Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2023

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2023 [1].

The Next Day

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's 25th and penultimate studio album The Next Day. An album that brought its creator back into the spotlight after almost 10 years of media silence (well sorta) and one that, even with its flaws, proved he still had things to say. To this day it is one of my favorites of his and, while I and many others will always favor Blackstar over it, it's easy to say The Next Day is one of his better works. Having expanded it many months ago, I came back to it in preparation for its 10th anniversary in March and, with the much-helpful prose suggestions given by Coeil here, I believe it is fully ready for the star. I'm looking forward to hearing any comments and concerns. Cheers – zmbro (talk) (cont) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Might a non-free sound sample be justified?
  • File:David Bowie (135687113).jpeg is missing alt text
  • Oops, fixed
  • File:David_Bowie_(135687113).jpeg: not seeing that licensing at the given source?
  • File:Tony_Visconti.jpg is quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swapped it out with another one. The original was literally the only photo of him on WP for quite a while so that's why I only had that available. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might a non-free sound sample be justified? If so, then which tracks? Otherwise, a no-samples option shall remain, especially to me, but seems that the option may not be viable to certain editors. What do we expect readers to learn about the whole album by reading the whole article? If I wanna hear samples of the album's tracklist, I'd go to a music website (or music store). Can the whole album's music and lyrics be well understood without samples in the article? George Ho (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Never mind. If Ceoil likes to upload tracks or approves someone else's in the article, then I won't interfere further. I just now withdrew my FFD nominations on a few of his uploads earlier. George Ho (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC); expanded, 04:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Er. Ceoil didn't make the suggestion, I did. I'd suggest you take whatever issues you're having with Ceoil elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To note, issue with George and myself resolved amicably on his talk; apologies zmbro and Nikki, carry on. Ceoil (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • "The characters vary from soldiers, assassins, school shooters and street gangs" - if you start off with "vary from [something]" then you have to follow it with "to [something]"
  • Oops, fixed
  • "surprising fans and media who had assumed he retired from music" => "surprising fans and media who had assumed he had retired from music"
  • Fixed
  • "Aside from several on-screen appearances, the only studio recordings he made" - the on-screen appearances were studio recordings......?
  • Oops, clarified in a better way.
  • Bowie performing image caption does not need a full stop
  • Done
  • That's what I got as far as the end of "background". I'll return with some more comments later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • "the first venue chosen, whose identity" => "the first venue chosen, the identity of which" (pretty sure "whose" is only supposed to be used with people, not places)
  • "the studio's personnel quickly exposed the secret.[8][6]" - refs not in order
  • "Bowie instead chose a venue close to his home, Crosby Street's the Magic Shop" - could be interpreted that the Magic Shop was his home, so suggest re-ordering
  • "Recording officially began on 2 May 2011" - tempted to say it either began on that day or it didn't so the word "officially" is not needed
  • "a six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitar" => "six-string and twelve-string acoustic guitars" (to make clear it wasn't one of those mad things with two necks)
  • "then bring the band back together" => "then brought the band back together"
  • "with Leonard at the guitarist's home in Woodstock" - wikilink Woodstock as there are multiple places with this name
  • " whom he described The Next Day to as "quite a rock album"" - => "to whom he described The Next Day to as "quite a rock album""
  • "Different types of conflict concern many of the tracks" => "Many of the tracks concern different types of conflict"
  • "feel in need of a set of York Notes to get through them" - wikilink York Notes?
  • That's what I got as far as the end of "music and lyrics". More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed/adjusted – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Some compared rhythm " => "Some compared the rhythm"
  • "Bowie shares a songwriting credit with the Shadows' Jerry Lordan" - although he wrote some of their big hits, Lordan was not a member of the Shadows
  • ""God Bless the Girl" was intended to be on the album, but released" => ""God Bless the Girl" was intended to be on the album, but was released"
  • "and has ran out of options" => "and has run out of options"
  • "from the beat of Reality's "Days", the ambient guitars and layered vocal harmonies of Hours and a slide guitar from that album's single "Seven" (1999)" - there's no "to" to pay off the "from"
  • ""Atomica" was unfinished by the album's released" => ""Atomica" was unfinished by the album's release"
  • "It consists of a white square with the album's title in austere black Doctrine font, obscuring Bowie's face, and a line drawn across the original album's title" - it doesn't consist only of those elements, so maybe "the adaptations consist of" (or similar)
  • "depicting a stick-thin Bowie leaning at a 45-degree angle gripping microphone stand" => "depicting a stick-thin Bowie leaning at a 45-degree angle gripping a microphone stand"
  • "Bowie also appeared in a Louis Vuitton ad" - I would say "ad" is too informal/slangy and it should be "advert" (or possibly even "advertisement")
  • "did not conduct interviews and or play live" => "did not conduct interviews or play live"
  • "Despite these criticisms, Marchese stated the album enjoys repeated listens" => "Despite these criticisms, Marchese stated that the album enjoys repeated listens"
  • "the surprise release of "Where Are We Now?" was the first of its kind by a major artist and was utilised by artists" - think there's a few missing words here. Maybe "the surprise release of "Where Are We Now?" was the first of its kind by a major artist and the approach was utilised by artists"
  • "Moody wrote the 1994 novel The Ice Storm, whose 1997 film adaptation" => "Moody wrote the 1994 novel The Ice Storm, the 1997 film adaptation of which"
  • That's it! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
zmbro ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shit my bad I got busy irl and completely forgot about this. I promise I'll get back to it tonight. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ChrisTheDude All fixed/clarified/adjusted/etc. Thanks for the comments :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • I have noticed there are a decent amount of quote boxes used throughout the article, and I was curious if they were all necessary? Do you know if there is a stance or consensus on the use of quote boxes in FA writing? I do not have strong feelings either way, but I still wanted to ask because I do not think I have noticed quote boxes in FAs before (though I am likely just forgetting right now).
  • Apologies in advance as I know that this was asked above, but I do not think you replied to this question (and if you did, then apologies for missing it). I am curious on why an audio sample is not used in the article? It is completely down to personal preference and I would not have issues if you just prefer to not include this (as I know there are multiple perspectives on the inclusion of audio samples), but I was just curious on your perspective on this point.
  • Regarding the above two points, I've used quote boxes in my last few music-related FAs and they've passed fine. I mainly have so many here since there are no free images of Bowie himself from this time period and so the page itself doesn't look so bland. I suppose some them aren't really necessary.
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I do not have any issues with them or a strong opinion either way. I could understand how they can be used to keep the article visually appealing and engaging while still conveying information to the reader. I will leave this matter up to other reviewers, but it is not an issue for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have thought about which songs I could add an audio sample for, but I haven't figured that out yet. Knowing the significance of other audio samples I've added in the past (ala "Changes", "Warszawa", and "Sound and Vision"), I know I was able to find quotes and such that explained the significance of those but I can't think of anything I've found for Next Day (yet). I'll continue searching as I realize an audio sample (or two) would probably be beneficial to understanding the variety of material this album contains. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. Sometimes, there just is not a solid justification for an audio sample as it is a piece of non-free media so the usage of that should be kept minimal. If I see any potential rationales for any songs, I will let you know. I will pay attention for that when I read through the article again over the next few days. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been told in the past to avoid the use of the following sentence construction in FA writing (i.e. with X verb-ing). I have noticed that this sentence structure is used in these parts (with all personnel involved signing non-disclosure agreements, with Bowie and Visconti acting as co-producers, with Visconti saying "In the beginning he was finding his voice"). I do not have a strong opinion either way about this, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would check to see if there are other instances in the article.
  • Hmmm, I've never heard that before, weird. I will keep that in mind and make some adjustments. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious if there is a way to avoid the repetition of "sound" in this sentence: However, the single's melancholic sound did little to indicate the album's overall sound. That being said, it seems deliberate and I do not have an issue with it if it is intentional repetition, but I still wanted to point it out to you either way. I have just seen (and admittedly done) this kinds of notes in the FAC space.
  • Changed the first to 'style' – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my review is helpful. Some of my comments are more clarification questions than actual recommendations for revisions so apologies for that. I very much enjoyed reading this article and I found the material to be very engaging. I appreciate all your work on David Bowie article. I really should listen to more of his music because he is unquestionably an icon. I will read through the article a few more times once everything has been addressed, but I doubt I will find anything major. Have a Happy Holiday! Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses to my above messages. I will try to do a few more read-throughs of the article over the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience! Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the "very different" quote is entirely necessary and I think you can get away with paraphrasing it.
  • Removed the very – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why "Love Is Lost (Hello Steve Reich Mix by James Murphy for the DFA)" has a citation in the infobox? It should be supported and cited in the article with the other singles, and there are a few bits about this remix in the "Later singles and promotion" subsection. although "the Hello Steve Reich Mix" and "for the DFA" bits are not clear to me.
  • Added to prose and found an article from Bowie's website confirming the release date (had to dig deep on that one). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I have no idea why the "the Hello Steve Reich Mix" and "for the DFA" parts exist in the title. I've searched for that and haven't been able to find it, so your guess is as good as mine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if "only" is appropriate in this part (and only cost $12.99) as it seems to read a bit too promotional for Wikipedia. This may sound rather silly, but I initially read this as saying that it cost that much for someone to buy (like as a product). Is there a way to clarify that was how much it cost to create the video?
  • I conveniently clarified it when working on the above comment and before I had even read this comment. Went back and removed the only. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last set of my comments and once everything is completed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 Replies above. Thanks again for your comments. I'm busy all weekend but I promise I'll get to your FAC when I can! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a happy new year. Take as much time as you need for my FAC. There is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

As mentioned above was involved in the lead up to the nom. Although expecting to support, like Like Aoba47 I do have concerns that need to be worked through, mainly around padding (eg excessive quotes, and music journalistic on the one hand and overly-formal on the other language such as "Regarding the lyrics, Visconti stated...". As its x-mass and the truce and all, rather than object ;) will gather thoughts in next few days and make actionable complains towards end of weekend. As a confession, I'm more of a "greatest hits of Bowie" man myself, so do have some objectivity. Ceoil (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • do we need "under exclusive license to Columbia Records. " in the opening statement? It doesn't exactly draw in readership attention.
  • Changed to "in association with". If that's not fine we can just say "and" – zmbro (talk)(cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove "through his ISO Records label, in association with Columbia Records" altogether. Maybe "without prior announcement" as a tease. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found it's standard to keep the record labels in the first or second sentence. I also prefer not to repeat 'without prior announcement' here and again two paragraphs later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC) add-on I also wanted to keep the same wording as the body. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • what are "new musicians"
  • In this context I intended it to mean players who had not played on a Bowie album before, hence "returning contributors". Atm I can't think of a better way to get that point across. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • announcement of the album were posted online, without prior announcement, - repetitive
  • Removed "without prior announcement". I think we can get away with that given "recorded under complete secrecy" and "among the first surprise albums". – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and regarded as Bowie's best work in decades - is / was or both? Ceoil (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to say "was" twice (i.e. "was released" and "was regarded") – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How Does the Grass Grow?" returns to wartime - "returns to" is more music journalese
  • Changed to "reflects". I'll keep that in mind for the future. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey appreciated Bowie's enthusiasm for input from the musicians, telling Pegg - complex and tortured, who, what?
  • That better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Valentine's Day" on 18 September, "Born in a UFO" on 26 September, "(You Will) Set the World on Fire" the following day, "Dancing Out in Space" on 8 October and "So She" on 23 October - do we need to know all these days? This level of sepcificity seems make my eyes drop and distract from the more interesting factoids. This is my overall concern; there is too much minuet / raw facts to hold a readers attention...the article would be better if a lot shorter; frankly it could be trimmed by about a third.
  • Hmm. This is quite a major statement to be giving this far into the process (imo). I can easily just condense things like that to "recorded from September to October", but if you're saying we need to trim a third of the article before you'd support I'd rather just withdraw it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I just meant condense that sentence as much as you can. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhhh. I trimmed the dates to be just general. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    mmmm, much better. Ceoil (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bowie took great pains - hmm, was careful to...
  • Changed
  • Of the 29 songs spooled for - Spooled? Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to use "recorded" again but I changed it to that as I see what you mean now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example the release date given for "Love Is Lost (Hello Steve Reich Mix by James Murphy for the DFA)"
  • Fixed and added to prose
  • Fn12 is missing publication date. Ditto FN14, check throughout
  • Fixed
  • What makes Mojo4Music a high-quality reliable source? Second Disc? Virus Fonts? AnyDecentMusic?
  • 1) Mojo4Music is the actual website for Mojo magazine (see here). I unfortunately don't have access to the actual prints so I didn't want to cite the specific issue without a page number. Luckily I found the info I needed was included on this webpage so I used that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) Per their about page it looks reliable to me, as the author has written liner notes for several well-known artists, but if you don't think so I can scratch it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's something else, I'd suggest doing that - writing liner notes does not necessarily make one a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria Second disc material removed. I think that should take care of everything unless you had any other concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) VirusFonts is the personal blog that Barnbrook posted it on back in 2013. Pegg had the quote in his book but I wanted to see if I could find the original which I somehow managed. If it's not ok to use I'll just go back to sourcing him as I think the quote is useful enough. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) AnyDecentMusic? is listed as reliable over at WP:RSMUSIC (listed there by this 2016 Discussion). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27 is missing page number
  • Found the ref online (requires a subscription though)
  • FN128: edition statement shouldn't be part of |title=
  • Fixed
  • FN95 is missing both author and publication date.
  • Fixed
  • Generally it seems like a lot of refs are incomplete in some way, please review. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria Replies above. I've tried but can't find authors for refs 11 and 21 (both NME that are now dead) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by David Fuchs

Forthcoming this weekend. Ping me if I'm tardy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs Pinging as a reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, was a busy weekend. Anyhow, I'm opposing at present. Thoughts as follows:
  • General thoughts and prose:
    • I think at this point my biggest stumbling block is the prose. We've got what I would consider an overuse of quotes, and generally more convoluted sentence constructions where something simpler and clearer would be better.
    • "released over several dates in March 2013"—this strikes me as really weird.
    • "He mostly cut off contact with many of his prior collaborators, including Tony Visconti, his longest working partner, whom he began speaking with after 2006" if the rift apparently just lasted two years, it seems weird it gets called out, especially in the context of this album topic where he's collaborating with him and he's talking about Bowie in the very next paragraph.
    • "The demos, written during Bowie's hiatus, were created on digital recorders and complete with basslines and drum patterns. According to Visconti, the ensemble primarily wrote notes on the demos and did not record any material until the final day." Who wrote these demos? The prose makes it sound like Bowie was just listening to other people's music before recording his own.
    • "Visconti later said that he spent the time writing and developing the material." Visconti developed the material, or Bowie?
    • "According to biographer Nicholas Pegg, the first venue chosen, the identity of which remains undisclosed, was discarded before recording began as the studio's personnel quickly exposed the secret" holy comma splices, Batman.
    • "After the initial May sessions, recording halted until September." This seems to conflict with the text earlier, which says that recording took place sporadically until autumn 2012; the text in between also only just mentions May 2011 events. Reading further, it becomes clear the first sentence of "first block" is referring to the overall recording process at Magic Shop, but its placement in the "first block" subsection implies it's only talking about the first sessions. Also, where does the "block" nomenclature come from? Seems weird to divide it that way and with that word, especially since it doesn't sound like there were very regimented timetables in studio recording of the album. I would combine the "block" subsections and make the timeframes more clear.
    • I get the point of wanting to break up the text since there aren't images, but all the quote boxes absolutely fall afoul of MOS:PQ, and also I think leads to an issue where Visconti seems to be unduly represented in the article text.
    • I don't think the list of words makes sense for inclusion, especially if it's not the subject of critical commentary beyond what's there.
    • Why does the final paragraph of the critical reception section start with criticisms of the album but end with a bunch of best-end lists?
    • The reception section I think needs more work, especially with the introduction of summaries referring to specific aspects. See MOS:WEASEL.
  • Media:
    • Didnt spot outstanding issues with media used.
  • References:
    • I went through the discussions for listing AnyDecentMusic, and I'm disinclined to consider it a high-quality source for FA purposes. I agree with Sergecross in the RfC that given the aggregate is not significantly different it serves no purpose to include alongside MC, which is actually mentioned in the prose.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs Do you think it's salvageable in its current state or would it be best to close it? I'm going back through it and my other Bowie articles and agree I've gone a little to quote heavy in the past. I'm willing to put in the work here but if it's too much it's no big deal. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro At this point given there are issues deeper than just the prose, I think you're better off withdrawing and workshopping it before resubmitting. I'd be happy to assist but my time isn't really there for doing the kind of edits necessary at FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon for intruding, but doesn't the pull quote policy only apply to pulling quotations already in the body? All the (many) quote boxes I've ever seen in articles - FA or otherwise - use them for comments relating to but not in the body.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TangoTizerWolfstone There's the question of pull quotes by technical definition (text pulled out and highlighted) and then pull quotes by function that the MOS calls out (decorative quote boxes that can place undue weight on certain content, even if it's not literally duplicated from the body text.) The article is running afoul of the latter—it's priveleging certain opinions mostly for decoration, not consideration to due weight or neutrality. This is a problem with relying on heavy quotes throughout an article, but it's magnified if you've chosen to highlight them and physically separate them through formatting as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review... Copyedited as usual, other points:

  • He mostly cut off contact with many of his prior collaborators, including Tony Visconti, his longest working partner, whom he began speaking with after 2006. -- So we're saying that he didn't speak to Visconti between 2004 and 2006, but cut off contact with other former collaborators for much longer?
  • The demos, written during Bowie's hiatus... -- Wasn't this whole period a hiatus for Bowie? Do we need that clause?
  • Visconti later said that he spent the time writing and developing the material. -- Since he'd already written and recorded stuff, do we mean Bowie wrote new material and developed the old?
  • until the autumn of 2012 -- Should avoid seasonal references.
  • ″The Next Day″ opens with the ferocious title track -- "Ferocious" isn't very encyclopedic, any other options?
  • a pompous mid-1980s rocker -- ditto.
  • The lyrics are in debt to Martin McDonagh's dark comedy In Bruges (2008), in which a narrator admits to committing an unspecified tragedy that led to a violent death, but his true identity, whether a police informant or contract killer, is unclear. -- I take it you mean the song re. the stuff about the narrator, this is not quite the plot of In Bruges as I remember it yet this is what the sentence implies ATM.

As always with your Bowie noms, there's a lot of good research and the organisation is generally logical, my concern (apart from prose issues that I copyedited or have raised above) is the number of quotes and the depth of detail. I'm not advising to take a cleaver to it, but I'm also not going to support or oppose until I sit back and re-read, and perhaps make or suggest some further cuts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That tends to be the main issue with my work from the feedback of others. When you're reading so many sources sometimes you unfortunately don't know when enough is enough, especially for me; hence why I've gone back and made major cuts and copyedits to the 80s and 90s stuff. Thanks for the help as always. I'll get to your points later tonight. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by SchroCat

I'm also going to have to oppose this at the moment, like DF above, it's mostly based on the prose

Lead
  • "released over several dates in March 2013": what's wrong with "released in March 2013"
  • "It was his first studio release in ten years having retreated from public view after his 2004 heart attack.": at the very least a comma after "years", but the rest of the sentence is a little lumpy
  • "took place under secrecy": grammatically garbled
  • "contains many call-backs to Bowie's earlier works": I'm slightly struggling to understand this, and it's certainly not encyclopaedic
  • "It made headlines around the world,": journalistic, rather than encyclopaedic
  • "appeared on The Next Day Extra in November.": do you mean "which was released in November"?

That's just the lead, but a quick skim down shows a few other similarly bumpy areas. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ps. Sorry - I hate opposing (it just feels such a brutal and personal step when one is on the receiving end of it). - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat No biggie. I know where you're all coming from and understand it still needs work. Like I asked David, do you think at this point it's salvageable at all or is it too much? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that you could withdraw now and drop it into PR and ping people to ask for comments. I would certainly be happy to give a full review there and there is no downside in pulling and taking your time to get it fully polished. David Fuchs may have a different view, so maybe wait for him to chip in before doing anything drastic. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the PR bit, I think as a general rule get eyes on your music articles at PR before FAC -- I know you tried that for this one and got no takers but you can always ping me and I'm sure one or two others who have come to the party in your previous FACs would also be happy to get notice... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request

Hey Gog the Mild could you please withdraw this? I'd like to take it to PR to fix prose issues and such. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 January 2023 [2].

Mxmtoon

Nominator(s): Rebestalic[leave a message....] 03:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a young pop musician who, though in still being light of age and thus not having accrued that many achievements in life compared to older artists, has nevertheless done enough--and amassed a dedicated-enough fanbase--to deserve an FA! If I wrote it that well... Rebestalic[leave a message....] 03:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to do this, but at the moment I'm going to oppose on numerous grounds and suggest you withdraw this.
A very quick readthrough shows the following examples—although this is by no means a comprehensive list:
  • Lead is too short
  • Too many stubby one-line paragraphs
  • Formatting error of the quote ("— mxmtoon, [19]"), as well as the quote just appearing out of context
  • Some formatting errors ("Prom Dress," is an example that it repeated)
  • Some of the grammar is a bit lumpy ("followed by EP Dawn in April; accompanying EP Dusk was released") is an example
  • No examination of musical style
  • Footnote c is uncited
  • Weak sources (Amazon shouldn't be in there, for example).

I suggest you withdraw this nomination (there is no shame in that for a first attempt), have a look at some similar FAs to see the level of information needed and do some additional work on it. I'd also suggest going through PR to get further input to the article. – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Thank you!! How do I withdraw this, do I take the text out? Rebestalic[leave a message....] 19:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebestalic, I'll take care of that as one of the FAC coordinators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the article was fine for GA, but I didn't think it would be nominated for FA so fast after that. I would take the advice from SchroCat. It will take quite a bit more work, but the result feels good. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 Thank you too!! Rebestalic[leave a message....] 19:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 January 2023 [3].

James Madison

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) and User:mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth president of the USA James Madison. It is co-nominated along with Mikeblas following a successful GAN for the article and peer reviews and pre-FAC reviews from several Wikipedia editors. The editors who assisted with the peer reviews included Kavyansh.Singh, HogFarm, Vanamonde93, Nick-D and several other editors who appear on the Talk page of the article. The article has been updated to include more recent biographers of Madison such as Noah Feldman and others from the past five years. The nominators would like to bring the article to the peer review level needed for FAC promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support on prose, structure, and length. I went over the article in considerable detail prior to FAC, and all the concerns I raised have been addressed. I did not have the time or ability to examine the sources in detail, but brief searches did not reveal any obvious omissions, and the spotchecks I carried out (of online sources only, so insufficient I imagine for the purposes of FAC) revealed nothing of concern. ErnestKrause, I suggest pinging or messaging the other folks who have already reviewed this, if you haven't already done so. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks for your early support on this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle

First section
  • Montpelier is linked twice towards the end of the body text, this is unnecessary.
  • Removing redundant link. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the maneuverings of Clinton and the Federalists, Madison won re-election, though by the narrowest margin of any election since that of 1800. Narrowest popular vote margin, or narrowest electoral college margin?
  • Change wording to "narrowest margin" in the popular vote as supported by the electoral vote. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly sure what is going on with the mix of citation styles. Most of the books and journal articles appear to be using harvard style (good), but some of the web/online news articles are reference in harvard style (like the Indian Country Today article) and some are not. One method for citing these kinds of sources should be uniformly used unless there is a good reason not to.
  • Mikeblas Could you look at this comment for the source review and at the next one on the refs also. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the web references. Unfortunately, I don't have replacements or contexts for the other reference problems, so I can't fix those. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is exactly going on in ref 60? This scheme of division, discussing Papers No. 2 through No. 14 as dealing with the utility of the UNION, is adapted from Charles K. Kesler's introduction to The Federalist Papers What scheme of division, and why is union in all caps?
  • That was left over from previous version of the biography. Deleted now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 119 ("Explore History At Our House". Montpelier.org.) doesn't appear to be properly linked and doesn't support the preceding text.
  • Replace old citation with three new citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 232 ("The Health of James Madison". HealthGuidance.org) doesn't appear to have some of the classic hallmarks of reliability. The "About us" page is totally blank and the website doesn't appear to have been updated since mid-2021. I would think that better sources on Madison's health would exist. This suggests that the author, Rudolph Marx, is actually long dead, and published a series of medical histories of the presidents of the US a long time ago. Could we not source this directly to the book from which this excerpt might have come? Indy beetle (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking up some books, "health guidance.com" appears to be used by multiple science books in press at this time including Application of Nanotechnology in Food Science here: [4]. It looks like these citations check out correctly. Thanks to Indy for the comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If possible, we should try and nail down the original source. Seems like a copyright violating link, and of the books that use it only one seems to be a solid medical work.
  • Both you and Nickimaria have commented on this and I'm thinking its best to archive it at this time. Maybe his diminutive physical stature doesn't need this type of emphasis. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) plantation, Madison's father was the largest landowner in Piedmont Reference 4 does not support this statement, which one does? Also "Piedmont" is somewhat misleading; it should probably be the Virginia Piedmont.
  • Going with the Virginia Piedmont. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim about the plantation size and Madison's father being the largest landowner is still unsupported.
  • Change wording to "among the largest" from "the largest" and add citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second section
  • In the "Ratification of the Constitution" section, it sort just jumps into the middle of the Constitutional Convention without giving an intro. A sentence or two explaining when and why the convention was called and that Madison was sent (by the Virginia legislature, I presume?) would be nice for clarity.
  • Changed the wording to reflect that the Virginia plan took place before the ratification debates were called for. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madison himself favored a single executive Is this a reference to Unitary executive theory? If so, a Wikilink might be in order.
  • Adding it to text; it was Fed. No. 51. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles were also published in book form and became a virtual debater's handbook for the supporters of the Constitution in the ratifying conventions "virtual debater's handbook" seems like editorializing. If the source is making the factual claim that other Federalists read and used these essays to promote their view, I think there should be a more plain way of reflecting this.
  • Going with more plain version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He states that in large republics the large number of factions that emerge will control their corrupting effect. -> "because no single faction can become a tyrannical majority" or something to that effect which specifies that the inter-competition of the factions will keep them weak enough to be manageable and not a threat to liberty. Without such clarification, this text might not make sense to someone who hasn't read Federalist 10 four times (thank you my high school and college).
  • Add clause about countering majoritarianism. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere within the body text of the "Ratification of the Constitution" section, the U.S. Constitution should be wikilinked.
  • Though Henry gave several persuasive speeches arguing against ratification, Madison's expertise on the subject he had long argued for allowed him to respond with rational arguments to Patrick Henry's emotional appeals. I think this should be revised to introduce Henry's name in full the first time he is mentioned, and that he was the Governor of Virginia. I also think it's rather uncharitable to describe Henry's appeals as "emotional" without specifying anything further about his opposition. Did he think the U.S. Constitution was a threat to personal liberty? Even if he was mostly appealing to emotion, I would think there was some substance to his arguments.
  • The debate with Anti-Federalist was extensive; I'll adjust the wording to avoid emotionalism being attached. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the sources not pointed to the significance of Madison's proposed "federal negative" to limit the power of the states? See introduction to the topic here, if you are unfamiliar. This idea of his cropped up during the constitutional convention, though this article doesn't really address his concerns about state power until the "Bill of Rights" section. This source suggests that Madison thought the biggest problem the Constitutional Convention need to deal with was governmental abuses in the states, and the failure of the convention to approve of his suggested negative power led him to consider the actual convention to be partially a failure. This seems rather significant. EDIT: I see this is alluded to in the "Political and religious views" section, but I still think this warrants mention up above.
  • Madison did defend veto rights entrusted to the centralized executive against the Antifederalists; I'll add something here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this attributed as "According to historian Ron Chernow" ... As far as I know, it wasn't speculative that Madison thought this way. Saying "According to X" makes it seem like it is uncertain. There's also still the matter of how important Madison apparently thought controlling the states was. If the Companion to James Madison and James Monroe is to be believed, Madison thought this was the most important issue at the convention. I feel like what one of the key framers thought should the most important issue of the convention should be highlighted.
  • As an author of the Federalist Papers, Madison had strong sentiments for increased centralization of government between the states, with the states needing to abide by the Constitution. This could be added to the article. Regarding a ranking of the most important issues defended in the Federalist Papers, there are several opinions critics have raised on this issue; for the most part, critics have singled out several of the individual Federalist papers as representing the most important issues of Federalism, for example, No. 10 and No. 51, both with Wikipedia pages written for them. Are you suggesting a one sentence addition for the importance of federalism for Madison, or a full paragraph? I'll try to remove Chernow's name from the prose part of the edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm suggesting that it be added that Madison thought the biggest problem the Constitutional Convention need to deal with was governmental abuses in the states, per the Companion to James Madison and James Monroe, or something to that effect if you have another source which discusses what he thought of the states during the convention.
  • Federalist No. 37 is an exceptional Madison essay and I'll rewrite the edit today to reflect its important features. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 1790, the Washington administration became polarized into two main factions. One faction, led by Jefferson and Madison, broadly represented Southern interests and sought close relations with France which became the Democratic-Republican Party opposition to Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton. I think this should be split into two sentences, it's very long.
  • Madison and the Democratic-Republican Party fought back against Hamilton's attempt to expand the power of the Federal Government with the formation of a national bank. Therefore, they opposed Hamilton's plan for the formation of a national bank and Madison argued that under the Constitution, Congress did not have the power to create such an institution. I think there are some redundancies here that could be addressed by revision - "formation of a national bank" is said twice back to back, and this reads as "Madison & friends opposed the national bank, therefore they opposed the national bank."
  • Those opposed to Hamilton's economic policies, including many former Anti-Federalists, coalesced into the Democratic–Republican Party So when did the Democratic-Republican Party come about? This being treated like a second introduction. I'm fine with this being made the first mention of the party, since it's well-paired with the introduction of the formal Federalist Party, but in that case the other two mentions of the party earlier in this section should be removed.
  • Changed wording and linking on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third section
  • Because the Constitution requires presidential electors to vote for at least one individual from outside their home state, electors from Virginia would not have been able to vote for both Washington and Jefferson. This is only in the footnote, but is this restriction on who the electors can vote for still in place? If not, "requires" should be changed to past tense.
  • When Britain and France went to war in 1793, the U.S. was caught in the middle. This is rather vague, if we mean to say that both belligerents were pressuring the US to take sides this should be made explicit.
  • Indicating that USA needed to decide which side to support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox states the exact dates and specific Congressional districts that Madison served in, but this is not supported in the body text of the article. All claims in the infobox need to be able to be supported by sourced body text, such as the specific dates for which he served in certain offices.
  • Infobox details four public offices and gives the dates of service for each; am I missing one of them? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you got my meaning. For example, what are the sources which support the claim that Madison served as Secretary of State from May 2, 1801 to March 3, 1809? Featured Articles can't have unsourced info in the infobox. It might seem tedious, but the best way to resolve the fact that these are currently unsourced dates would be to add to the article where relevant "Madison was sworn in as secretary of state on May 2, 1801.[ref]" and then "He left office on March 3, 1809.[ref]" Alternatively, I think one can directly add citations inside the infobox, but it's kind of messy and defeats the purpose of the infobox, which is supposed to help neatly summarize info from the body.
  • I've now added all the cites in the Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, questions about his infertility have come into question in recent years, following a popular 2007 article in The Washington Post, in which an African-American named Bettye Kearse claimed to be a descendant of Madison and a slave named Coreen. Was there ever any follow through on this, was a DNA link conclusively established? Also, this is sourced only to two WashPost articles, and to use the WashPost as a source to claim one of its own articles was popular and "raised questions" (by who, historians?) borders on WP:OR. Do we have another mainstream media outlet or perhaps an academic article from a historian which highlights the significance of the WashPost article in breaking this story?
  • The story was somewhat isolated in the press; there appears to be a tabloid type of interest about the private lives of famous politicians which is unavoidable in the press. Are you suggesting trimming or deleting? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed "popular" from the description of the WashPost article, since I don't think we should be trusting sources to self-describe themselves that way. But other than that I think it will be ok.
  • Both Madison and Jefferson, as leaders of the Democratic–Republican party, expressed the belief that natural rights were non-negotiable even during a time of war. Madison believed that the Alien and Sedition acts formed a dangerous precedent, by giving the government the power to look past the natural rights of its people in the name of national security. This claim is sourced to three things: a Wikisource portal page, the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 via Wikisource, and a 2004 Time magazine article. Of these, only the Time article is really appropriate to cite. Citing the Wikisource portal doesn't really make any sense runs afoul of the spirit of WP:CIRC, and citing the copy of the Virginia Resolutions directly as a WP:PRIMARY source runs afoul of WP:OR. The Time article broadly supports the claim that Madison opposed the Sedition Acts, but mostly focuses on Jefferson's views even if it implies that Madison was generally in agreement with him. Do we not have other secondary sources which discuss Madison's opposition to the Sedition acts and his views on the necessity of upholding natural rights in spite of war time concerns?
  • Madison as an ally of Jefferson is significant to the article throughout; for example, Madison does break with Washington before completing his term of office with Washington. If you would like to press either the Jefferson side or the Madison side of human rights, then I could look at this closer. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikisource portal cite should be immediately removed, it adds nothing but CIRC issues. I would prefer if we found a different source to augment the Time piece other than the Virginia resolutions themselves, but that is not as urgnet.
  • Madison hastened the decline of the Federalists by adopting several programs he had previously opposed. By coopting some of the Federalists ideas?
  • One of the most prominent was his reversal on Hamilton's national bank, which Madison eventually adopts. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I think the text would flow better if it specified that he was adopting some of their programs which he had opposed.
  • Emphasis added that it was originally 'their' programs. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the Postwar period section, it might be worth mentioning that the constitutional amendment to enable internal improvements was ultimately not passed (and apparently was not needed, which begs the question why Madison thought one was necessary, since the enumerated powers allow Congress to build roads, and he himself was citing the General Welfare Clause).
  • Eisenhower is also cited for his major expansion of the USA interstate highway system, usually to his credit. Madison may have been riding the wave of anti-Federalist sentiment by proposing an amendment that his supporters wanted to see, even if not eventually passed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from aging paranoia and mental deterioration, is there any specific reasons why Madison was so concerned about being "understood by his fellow citizens" and editing his own letters to make himself more favorable? Adams' quote about him having " "acquired more glory, and established more union, than all his three predecessors" makes it seem like he left office as a relatively well-respected statesman, so his worries about public perception and legacy seem odd.
  • It is a peculiarity of his personality, and this reference is not embellished in the text. If he was a perfectionist, then I'm not sure this personality trait has been explored in the academic literature to any great extent. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madison believed that slaves were human property, while he opposed slavery intellectually. I'm not sure what exactly this is trying to say. Did he concede that slavery was morally wrong but never did anything about it because he liked the free labor, in essence?
  • Madison's ambiguities about being born into wealth are a topic of on-going discussion among biographers; Noah Feldman points out, for example, Madison's reticence to hold his slaves culpable for moral or legal lapses when accused by other plantation owners, usually siding with his slaves. This narrative has been repeated for each of Washington, Jefferson and Madison; there continues to be no excuse for the injustice of slavery until it is repaired by Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sounds like Jefferson. The main thing I'm confused by though is Madison believed that slaves were human property. Definitionaly, a slave is human property. What is there to believe? That's the part I don't understand.
  • He acquiesced to the view that former slaves were unlikely to successfully integrate. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meaning he thought slaves were in their rightful place? That Africans should be slaves in a white society or in an otherwise subordinate status? At this point the meaning I'm deriving from Madison believed that slaves were human property, while he opposed slavery intellectually. is "Madison opposed slavery, but thought that slaves should be slaves" which doesn't make much sense. Please consider revising the sentence.
  • The slavery positions of Washington, Jefferson and Madison, to most writers' standpoints today are indefensible. Harriet Beecher Stowe's book from 1852 came out only 15 years after Madison's death; the influence of HBS did not exist within Madison's own lifetime. When I read further into this on Wikipedia's abolitionism article, then it was not until the 1830s that most of the U.S. came to oppose slavery and Madison is at that time in his last decade and approaching his death. Do you think a segment on Washington, Jefferson and Madison regarding slavery in their time would be useful for this article on Madison? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not confused by the founding father's hypocrisies on slavery, I just don't see how the wording of the sentence I've quoted actually communicates that. If you mean Madison had philosophical qualms with slavery but in practice thought there was no workable alternative for including blacks in society, we might as well say something more along those explicit lines. What is the source text from Watts 1990 (ref 256) that's used to support this statement? That might help us strike more clear wording.
Feldman I think gives the fairest account of the self-contradictory position of Madison on slavery; there is a comprehensive listing in the Index of his Madison biography which gives 6 perspectives of his viewpoint. I'll rewrite this sentence with a short quote from Feldman to clarify the issue. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I think it reads much better now.
  • I don't see why footnote H (Various ranking by historians, associations and political scientists tend to assess Madison...) is a footnote.
  • Some peer review comments were that it might be distracting when viewed in detail; open to suggestions for retaining or deleting? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there needs to be someway to balance it with the opening of the second paragraph in that section. The footnote makes it seem that historians generally respect his presidency, while the second paragraph makes the opposite seem true. Hiding all the praise in a footnote but putting the criticism on full display seems off-balance. Perhaps we don't need Woods whole view placed into the body text, but this line— Various ranking by historians, associations and political scientists tend to assess Madison as an above-average president and have ranked Madison as highly as the twelfth best president— seems important to incorporate into the main text.
  • Going with your version of this adjustment. Adjusting and adding various rankings by historians. Adjust footnote to keep cited historian comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Popular culture" section as currently constituted seems like trivial recentism. I don't think one is necessary for this to be an FA, but if we are going to include one, I would think it should extend beyond the fact that he's a side character in a 2013 Broadway musical (surely he's been portrayed in movies and novels too, no?). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Ceranthor comments below who stated more was needed on his Legacy; there is also a 1940s Hollywood movie about him called Magnificent Doll. Any thoughts about adding it? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that would be good to add. Having Hamilton as the sole work of mention just seems WP:UNDUE, so other things will bring balance.

Indy beetle: Those edit comments should be up to date now. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Indy beetle, how's this one coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like good progress has been made on my comments. Looking briefly over the other reviews its not immediately clear to me why there are some disputed neutrality notices on some sections of this article, but I'll wait on formally supporting until those have been addressed. You can ping me when that happens. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Display name 99

  • Oppose- Despite being semi-retired as a result of a recent controversy, I agreed upon being pinged to look at the article ahead of its nomination. My comments can be found here. Getting as far as the "American Revolution and Articles of Confederation" section, I identified several problems with the article. The citation style is all over the place, the chronology jumps around a lot, seemingly important things are alluded to without any explanation, and stuff is talked about for several sentences without it being clear whether Madison had any involvement in it. ErnestKrause, for whatever reason, mostly appeared to be stalling instead of attempting to address my points. Thus, I quit. A brief scan of some of the article now does not show any improvement. I therefore do not believe that this is a suitable featured article candidate. Display name 99 (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a somewhat disingenuous comment. You disengaged from the talk page discussion, and cannot fault ErnestKrause for not following through when he was clearly trying to do so. Also, he did action very many of your comments. Your views on length are also, as I've explained elsewhere, out of step with the typical expectations here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: while I was asked by the nom to look here, I had this page watchlisted already. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can explain what you specifically mean by "the citation style is all over the place", I can have a look. For now, though, I just don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, I'm not going to be offering this page much more support because it's just not fun to participate in this kind of bickering and hair-splitting. I understand there's a quality bar to meet, but the nature of these conversations doesn't seem productive or kind, and I'm just not interested in that. Sorry for that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, ErnestKrause, whether deliberately or not, failed to act on the majority of my requested changes while not providing a reason for doing so. His responses often seemed confused and frequently did not address the points that I was trying to make. Either he did not understand what I was telling him or he did and chose to stall and act befuddled for some unknown reason. At one point, he claimed that he believed that he had addressed all of my concerns even though he had not even responded to two points that I made regarding the citations. I disengaged after not getting a further response to some of my posts and after he asked me to do the citation work for him, when I had already tried to indicate that all I wanted to do was look at the article and offer comments without getting involved in editing. Even putting the length issue aside, I still do not think that this article merits featured article status. As I said on the talk page, I understand that my views on length of articles are contrary to those of some other editors, which is why I did not bring them up here. Your decision to do so is a useless distraction.
Mikeblas, the issue with citations seems to have improved (although there is still a maintenance tag on reference 234 that needs to be fixed), but at the time of my writing, some citations were not in Harvard style while others were, and Feldman's name was not linked under "Works Cited." I had mentioned these concerns on the article's talk page but they were not addressed at the time of nomination. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 234 (originally 232) is being discussed above. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to coordinators @Ian Rose and Gog the Mild: The does not appear to be the correct forum for User:Display Name 99 to continue making disruptive edits and personal attacks for which he is currently page blocked at Andrew Jackson. User:Ceranthor has commented that I should bring this to the attention of the FAC page coordinators. I'm discovering in some detail now that User:Display apparently has a history of making personal attacks against other editors while editing FA-articles such as Andrew Jackson for which he has been page blocked by El C. He apparently continues to be upset about the page block against him and has now adopted such an aggressive editing approach that he has driven away the co-nominator Mikebas from continuing to try to move this James Madison nomination forward, as Mike has indicated above concerning User:Display's "bickering and hairsplitting". I'm requesting that User:Display's comments above on this FAC page be moved to his Talk page where he can continue his "bickering and hairsplitting" with anyone who wants to discuss it with him. The FAC page does not seem the proper forum for him to continue to vent his personal attacks against me and other editors as he has done here and on Vanamonde93's Talk page. I'm requesting one of the coordinators to remove all of his comments here at FAC and move them to User:Display's Talk page where he can say whatever he wants, without making personal attacks on the FAC review page which seems like the wrong forum for his editing. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause, I don't see any personal attacks. I was asked to look at the article, which I did. I suggested several changes, but for whatever reason you did not implement the majority of them, which is why I left. Without those recommended changes being instituted, I felt that the nomination was premature. The coordinators can look at my comments on the Madison talk page and track the progress of the article and from that determine how to take into account my Oppose vote.
The main idea that you need to understand is that opposition to nomination and criticism of content do not constitute personal attacks. Removing my comments from this page rather than looking at my suggested changes on the Madison talk page again and attempting to implement them does not give you the moral high ground. I think I'm reminded now of why I stopped editing. Display name 99 (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment from coordinators Ian Rose or Gog the Mild: The type personal attacks by User:Display for which he has been page blocked on two pages by El C and Girth Summit are continuing both here on this FAC page and on the Talk page for Vanamonde93. On Vanamonde93's Talk page he falsely accuses me of dishonesty here [5] and here on the FAC page he accuses me of some form of negligence falsely stating above that I "failed to act". As Vanamode93 has told him, and repeated to him, that he is being disingenuous in his accusations and that I am the editor who spent several days responding to a large number of his edit requests on the Madison Talk page made by him. He then abruptly disavowed the edits made after Vanamonde and myself spent a great deal of time trying to explain to him that the new FAC guidelines are calling for shorter length FAC articles, which appeared to displease him further. Mikeblas from sys ops has also pointed to his 'bickering and hairsplitting'. Since User:Display name 99 appears not to get it, and not understand why he was page blocked at Andrew Jackson for personal attacks, he appears to wish to continue such personal attacks on this FAC page. I'm requesting some comment from the FAC page coordinators since I was told by User:Cerantor that this type of notification of coordinators at FAC is appropriate. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I have never blocked Display name 99. I did decline an unblock request he posted, but I did that because I believed he had transgressed an editing restriction at the page he was blocked from, not for making personal attacks. DN99 is TBanned from post-1992 American politics - if anyone thinks he has transgressed that restriction in this discussion, I can take a look. Girth Summit (blether) 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and Vanamode93 did not spend "a great deal of time" arguing with me about article length guidelines. I mentioned that I felt that the Madison article was too short at the start of my comments with the clear caveat that I knew that many editors disagreed with me on the subject of article length. When both of you pushed back on me, I disengaged and did not insist on the point any further. Anyone can look at the Madison talk page and see that this version of events is correct and yours is not. Instead of understanding that the reason for my opposition to nomination is because you nominated without implementing most of my suggested changes, you're now hyperventilating and throwing around baseless accusations of misconduct. That sort of thing has worked for other editors at getting me in trouble in the past. Maybe it'll work for you here too, and if it does, I'm too far alienated from this community to care much anymore. But it's still strikingly immature. Display name 99 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator request

  • Hi ErnestKrause and apologies for the delayed response. I see no personal attacks on this page. Display name 99 has opposed, as is their prerogative, with an explanation. I see no reason, as things stand, to move their comments. Display name 99, your points have been noted and I think that it would be helpful to the process if you now stood back and left your oppose and its supporting comments to speak for themselves. ErnestKrause, it would be appreciated if you could avoid any further comments on this page regarding Display name 99 or any edits they have made either here or elsewhere. Your and other editors' comments above have served to put the comments in context. The coordinators are quite capable of assessing reviewer comments against the FAC criteria and assigning them appropriate weight. Indeed, it is what we get the big bucks for. And I am sure that both have better things to do than further explain here positions which seem quite clear to me. Thanks to both of you for this. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit clash. Display name 99, I would be grateful if, in spite of my request above, you could see your way clear to striking the last two words of your last edit. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, thank you for your comments here. I have no desire to add anything else to this page. As to your last request, I respectfully decline. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceranthor

Lead
  • "23 million acres of land" - would provide conversion to hectares
Early life
  • "March 16, 1751 (March 5, 1750, Old Style)," - does the alternative add anything? I've honestly never heard of the old style and not sure the average reader has either, so if you disagree and want to keep could you briefly justify its use here?
  • This is a question of how his age is recorded in historical journals and diaries; Madison's year of birth is 1751 New Style but 1750 Old Style. This is because Old Style New Year's Day was March 25. Since Madison was born earlier in the year than March 25, it's necessary to subtract one from the year when converting his date of birth from New Style to Old Style. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prominent planter and tobacco merchant.[3] His father was a tobacco planter" - might as well link to tobacco article at tobacco merchant rather than tobacco planter
  • Change linking to your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father was a tobacco planter who grew up at a plantation," - isn't it grew up "on" a plantation?
  • Grew up on a plantation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father was a tobacco planter who grew up at a plantation, then called Mount Pleasant, which he had inherited upon reaching adulthood" - IMO not necessary to say then called Mount Pleasant, would just say Mount Pleasant as I presume it will be mentioned later under the new name
  • Would like to hear your suggestion for this. This is actually the only place Mount Pleasant is mentioned, since previous peer review editors thought the extra Montpelier discussion should be removed. If it looks extraneous, I could remove it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the surviving siblings, three brothers, Francis, Ambrose, and William, and three sisters, Nelly, Sarah, and Frances, it was Ambrose who would eventually help to manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[7]" - The sibling names aren't really necessary here and are actually a bit distracting from the sentence as they have nothing to do with the second clause really. It took me reading the sentence two times to make sure I understood, and that's something I think should be avoided in FAs unless re-reading is necessary due to technical language
  • I'll try new wording and maybe parenthesis might be useful; open to your suggestions on whether to drop the names of siblings. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison began to study law books in 1773, asking his friend William Bradford" - no need to repeat the first name
  • No duplicate of first name needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon reaching adulthood, Madison was only 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m) tall and never weighing more than 100 lb (45 kg), he was the country's most diminutive president.[20] " - run-on sentence
  • "Madison suffered from episodes of mental exhaustion and illness with associated nervousness, and was often sidelined after periods of stress" - I'd try to avoid using sidelining since I think it's a bit of an idiom and vague; are you trying to say he was forced to stay at home? or that he couldn't work? Not totally sure what the last bit means
  • He would take a few days off to revive sometimes; adding into the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Madison was physically able and usually in good physical health throughout his long life until his very last years.[21]" - I think this is a wordy sentence... what about "However, Madison enjoyed good physical health until his final years" or something more concise along those lines
  • Your version is more concise. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American Revolution
  • "Both in the United States and in Canada, the new Anglican churches developed novel models of self-government, collective decision-making, and self-supported financing; that would be consistent with separation of religious and secular identities.[24]" - Is this sentence trying to argue that the new models were the churches' way to separate religion/secular life? If so, I think it could be rewritten to make it seem like the Church actively did this, as right now it's very passive
  • Should be more actively present. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "n 1774, Madison took a seat on the local Committee of Safety after returning to Montpelier, a pro-revolution group that oversaw the local Patriot militia." - the way this is written, it sounds like Montpelier is the pro-revolution group. I'd move "after returning to Montpelier" to the front of the sentence or after in 1774
  • "he was not a signatory of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." - It's fine to include the full formal name, but then you should provide it at the first mention because this is confusing as is
  • Stick with Articles of Confederation as unambiguous for this biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as an advocate of westward expansion, he insisted that the new nation had to insure its right to navigation" - insure or ensure?

Comments so far. Sorry for some delay! Will keep adding more as I get further along. ceranthor 16:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification
  • "Throughout the 1780s, Madison became increasingly worried about the disunity of the states and the weakness of the central government after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783.[42]" - I'd suggest cutting the date of the end of the war, redundant
  • "Madison was also concerned about the inability of Congress to capably conduct foreign policy" - conduct and policy don't go together, do you mean diplomacy perhaps? or capably create?
  • Congress passes legislation which regulates the conduct of foreign policy. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He disdained a proposal by John Jay" - Nothing technically wrong with using disdain here but I think it's a bit flowery and there are more commonplace verbs you could use instead
  • Changing wording to simple opposition. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "establishes a system of checks and balances that ensure that no one institution would become too powerful.[61]" - as written, the noun is system, so should be "ensures"
  • "New York ratified the Constitution the following month and Washington won the country's first presidential election.[67]" - I think this is an abrupt transition; maybe some additional info should be added
  • Overly abrupt; adding transitional phrases. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. ceranthor 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman
  • "Of the twelve amendments formally proposed by Congress to the states, ten amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791, becoming known as the Bill of Rights.[86][e]" - the way this is written is confusing, although I understand the purpose is to refer to the final version. I think maybe the last bit is what throws me off since you've been using Bill of Rights throughout the paragraph - can you add something to clarify that the ten amendments were ratified and this text became the final Bill of Rights?
  • Its 10 Amendments that make it to the end. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an essay published in the new newspaper in September 1792," - no need to repeat that it's new, can just say the newspaper or the National Gazette
  • Your version is better. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, his fertility has come into question in recent years, following a popular 2007 article in The Washington Post, in which an African-American named Bettye Kearse claimed to be a descendant of Madison and a slave named Coreen.[111][112]" - wouldn't that mean his infertility has come into question?
  • Let's try infertility. Somehow most of the people who go to Fertility MDs have problems with infertility. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1799, Madison won election to the Virginia legislature" - re-election, right?
  • He was elected a delegate from Virginia for the convention, elected to the Congress during Washington's term, and then elected to the Virginia legislature when Adams took office. It looks like his first term in the Virginia legislature. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State
  • secretary of state is capitalized earlier in the article, so should be consistent
  • The Wikipedia rule appears to be that as a title of a particular individual its in caps, and as a description of a political office its in lower case. If these are reversed anywhere then let me know. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite lacking foreign policy experience, his political colleague Madison was appointed as the secretary of state by Jefferson" - poorly written, passive voice sentence. Also, this article is about Madison, not Jefferson! Needs complete revision to something like "Madison was appointed [...] despite lacking foreign policy experience"
  • Your version is better. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison, an introspective individual, enjoyed a strong relationship with his wife[108] and relied deeply on her in dealing with the social pressures " - this is out of place here, and might be better suited to the marriage subsection
  • Dolly is the prototype of the modern version of the first lady as a genuine support for her husband in office. I'll try to adjust the wording on this, though she is important to Madison's success in his offices of state. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the Federalists were rapidly fading away at the national level, " - were the Federalists fading or their power? Seems like a key distinction
  • It should be Federalist political power. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall simultaneously ruled that Madison had unjustly refused to deliver federal commissions to individuals who had been appointed to federal positions by President Adams but who had not yet taken office, but that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the case" - the double "but" reads awkwardly - last clause should be rephrased or moved within the sentence
  • Marbury v Madison is already linked in this sentence and I'm shortening the wording here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of his six siblings who lived to adulthood, Ambrose helped manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[7]" - the "of his six" and Ambrose don't fit grammatically
  • Clarify through parenthetical clause that he was a younger sibling. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison believed that economic pressure could force the British to end their seizure of American shipping" - weirds strangely, I think maybe need another word after shipping or could replace with "shipped goods" or something along those lines
  • Go with 'shipped goods'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presidency
  • "Unlike Jefferson, who enjoyed relatively unified support, Madison faced political opposition from Monroe and Clinton." - within his party, correct? I think that's worth noting
  • They were previously political allies. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison immediately faced opposition to his planned nomination of Secretary of the Treasury Gallatin as secretary of state" - but why? That's critical to include
  • Monroe and Clinton became opponents of Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His initiatives were opposed by strict constructionists such as John Randolph, who stated that Madison's proposals "out-Hamiltons Alexander Hamilton".[205]" - need to explain what constructionists means
  • Clairfying Madison's original anti-Hamilton position of strict construction, to his later pro-Hamilton position supporting a National Bank. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "n 1809 Harrison began to push for a treaty to open more land for white American settlement" - at this point, we only know Harrison as a general, so why is he the one pushing for this rather than politicians?
  • Harrison's transitory roles as governor and as general need special attention here, and his relation to Jackson should be clarified. I've redone the chronology of the section somewhat and shortened some of the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Miami, Wea, and Kickapoo were "vehemently" opposed" - quote is unnecessary here
  • "The treaty began with "James Madison, President of the United States," on the first sentence of the first paragraph.[214] " - this seems crufty
  • "Tensions continued to mount between the United States and Tecumseh over the 1809 Treaty of Fort Wayne, which ultimately led to Tecumseh's alliance with the British and the Battle of Tippecanoe, on November 7, 1811, in the Northwest Territory.[220][221]" - this seems to be repeating info from the prior paragraph, although I think it makes more sense to fully go into detail about the war here rather than briefly mention in the first paragraph
  • It is a little tricky to cover the transition from Harrison to Jackson in dealing with the Indians under Madison. I've shifted those two paragraphs around in this section to keep the material together and shortened some of the wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-presidency
  • "As an example, he edited a letter written to Jefferson criticizing Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette—Madison not only inked out original passages, but in other correspondence he even forged Jefferson's handwriting.[232]" - don't think the emdash is really needed; just make it a semicolon or two sentences
Political and religious views and Legacy
  • I would argue that the legacy section could be a bit longer? Not sure what else to add, but haven't there been some depictions in media/fictional works worth mentioning?
  • Added a short popular culture section adapted from the Hamilton musical article. Does it look ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I do have some concerns that the prose is not at FA standard throughout the entire article. Given the length of the article, I recognize that's a challenge, but I do want to express that concern now that I've finished reading through. ceranthor 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to do more before the holiday week-end coming up. Regarding the quality of the prose, there have been many different editors for this article over the past 10 years that maybe you would like to go ahead and tighten the narrative in certain places, or to list the parts that you would like looked at. Vanamonde had many useful suggestions along these lines on the article's Talk page which might make interesting reading for you to glance at. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like all the edits for now. Looking forward to your next set of edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor Forgot to add ping. Are there more edit comments to assist to move the article forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: I can make more suggestions. To clarify, are you saying that Vanamonde provided more suggestions which have not yet been implemented? ceranthor 15:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor: All of Vanamonde's edits were added; her comments on the Madison Talk page were on the new approach to FAC (in 2021-2022) emphasizing brevity in style and for adjusting to shorter article length guidelines were well summarized by her. Ready for further edit comments you might have for this biography. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • "Madison did not attend the College of William and Mary, where the lowland Williamsburg climate—thought to be more likely to harbor infectious disease—might have strained his sensibilities concerning his own health." - would add a citation directly after this as it seems like it could be a fairly contentious claim
  • Gutzman covers this on page 2 of his book. Added. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The colonists formed three prominent factions: Loyalists, who continued to back King George III of the United Kingdom, a significant neutral faction without firm commitments to either Loyalists or Patriots, and the Patriots, whom Madison joined, under the leadership of the Continental Congress. Madison believed that Parliament had overstepped its bounds by attempting to tax the American colonies, and he sympathized with those who resisted British rule.[26] " - should use semicolons between the three groups for this list
  • "Historically, ongoing debate and eventual legislation was passed in the British Parliament (subsequently called the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786) to allow bishops to be consecrated for an American church outside of allegiance to the British Crown" - this sentence doesn't make sense grammatically - is something missing perhaps before "ongoing debate"?
  • Move main clause to start of sentence on consecration debates. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historically, ongoing debate and eventual legislation was passed in the British Parliament (subsequently called the Consecration of Bishops Abroad Act 1786) to allow bishops to be consecrated for an American church outside of allegiance to the British Crown (since no dioceses had ever been established in the former American colonies).[27]" - two parenthetical notes in one sentence is clunky
  • Remove the second parenthetical as overly detailed for an article on Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the Virginia constitutional convention, he convinced delegates to alter the Virginia Declaration of Rights to provide for "equal entitlement", rather than mere "tolerance", in the exercise of religion.[32] With the enactment of the Virginia constitution, Madison became part of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was subsequently elected to the Virginia governor's Council of State,[33] where he became a close ally of Governor Thomas Jefferson.[34] On July 4, 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence was formally printed, declaring the 13 American states an independent nation.[35][36]" - dates/years would be very helpful to organize this paragraph
  • The draft of the Virginia rights was May 20, 1776 now added to text. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison participated in the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777, " - elsewhere you've used "Month Year", so I would pick one style and stick to it throughout the article
  • "Madison participated in the debates concerning the Articles of Confederation in November of 1777, contributing to the discussion of religious freedom affecting the drafting of the Articles, but he was not a signatory of the Articles of Confederation." - the last bit seems awfully unnecessarily formal; why not just say "but he did not sign the Articles"?
  • Your wording format better. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison had proposed liberalizing the article on religious freedom, but the larger Virginia Convention stripped the proposed constitution of the more radical language." - Can you add a bit more detail on how?
  • The language of 'tolerance' was the preferred form of argument at that time rather than discussion 'free expression of religion' in those terms. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While a member of Congress, Madison was an ardent supporter of a close alliance between the United States and France; and, as an advocate of westward expansion, he insisted that the new nation had to ensure its right to navigation on the Mississippi River and control of all lands east of it in the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War.[41] " - split into two sentences
  • Two sentences are better here. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come ceranthor 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be up to date. Ready for added edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do my best to post remaining comments today. Thanks for your patience! ceranthor 15:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments continued
  • "He came to believe that the United States could improve upon past republican experiments by its size; with so many distinct interests competing against each other, Madison hoped to minimize the abuses of majority rule.[52]" - "by its size" I assume means that the US would be larger, but I feel like this is not sufficiently clear as written, maybe cut into two sentences so you can add a bit more around the size bit?
  • Add that Madison viewed 13 combined colonies as having distinct advantages. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, navigation rights to the Mississippi River highly concerned Madison. He opposed the proposal by John Jay that the United States concede claims to the river for 25 years, and, according to historian John Ketchum, Madison's desire to fight the proposal was a major motivation in his to return to Congress in 1787.[53]" - I don't think we get sufficient detail here to understand why the navigation rights were concerning
  • Madison's defense of expedited trade access to the Mississippi. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison himself favored a strong single executive as he described in Federalist No. 51.[58]" - was this after, though? If so, you should clarify "later described"
  • Explication was available later in the Federalist papers. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison's first contribution to The Federalist Papers, became highly regarded in the 20th century for its advocacy of representative democracy.[63]" - I'd clarify by whom
  • Madison's contributions were central in importance during the debates with the Anti-Federalists. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hamilton's plan favored Northern speculators and was disadvantageous to states, such as Virginia, that had already paid off most of their debt; and Madison emerged as one of the principal Congressional opponents of the plan.[80]" - cut the "and" in "and Madison"
  • "Madison married Dolley Payne Todd, a 26-year-old widow of John Todd," - should be "the" not "a" 26-year-old widow
  • "She became a renowned figure in Washington, D.C., and excelled at hosting dinners and other important political occasions.[112] Dolley subsequently helped to establish the modern image of the first lady of the United States as an individual who has a leading role in the social affairs of the nation.[113]" - I'd switch the "She" for the first sentence with "Dolley" in the second sentence, since the pronoun is established only in the second sentence
  • "Jefferson's doctrine of nullification was widely rejected, and the incident damaged the Democratic–Republican Party as attention was shifted from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the unpopular nullification doctrine.[126]" - what became of interposition though? Kind of left without explanation here
  • Ante-Bellum discussion of nullification and intervention are considerably different from contemporary forms of this debate; both of them are significantly discounted in interpretation after the Civil War an after Reconstruction. Should these issues be revisited while I look again at the wording there in the edit you mention. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1799, Madison won election to the Virginia legislature" - "won election" while fine, is odd - why not "was elected?"
  • 'Was elected' is to the point. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the Federalists badly divided between supporters of Hamilton and Adams" - not sure what "badly divided" means? Unevenly?
  • "While attaining the position of secretary of state and throughout his life, Madison maintained a close relationship with his father, James Sr., who died in 1801. At age 50, Madison inherited the large plantation of Montpelier and other possessions, including his father's numerous slaves.[137] Of his six siblings who lived to adulthood, Ambrose (one of the younger siblings) helped manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793.[11]" - this part is unrelated to the rest of the paragraph and flows awkwardly as a result. Why not merge this into a short paragraph with the bit about relying on his wife for support?
  • Merged, and wording adjusted. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson took office and was sympathetic to the westward expansion of Americans who had settled as far west as the Mississippi River; this was supported by the regional demographics of American land in the far west which remained sparse" - Frankly this sentence is a bit hard to understand. How can demographics remain sparse? How do the demographics support the idea that he was sympathetic to them?
  • Adjust wording; Jefferson wants westward expansion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson promoted such western expansion and hoped to acquire the Spanish territory of Louisiana, which was located to the west of the Mississippi River for expansionist purposes." - rephrase as "Louisiana, west of the Mississippi River, for expansionist purposes" to cut verbiage
  • " In 1802, Jefferson and Madison sent Monroe to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans," - why Monroe though? Did he hold a formal position?
  • Monroe, a sympathetic fellow Virginian. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with ambassador Livingston, negotiated the Louisiana Purchase," - Ambassador to France?
  • Jefferson appointed him as minister to France. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Being overconfident, Madison ordered a three front invasion of Canada" - three-front meaning?
  • Three military spearhead incursions. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and disgruntled New Englanders who wanted almost anyone over Madison" - tone here seems a bit informal and out-of-place
  • "Madison selected Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts as his running mate.[184]" - shouldn't there be slightly more mention of Gerry as his VP? Also a bit lost if Gerry was VP because he got the second most votes or if the system had changed by that time?
  • It was George Clinton until 1812, and the Gerry for the second term. This is in the Infobox though I could add it here if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, the British burned Washington and other buildings.[194][195]" - This sentence doesn't make sense as is; washington was a city, what do you mean by other buildings?
  • Changing language to captured and burned. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional new comments
  • "Madison learned that his negotiators had negotiated the Treaty of Ghent which ended the war. " - negotiators had negotiated - can be phrased more eloquently. also, any notable names?
  • They were led by John Quincy Adams appointed by Secretary of State James Monroe. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The postwar period of Madison's second term saw the transition into the "Era of Good Feelings"," - including roughly the years would be helpful for context
  • Adding as mid-1815 to 1817. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madison hastened the decline of the Federalists by adopting several programs he had previously opposed.[208]" - I think these programs are mentioned in the next paragraph, and so this sentence should start the next paragraph if that's true
  • Adjust paragraph breaks. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the American Indian tribes were compensated $5,200 ($109,122 in 2020) in goods and $500 in cash, with $250 in annual payments," - should provide conversions for all the cash amounts
  • Currency conversions added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who in his view were "irresistibly attracted by that complete liberty, that freedom from bonds, obligations, duties, that absence of care and anxiety which characterize the savage state"." - need a citation after direct quote
  • Add Landry citation.
  • "Madison's Secretary of War William Crawford advocated for the government to encourage intermarriages between Native Americans and whites as a way of assimilating the former. " - since this didn't happen at that time, you should probably clarify that briefly
  • Adding that it came later in the term. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1826, after the death of Jefferson, Madison was appointed as the second rector of the university. He retained the position as college chancellor for ten years until his death in 1836.[citation needed]" - this needs to be corrected immediately
  • "Other examples include Madison, Wisconsin and Madison County, Alabama[282][283] which were both named for Madison, as were Madison Square Garden, James Madison University, and the USS James Madison.[284][285][286][287]" - tweak to "Other memorials include"
  • Change to 'other memorials'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Won't make a recommendation either way, but my understanding is that Native American has mostly fallen out of favor and many people now prefer the term American Indian - don't think you need to change it here, but it might be an issue raised in the future.
  • I'll keep my eye out for comments on this topic; its an interesting matter of evolving acceptable linguistics. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are the last of my comments prose-wise. Thanks for your patience! ceranthor 19:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor That should be up to date now. I'll look forward to further edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Thanks for your patience! ceranthor 16:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks for your support on this article. Those were both thoughtful and insightful comments for improving the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I will leave some comments later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long article, so I'll mainly focus on major issues, with a few nitpicks.
Lead:
  • "Madison's Virginia Plan served as the basis for the Convention's deliberations, and he was an influential voice at the convention." - Instead of using "served as", how about "was"?
  • "During the early 1790s, Madison opposed the economic program and the accompanying centralization of power favored by Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton and, alongside Thomas Jefferson, organized the Democratic–Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party. " - This may be better off as two sentences.
  • Go with 2 sentence version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that position, he saw Jefferson make the Louisiana Purchase and later as President oversaw related disputes in the Northwest territories." - Unless Madison literally saw Jefferson make the Louisiana Purchase, I'd rephrase that.
  • "Madison was re-elected in 1812, albeit by a smaller margin than in the 1808 election" - I think you can eliminate the last part of the sentence, as the 1808 election is implied by the use of the word "re-elected".
  • Go with shorter wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Madison is considered one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States" - I think you should clarify whether he's considered one of the most important Founding Fathers by historians or by the general public.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, Those should be up to date now. I'll look forward to further edit comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave more comments tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December edits
I was going to leave more comments, as promised. However, I noticed that James Madison#Ratification of the Constitution was recently tagged with a {{POV statement}} template. I'm not going to belabor that issue, as there is already plenty of discussion on the talk page, but that dispute should be resolved as soon as possible.
Early life and education:
  • "Madison grew up as the oldest of twelve children,[10] with seven brothers and four sisters, though only six lived to adulthood.[9]" - To paraphrase a comment I read somewhere else on Wikipedia, "with" is generally a poor conjunction. The sentence should be rephrased to remove that particular conjunction. For instance, "Madison, who grew up as the oldest of twelve children,[10] had seven brothers and four sisters, though only six lived to adulthood.[9]"
  • Your version better. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, whoops, I didn't see this comment before and I just undid that change. I thought it sounded better with "with" because then it connects the "oldest of twelve" and "eleven others." I thought the current version sounded weirder because it seems like two separate facts that he was one of twelve and that he had eleven siblings, but feel free to revert my reversion. Freoh (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "completed the college's three-year Bachelor of Arts degree in just two years" - I would remove "just" here, as it does not serve any additional purpose.
  • "Madison saw himself as a law student but not a lawyer; he did not apprentice himself to a lawyer, and never joined the bar." - Were apprenticeships and bar memberships common for lawyers back in the day?
  • In the case of John Adams, he was a law apprentice, followed by taking an MA degree, followed by being admitted to the bar in Massachusetts. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had bright blue eyes and was known to be humorous in small gatherings." - I feel like these two clauses should be in separate sentences, since they're not really related (i.e. having bright blue eyes doesn't correlate to being humorous).
  • A previous Wikipedia editor appears to have thought the 'bright' blue eyes or 'sparkling' eyes was a flattering phrase consistent with a happy or humourous disposition; I'll look at the wording and try to adjust it. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American Revolution and Articles of Confederation
  • "In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. Strong opposition by the American colonists began a conflict that would culminate in the American Revolution. The disagreement centered on Parliament's right to levy taxes on the colonists, who were not directly represented in that body. The American Revolutionary War broke out in 1775 and would last till 1783. The colonists formed three prominent factions: Loyalists, who continued to back King George III of the United Kingdom; a significant neutral faction without firm commitments to either Loyalists or Patriots; and the Patriots, whom Madison joined, under the leadership of the Continental Congress." - This is a lot of context for the Revolution. I suggest condensing it, since this is a long article.
  • I'll try to go with a condensed prefatory comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Madison never saw battle in the Revolutionary War" - As in, he was never on the front lines?
  • He supported the war as a politician and never entered active military service. Would you prefer the wording to by adjusted? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After serving in Congress from 1780 to 1783," - I think the time period should go at the beginning of the paragraph, e.g. "During Madison's term in Congress from 1780 to 1783, the U.S. faced a difficult war against Great Britain..."
  • Going with your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will come back to this later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Fourteen images.

  • This is an optional image and is removed; the main image is the Gilbert Stuart portrait of Madison in his late years. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to now be agreement with Hawkeye and Indy that the image can be retained as 'freedom of panaroma'. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there is freedom of panorama here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A far limited form than we're used to. Our article says (uncited of course) "Nevertheless, the United States freedom of panorama does not cover other artistic works still covered by copyright, including sculptures. Usages of images of such works for commercial purposes may become copyright infringements." So I'm just going off that. I'm willing to take your word for it that it is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is true that copyright does indeed cover sculptures (Gaylord v. US was about the US Post Office using photos of sculptures on stamps), so I'm not entirely sure where that leaves us here. I'm doubtful the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission was filing copyrights for road signs in the 1970s. All I know is that FoP isn't as much of a problem here as it is in, say, Burundi, where basically every building you capture in a photo makes an image a copyright infringement. The abstract of this 2020 legal paper says "When art is installed in public spaces in the United States, the public's right to capture and share images for commercial or noncommercial purposes is not clearly defined by federal copyright law." It is also not clear whether the road sign marker would count as "art" in the same way a scultpure would. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Not my period of expertise, but sources appear to be of high quality. The only unit of American history I took covered c. 1800-1865 and was mainly about the slide into civil war.

References
  • fn 1: uses {{sfnp}} template instead of {{sfn}}, resulting in different formatting
  • fn 3: remove url status, which creates a CS1 warning
  • Remove it. (Which you seem to have done for me; thanks). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 23: link doesn't take me to the right place (although the doi does) - remove. Mispelling of "lawyer"
  • Misspelled lawyer. Update url. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 47, 263, 277, 278, 290: publisher?
  • #263 is Random House as listed and confirmed here. And #277 is currently listed as TNYT. Footer numbers appears to be bumped up by one following interim edits by other editors; I'll try to figure them out by bumping up your index numbers by one. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 47: capitalisation. Also: should it be moved into "Works cited"?
  • Caps in title. It seems to be an isolated usage of this source. Open to moving it where ever works best. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 95, 277, 278, 291, 298: Location?
  • All locations added. To verify you'll need to add +1 to many of your footnote numbers which have been displace by intermittent edits on the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 128: Since this is Wikisource, can link directly instead of using a footnote
  • Will pick up here later today or tomorrow; more coming. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 176, 204, 265: ISSN?
  • ISBN for Gary Wills seems to already be there for #176-177; as well as for Rutland #204; As well as for Burnstein #265. Are these being suppressed from printing on your screen, since they are appearing on my screen as ISBNs? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 263, 265, 284: Access date?
  • These are sfn notes for the Feldman book and the Burnstein book; these are not on-line journals or pdfs with current access dates? Is there a difficulty with the footnote numbers being changed by intermediate edits? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 265: Link magazine
  • I'm afraid these footnote numbers have all been displaced by interim edits to the article; could you id these by the actual magazine name and I'll find it that way to fill it in. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 276, 297: link newspaper
  • Not currently linked to newspapers; if you can give me the newspaper names then I can locate them and link them. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 277: ISBN?
  • All of these footnotes appear to have been displaced by interim edits; I'll be happy to update each of them if you can give me the name of the item in question for me to find it in the bibliography. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

  • fn 8 has "Montpelier Foundation" but fn 9 does not.
  • fn 12: publisher is James Madison University
  • fns 8 and 9 have "James Madison's Montpelier" but fn 13 does not
  • fn 24, 115, 234, 273 are different again - make them all the same
  • Footnote 273 not matching up, though the others are updated now. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 31, 186: Make these the same too
  • fn 47, 95, 176, 231: Move into Works Cited
  • First two done as books to sfn; last two fn num,bers are not for books at this moment; do you have updated fn numbers for them? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 67: Hanover College is publisher, not website
  • More tomorrow; very thorough list... ErnestKrause (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 95: Do not abbreviate GPO
  • fn 129: Still available at https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,994570,00.html
  • Added. (Nice url find.) ErnestKrause (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 248: Reformat using the cite web template
  • fn 258: Publisher is University of Chicago
  • fn 278, 279: ISBN?
  • fn 290: Publisher is National Capital Planning Commission
  • Added.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works cited
  • Ball, Billias, Broadwater, Chernow, Coelho, Corbett, Feldman, Ferling, Gannett, Green, Gutzman, Hoffer, Hutson, Ketcham, Keysaar, Labunski, Magnet, McCullough, Meacham, Miroff, MCCoy, Robinson, Roosevelt, Rosen, Rutland, Wills, Wood, Varg: location?
    • Should all be up to date now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robinson: publisher?
    • This is Free Press in NYC. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ketcham (2003), Labunski, McCoy, Rosen: ISBN?
  • Labunski: Don't abbreviate "university"
  • McCullough, McCoy, Watts, McDonald, Madision, Varg are out of alphabetic order
    • Those should be in order now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Madison" isn't a book; move into the References section with the other websites instead
  • Varg is the only one with an OCLC; consider also for Edwards
    • Do you have the link for the OCLC Edwards? (It does not come up when I tried a standard title search). ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      OCLC is 11256111 and ISBN is 978-0-00-215143-6 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. (Nice of you to look those up). ErnestKrause (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watts: page numbers?
  • Spot checks not done. May come back and do them.
    • By all means 'come back'; those comments were quite good. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra points in fn 261 for the neat criticism of Wikipedia's "free content" guideline as "doubtful" and "self-contradictory" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

  • Ball: add "England"
  • Edwards: See above
  • Hoffer: "University" is still abbreviated
  • Kappler: Add "D.C."
  • "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation : U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774-1875." What's this doing here? Move into the References
  • Its no longer in the article; previously used in old versions and now deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madison: Note that this is volume VIII
  • Miroff: Do not abbreviate "Massachussets".
  • Wills: Location?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I wasn't intending to critique the rest of the article, but I got a laugh from "Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves", paraphrasing Monty Python's "he was a cruel man, but fair". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My appreciation for a very thorough list; it may take me a day or two to do all of them. User:Indy beetle has also left a comment for you above. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hawkeye7: As much as Monty Python in pop culture deserves all the attention they can get, if you can think of an alternate phrase here then let me know. Noah Feldman has referred to such things as 'self-contradictory' traits in Madison impressed on him by the times he lived in. Your comments above have been added to the article and I'm ready for added comments when they are available. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah right. The crux of the matter is that those self-contradictory traits are not merely an artifact of the times Madisomn lived in, but persist in the present-day United States, and in the Wikipedia. Rather than echo Feldman's opinion, which lets everybody off the hook at the expense of itself being self-contradictory, I would present the reader with the facts, telling them how enslaved people were treated at Montpelier. NB: Somebody even created a POV fork (James Madison and slavery). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking that I need to agree with you. If you could suggest 2-3 sentences to refactor into the main article from the forked article you just mentioned, then maybe the article will be more to the point. There seem to be significant changes in the discussion of minority mistreatment as understood by George Washington, as understood by Abraham Lincoln, and as understood by Barack Obama; each generation becoming more enlightened. I'm sensitive to this issue and would like to hear which 2-3 sentences you would refactor into the main article from the James Madison and slavery article you just mentioned. If you can decide on the best wording to refactor back into that section, then you can go ahead with it and remove those two template tags in that section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7: That should all be up to date. Could you see my note directly before this ping to take a try at a possible refactoring from the linked article; maybe you can do better than the version that is there. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each generation most certainly did not become more enlightened. I would suggest dropping "abstained from excessive cruelty". The source says "Madison maintained control, but avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers". That just means that nothing rose to the point where it was considered noteworthy or unusual; saying that his motivation was " to avoid criticism from peers" is likely a misinterpretation of the source. What does Elizabeth Dowling Taylor say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7: Elizabeth Dowling Taylor's comments focus mostly on the manservant of Madison (Paul Jennings) who wrote his own book about his service to Madison after Madison died; he is very polite to Madison throughout though surprised that Madison did not free him in his Will but rather allows his wife Dolley to inherit him. Although you didn't sign up to critique this article, your comments above are pretty much right on target and I'd like to make a request. Another editor Freoh who is being mentored by Vanamonde is suggesting a list of 4-5 edits on the Talk page for James Madison which would allow for the current template tags to be removed. I'm wondering if I could ask you to look at them and copy edit them to your own standards, and then add them into the article. That would clear up the slavery issue comments you've made above and then you could remove those 4-5 template tags currently in the article here [6]. It would also add the benefit of your comments above to me on slavery which I would support. Could you give this a look? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians indeed shouldn't get so involved with editing pages they're in the middle of reviewing. That would be an inappropriate conflict of interest. Occasional minor changes from reviewers might be OK, but not major ones. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7: Two of the co-ordinators may be recused from answering here following participation in pre-FAC for this article, and it might be worth directly pinging either Ian Rose or Gog the Mild for your question. Snuggums comment I think refers to the general policy that reviewers might leave up to a half-dozen to a dozen edits once they complete their assessment for support/oppose. If you are close to completing your support/oppose for the Sources here, then you could add your edits as needed. I'm thinking that it does make a difference if the nominator is supportive of your making such edits, which I'm requesting. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Hawkeye is an experienced editor and reviewer I would not be adverse to what is outlined by Ernest. This would be dependant on Hawkeye being willing to do it and on them limiting their edits to whatever they feel is not a conflict. If they prefer to not go near this, I entirely understand. Ian Rose may have a different view. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, he's a shifty one that Hawkeye... Yeah, I suppose we could take a chance... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 If you don't have time to look at the Talk page during the holidays, then that's fine; possibly you could just finish up the support/oppose comments for the Source review in the meantime. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • Using italics for the "None" gaps in infobox for VP's doesn't feel right. Those tend to be reserved for names of things like magazines, newspapers, books, films, TV shows, albums, video games, court cases, and plays.
  • In both cases, the office was left vacant upon their respective deaths. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that, and you seem to have misunderstood my point; don't italicize the text there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas Jefferson only needs to be linked once within infobox.
  • First one is linked now. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Virginia districts served under U.S. House of Representatives, use dashes (–) instead of hyphens for the year ranges within infobox
  • While I have previously heard that Madison was the shortest among Presidents, is his exact height really worth mentioning? It's rather minor compared to the offices he held.
  • Height and weight not pertinent to Infobox. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised there's no mention of Marbury v. Madison in the lead given how big that case ruling was.
  • Added that he supported Jefferson in this big case. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget to add italics to the case name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's be consistent on whether the guy's mother is referred to as "Eleanor" or "Nelly".
  • In that case, let's also have her middle name in prose for a closer match to infobox. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Madison's maternal grandfather was a prominent planter and tobacco merchant." is true, then does he have a Wikipedia article you could link to?
  • Linking to a geographic location is an inappropriate WP:EASTEREGG and not what I had in mind. You'd be better off linking to a bio for this grandfather (or at least giving his identity). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding his full name and moving the link location in the sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help to also name the siblings who died before becoming adults (assuming the names are known)
  • This has gone back and forth during this review; how to assess the importance of the names of siblings, not Madison himself, who had died in infancy or becoming adults. Does adding 6 names without biography pages seem needed from your standpoint? Assuming that the names can be researched. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think having them makes it feel more complete. Either way, glad you named the ones who reached adulthood; that's better than not naming any at all! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous FAC reviewer felt that it looked like a run-on list of names when all the name's were there listed one-after-the-other. If you would like, then I could ping him if needed; at this point the article could either way on this question. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That neutrality tag under "Ratification of the Constitution" is a glaring issue that needs to be resolved in order for this nomination to pass.
  • The tags have been added by an editor of the Talk page who wishes some changes he has listed there as change "X to Y" under discussion. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the Bettye Kearse connection ever answered definitively like how Warren Harding was confirmed in 2015 to have had a daughter with Nan Britton after being disputed for years? If I'm reading this correctly, then it alleges he had an inbred son with an enslaved half-sister who would go onto have other descendants including Kearse.
  • That article appears to be an isolated rendering in the press without follow-up reliable sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to clarify the status of the DNA evidence with a book reference. Freoh (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When discussing how Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, there's no need to call Aaron Burr "ostensible"; he did end up serving as Jefferson's Vice President (for his first term of office).
  • The "Inauguration and cabinet" subsection of Presidency feels incomplete without any mention of how George Clinton started as VP under Madison
  • DeWitt Clinton wasn't the only nephew George had, contrary to what "the nephew of recently deceased Vice President George Clinton" implies. You can fix this by using "a nephew", and what did he die from?
  • Switch to indefinite article. George Clinton died from a heart attack on April 20, 1812, at the age of 72. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, John Quincy Adams was the first of three sons John Adams had; the current text gives a false impression there were no others.
  • There should be some mention of Elbridge Gerry's death in office within "Military action"
  • Added that he dies within 2 years of taking office. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By coincidence, the Fourth of July was the day of the year on which former presidents Jefferson, Adams, and Monroe had all died." is irrelevant here and can safely be cut.
  • Don't use italics for emphasis like you did with "mind" from "a change of mind, my dear".
  • Another neutrality tag for "Slavery"? That's never a good sign.
  • Its the same editor currently on Talk page being discussed. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the "Popular culture" subsection of Legacy could be expanded with commentary from critics on the portrayals of this man.
  • There's not much out there; the Dolley Madison film was not a Hollywood blockbuster though he is portrayed in it, and the portrayals of him in the musical Hamilton seem to be the high point of depictions of his life. If you've seen others maybe you could link them here. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None come to mind right now. Maybe some plot details for his role in Hamilton could help flesh things out? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short add for some plot details. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you plan on using the listings from "Further Reading" to cite any article text, I see no point of including these.
  • Drop the section or abridge it? Having a Further reading section seems almost expected in most Wikipedia articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop anything you don't plan on using as an in-text reference, keep the rest as citations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is there not any mention of Zachary Taylor being related to him? They're known to be second cousins.
  • Added with citation also added. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems better placed somewhere within "Early life and education" as that talks about family connections. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Early life section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because of the neutrality tags that stick out like sore thumbs, I'm going to oppose for now, but hopefully the article can be improved soon! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all caught up with some comments. Ready for next set of edit requests when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looking better. Let me know once the neutrality disputes are settled. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your edit comments are all up to date and I'll look forward to more edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from waiting for the neutrality concerns being dealt with (ping me once the tags are no longer in place), I have nothing left to say expect you should link to Hamilton–Reynolds affair in the "Popular culture" section. Glad to see the page quickly revised :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Slavery was by far the most important and consequential issue faced by the United States during Madison's career. The article barely mentions it, while discussing trivia like tariff policy at great length. Several active editors seem keen to keep things that way. For the most part, this article could have been written by a member of the Dunning SchoolJQ (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three paragraphs are devoted to the subject; that's hardly a "bare" mention. The word tariff appears 8 times throughout the article, slave/slavery appears at least two dozen times. The Dunning School also largely dealt with Reconstruction, an era of American history much more concerned with issues of (post) slavery and race, so that's not really an apt criticism. Madison's career involved, among other things, the creation of the constitution, a significant amount of foreign policy, and the American capital being burnt down, so I don't see why slavery would be the focus of the article, especially since as a public issue it was really a can being kicked down the road until the Civil War. Do you have any specific complaints, something a source points to as significant that we are missing? Scholarship I've read on Madison rarely focuses much on slavery (as opposed to some of his contemporaries like Jefferson). -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the length of the article, three paragraphs is a bare mention. The Three-Fifths compromise and the Missouri compromise get a sentence each. The expansion of slavery arising from the Louisiana purchase isn't even mentioned.
    As you say, the issue was kicked down the road until it exploded into civil war. But, given that we know this, we should be making readers aware of the outcome, not adopting the perspective of those whose actions paved the way for the war.
    More generally, the idea that it wasn't "a public issue" is only correct if the "public" is taken to exclude a million enslaved people for whom the issue was one of life and death. Of course, being forbidden to read and write, they didn't leave much of a documentary record. JQ (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The million enslaved were excluded from the body politic. Moral travesty that may be, but inflecting the article with our modern moral values because we dislike slavery serves no one. I still see no evidence that scholarship should guide us towards emphasizing slavery with regards to Madison. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      On what basis should we reflect the views and moral values of the enslaver "body politic", and exclude or downplay those of the enslaved? Shouldn't both be given weight?
      Are you really comfortable with recommending an article which is, as you say, a moral travesty? JQ (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm comfortable with promoting an article rooted in reliable sources. I've not yet seen evidence in scholarship that we should be further covering this issue relative to everything else Madison did in his career. I bet you he didn't support gay marriage or women's suffrage, should we also create sections on that based on our personal values? -Indy beetle (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments to Indy beetle and John Quiggin. I'm going to add to what Indy has stated since this issue was previously discussed with the FAC coordinators previously. The decision at the time was to split the very large section on James Madison and slavery into a new article; this was done in order to give the subject the full attention which it deserves. The previous section was getting so large that a separate article was created for those editors with expertise in this area to add their discussions and reliable sources. Possibly you could look at the sibling article to see what you seem to indicate you are interest in. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The big question here is: which was more important historically, the issues that dominated the "body politic" at the time, and are discussed at length in the article, or the series of compromises over slavery, which gave rise to the Civil War, and the results of which have played a central role in US politics ever since?
    Treating the War of 1812 as a big deal and slavery as a sideshow accords with the perspective of the US "body politic" at the time, and of white American historians until the very recent past, but it's not justified. JQ (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so find some sources which suggest that's what we should be doing. Are you surprised that the views of the body politic were what dominated politics, the area of Madison's profession? Aside from the occasional flareups, in many ways slavery was just taken for granted in the South during this time, integral as it was to the Sothern society and economy. It does not appear slavery presented as much of a political issue for Madison as it did for some other American politicians except at specific intervals. He was not John C. Calhoun; slavery was not the focal point of his career or his main contribution to American political history. It sounds like you wish it was. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three-fifths compromise, Louisiana purchase, Missouri compromise? JQ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, and what sources do you have which suggest that Madison was heavily involved in them (and with regards to the Louisiana Purchase, what Madison's involvement has to do with slavery)? We know he stayed out of the public debate over the Missouri Compromise. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A more mundane objection is that the desire of some editors to play down slavery by mixing it with other topics has resulted in nonsense sentences like this "Like Jefferson and Washington, Madison was a wealthy slave-owner who favored republican government over democratic assembly. " What possible link is there between slave-ownership and preference for republican government? And wasn't Jefferson on the other side of this debate? But my attempt to remove the second clause was reverted. There are lots of similarly jumbled paragraphs and sentences, anywhere slavery appears JQ (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is the tendency to lump Madison in with all other slave owners, without apparently having any detailed knowledge of how slaves fared under him. After describing fiendish slave owners, John W. Blassingame, in The Slave Community, tells of a planter of "the opposite extreme", the Mississippian James Green Carson, who couldn't emancipate his slaves, as that wasn't allowed under state law. Madison was himself worried that emancipation would not leave the freed slaves better off in an environment where the ex-slave would be endangered without the slave owner's protection. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly worth discussing. Madison's treatment of the large number of people he enslaved, and on whom his entire income depended, is certainly worthy of more attention than his school and college education, currently given at least equal length. JQ (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to add your comments here for discussion; it would be helpful to know is you have read the new article for James Madison and slavery which was largely created by the FAC coordinators here during 2022. Do you think it is a useful article, and does it contain any information at all dealing with your main concerns expressed in your comments here? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John Quiggin: Pinging since there has not been a message from you since last year; any comments for the new year? Are there any paragraphs that could be brought back into the main Madison article from the sibling page on James Madison and slavery which would make the article look better from your viewpoint. This is an important issue and I'm open to adding or exchanging paragraphs between the main article and the sibling article I've just linked if you think that would make the article improved. Looking forward to your comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge all of this back into James Madison. Slavery isn't a side issue that can be treated as marginal to Madison's career, before, during and after his Presidency. It was the central issue facing the US from the Revolution onwards, culminating in the Civil War, and with a continuing impact to this day. In particular, the Missouri Compromise sealed off any chance that slavery would end naturally, and therefore made Civil War inevitable. JQ (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, if the article is too long and unwieldy, the lengthy material on Madison's education could easily be carved off into a separate article.JQ (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Thebiguglyalien

I'm not going to leave a full review or opinion, as I haven't read the full article and I'm not terribly familiar with the FAC process. With that said, I'm not convinced that this article meets the requirement for comprehensiveness. Madison the political philosopher is arguably as important as Madison the president, but the article neglects this. Between his philosophical and presidential work, I would expect to see a lot more on his political thought, possibly to the point of a separate Political views of James Madison article being necessary. I also feel that the paragraphs throughout the article are rather large, but that might just be a personal preference. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you and to see your comments. Two of those issues you have just described were created in 2022 as separate sibling articles for James Madison dealing with his roles with slavery in James Madison and slavery and also his role as the often described Father of the Constitution of 1787 in James Madison as Father of the Constitution. Let me know if either of those articles are helpful and if more articles like this might be useful from your viewpoint. It would be nice to see more comments on this subject from your viewpoint. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more information about his views on different political ideas. Madison might be the most important figure in the history of federalism, but the section labeled "Federalism" in his article has only three sentences. There are some places higher in his article that talk about his responses to certain issues, but there's not much development of his philosophy or political positions on their own. Even those two spun-off articles still largely talk about how he addressed issues in a historical sense. There's plenty of historical analysis of his writings, particularly his share of the Federalist Papers, that could help with a deeper dive into his political philosophy. I would also expect to see a breakdown of his foreign policy, especially since he served as Secretary of State prior to becoming president. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm an avid reader of the Federalist Papers, then its not difficult to convince me to add more on this topic. Earlier in 2022 I did split much of the related information on this into the James Madison as Father of the Constitution article. The Federalist Papers were written by Madison while he was supporting his version of the 1787 Constitution. There is also a fairly good Wikipedia article on the Federalist Papers as a whole, and also on many of the individual essays there written by Madison himself. If you feel any of this information should be brought back into the article, then just let me know which paragraphs from the sibling articles are most important. Madison as a theorist of Constitutional government is important enough to have its own article at 'Father of the Constitution', and I'll look forward to seeing what paragraphs from the sibling articles you would like added back into the Madison article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This nom has been open two months and discussion is still going on, here and on the article talk page, about significant content that should or should not be included. The article talk page or Peer Review are the places to hash those things out, not FAC. I see we've had an NPOV tag added to the article in the last few days as well. I'm going to archive this and recommend that the article be brought when we have a stable version, which is one of the FAC criteria along with neutral point of view, etc. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/January_2023&oldid=1132958050"