, readers may infer that Jefferson invented the doctrine, but it appears that Washington was the first to advance this doctrine (in his farewell address).

Please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. You are clearly a strong writer, and I am confident that with a little work, this can be an excellent article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up comments regarding Oct. 13 revisions

I think this article is getting closer, but there are still some issues that I think need to be resolved before this article can pass. Most of these issues have to do with the breadth requirement, but there are also some other, minor issues as well:

1. Credit to Thomas Jefferson for "proclaiming" doctrine: In the lead, you say the doctrine was "was proclaimed by Thomas Jefferson in 1801." I think it might be more accurate to say that Jefferson took the principle announced in Washington's address and formalized it into a concrete doctrine of foreign relations. I think the word "proclaimed" inappropriately implies that Jefferson invented the principles underlying the doctrine, when in fact he simply "formalized" theories that were expounded by others.
2. Breadth of the "History" section: The expanded "History" section is on the right track, but can you include information about existing theories of foreign relations in the late 18th century? For example, it would be helpful to let the reader know whether Washington's address (and Jefferson's subsequent formalization of the doctrine) were a radical departure from existing theoretical approaches to foreign relations (or whether they were consistent with existing practices).
3. Potentially inaccurate statement about Thomas Jefferson's role in Washington's government: In the "history" section, you say that Jefferson led "radical elements in the government." First of all, the sentence that contains this assertion is not supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. Second, I'm not sure this is a fair characterization of Jefferson's role in Washington's government. I tried to find a reliable source that characterizes Jefferson as the leader of "radical elements," but I couldn't find anything. Can you include a source that supports this characterization?
4. Block quotation: I think the block quotation is useful, but you may also want to include the following sentence from Washington's address (you can attach it with an ellipse to the end of the existing quotation): "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portions of the foreign world ...." Also, some of the words in the original address were italicized (see the portion printed in the Usher article and subsequent explanation).
5. Breadth of the "Formalization" section: The "Formalization" section still needs significant expansion and elaboration. This section is only three sentences long and needs to say more about why Jefferson adopted the doctrine as a formal philosophy. First, you discuss Jefferson's "revolutionary romanticism," but you don't explain why this is relevant or significant (see also WP:PARAGRAPHS; try to avoid single sentence paragraphs). You then explain that Jefferson announced the doctrine in his inaugural address (and you provide a nice definition of the doctrine in your own words), but you say nothing about how the doctrine influenced Jefferson's presidency. Furthermore, you should definitely mention the impact of the Quasi-War on Jefferson's decision to formalize the doctrine.
6. Another issue with breadth -- distinguishing between economic and political relationships: In the Usher article, the author discusses the ways in which Washington distinguished between political relations and economic relations with foreign nations. To what extent did Jefferson's formalization of the doctrine distinguish between economic and political relationships with foreign nations?
7. Expanding the "Misattribution" section: The Misattribution section is rather short. Can you provide an example or two?
8. Images: I very much like the images you have chosen for this article (especially the picture of the WWII era "no foreign entanglements sign"). However, you may want to make them bigger so that the reader can make out the details (see WP:IMAGESIZE). For example, the picture of the text from Jefferson's address is so small that it is impossible to tell that it is even a picture of a written document.

Again, I think you are on the right track and you have already made excellent improvements to this article. However, the topic of this article is rather complex and nuanced, and I think certain portions of this article need to be expanded so that readers can better understand both the real-world and theoretical significance of the doctrine. Indeed, there are still some "main aspects" that need elaboration. For example, this article should give readers an understanding of the ways in which the doctrine impacted foreign relations during the Jefferson administration (he was, after all, the one who formalized this doctrine). Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these comments. I look forward to seeing the finished product; I think that after this article is expanded, it will really be excellent. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Credit to Thomas Jefferson for "proclaiming" doctrine:The lede draws to text in the source, the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, which says "This practice was specifically endorsed in the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, promulgated by Thomas Jefferson to Congress on 7 January 1801."
2. Breadth of the "History" section: I'm not certain this would be possible as international relations was a matter of praxis prior to the 20th century, and theory has only been retroactively applied in study. Insofar as historical study goes, the bulk of sources treat this within a doctrinal vacuum, except for the fact that this is an example of early realist theory in practice. Though, interestingly, it may have bedrocked later policy formulation, like Henry Temple's declaration that we [Britain] "have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies" and, realistically, the influence of the Seven Years War and the diplomatic revolution of 1756 really should be seen as the directional "push" here. Unfortunately, nothing has been written on these points to any detailed enough degree that adding it wouldn't amount to OR by me.
3. Potentially inaccurate statement about Thomas Jefferson's role in Washington's government: Done - refactored some of the language and added ref from the W&M Quarterly.
4. Block quotation: Done.
5. Breadth of the "Formalization" section: Done.
6. Another issue with breadth -- distinguishing between economic and political relationships: Expanded with a few new references focusing on Jefferson's bedrock belief in commercial power as an enabler of fluidity in foreign relations.
7. Expanding the "Misattribution" section: Done.
8. Images: Done.

Thanks again, Notecardforfree. LavaBaron (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

First and foremost, I want to commend you for your masterful work on this article. Your efforts have paid off, and it really looks fantastic! It is both interesting and well-written; this article meets all the GA criteria, and it is an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. I definitely appreciate your diligent work to improve this article and to respond to comments -- it has really been a pleasure to work with you on this. I especially like what you have done with the formalization section. I also agree with your decision to limit the scope of the History section. I think you do a good job of keeping things focused, while providing sufficient depth and background details for readers.

There are two, very minor points that you may still want to address, though neither is relevant to passing a GA review. First, you should be consistent with your use of "United States" and "U.S." -- you use both inconstantly throughout the article. Second, you should be consistent about placing punctuation outside quotation marks. For some reason, Wikipedia's MOS says that we can use American spelling, but we can't put punctuation inside quotation marks. It seems rather silly to me, but at the very least you should fix this for the sake of consistency.

I also find it interesting that there is a doctrinal vacuum with regard to the study of international relations in the mid-18th century, even if it really was simply a matter of praxis at the time. I would think that at least someone has written, for example, an article about the ways in which Locke's political philosophy influenced diplomacy. I know that quite a lot has been written about Kant's theories for international relations (see, e.g., this article), but he came later. Perhaps one day you can publish something to fill this doctrinal gap. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)