Talk:XYZ Affair/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DCI2026 (talk · contribs) 12:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin reviewing today, as soon as I have enough time to get substantive comments up. dci | TALK 12:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, "today" did not quite work. I have not seen too much to be overly concerned about in the article, but will do my best to get all of my comments on it within the next two days. I really don't want to take an incredible amount of time to get my portion of the review posted, and sorry for the misleading post above. dci | TALK 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No sweat, there's no rush... Magic♪piano 03:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: I am seeing no real issues with the lead or anything that falls short of non-prose GA criteria. Image copyrights all look good, the article's stable, there's no issue with bias; therefore, I will begin the content review. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content review

Background

It is noted that relations between the United States and Republican France became strained after the revolution broke out. I would suggest emphasizing that there were issues between the French and the Washington administration, as many Americans (particularly Democratic-Republicans) found that they sympathized with the revolutionary cause. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Done Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd propose giving just a tad more background regarding the establishment of the "stable" Directory government. Just a sentence or two that did its best to summarize the revolution (a challenge, perhaps, but not impossible) would help. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Done Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Pinckney rejected? Just out of French spite for the Americans? dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was part of the French reaction to the Jay Treaty. I added a bit. Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commission to France

Are there any sources that could be included to back up the Adams-Gerry impartiality note? dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote on impartiality is from Adams (reproduced in Ferling); what else is needed? (I suppose I could make it clearer that it is a quote from Adams, not Ferling.) Magic♪piano 18:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of "Initial meetings", could you clarify by what "mechanisms by which such money could be clandestinely exchanged?" It's far from a major issue, but could be interesting to the casual (or otherwise) reader. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave an example. Magic♪piano 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, more background would be slightly useful. A reader with a clear understanding of this era will easily pick up the significance of the end of the First Coalition conflict, but one without will not. I really don't mind if this isn't changed, as it makes sense to me, but it would be clarifactory for a potential reader. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Added Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify the first paragraph of "Later negotiations"; it currently reads in a manner suggesting that all routes of communication were shut down by the French, then explains Gerry's role in the matter. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was pretty clear that communications never completely halted, but I've rephrased it to make it clearer that unofficial channels remained open. Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies; I made a rather unclear comment. I had been referring to the actors involved in shutting down lines of communication. It appeared to me that the article portrayed the French as being the ones responsible for shutting them down, then skips to Gerry's role in closing them. I merely found it a tad confusing, but the issue is minor. Feel free to revert to the prior wording, as there was no issue in that respect. dci | TALK 02:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The shutting down of some informal channels was done by the Americans, but Talleyrand sent at least half a dozen different individuals, so things never really did stop entirely. Magic♪piano 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

The article's excellent, and I'm not particularly concerned about a few of the points mentioned above. Otherwise, there are few reasons to prevent me from passsing the article. I'll likely check things over once more, and then post a result below here. dci | TALK 23:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed the above. Magic♪piano 15:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have; I am seeing no obstacles to passing this article. All non-prose criteria have been met, so I don't see any need for a checklist in addition to the content review. dci | TALK 00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]