Talk:James Madison/Archive 4

Informal review 2
I was asked to review this by, with an eye to FAC. I'm going to copy-edit as I go, but I'll post other comments here. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's many sentences that include "one of the most influential" or something similar; that's a wordy construction, and I'd suggest rewording where possible. Simply "influential" will frequently serve.
 * Some of those are direct quotes attributed to other scholars by quotation. Simplifying puffery in some of the other instances. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Is https://www.montpelier.org/ the best source for Madison's early life? A museum website isn't the worst, but when scholarly sources are available, this might be questioned at FAC.
 * Said website says the Madison's new house was built with slave labor; might be worth adding, but I'm sensitive to length concerns.
 * "Great emphasis was placed on both speech and debate" the passive voice is odd; who made this decision?
 * Removing puffery. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Information about Madison's siblings is split over sections, with some redundancy.
 * The sections on his Early life and on his Private life at the end of this article have some duplication in different contexts. I've started to partially integrate them and could do more. Each section does have a separate context however and they might be worth keeping in this format. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think you can combine them altogether, and some repetition is unavoidable; but going over them with an eye to minimizing redundancy would help. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest rewording or removing block quotes as a useful way to reduce length.
 * Shortening block quote from Willis, and changing format to narrative text. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the early life section uses a lot of words to say Madison studied, but never practiced law; I'd suggest trimming.
 * The backstory to all this is that of the 3 authors of the Federalist Papers, only Madison did not think of himself as a lawyer. This is a surprise to most readers of the Federalist Papers. I could trim the part about his being called a 'demi-lawyer', but maybe you might have other suggestions. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one suggestion, which I'm by no means wedded to. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Shorten wording, enhance text, add citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The "Federalism" sub-section strikes me as somewhat redundant to material about his activities elsewhere. If it could be folded in elsewhere, it might help with the length issue.
 * Shortening this passage by removing accolades from Rossiter. The accolades are covered on the page for the Federalist Papers. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The largest contributor to this article is marginally active, but if you're going to FAC it might be worth pinging them for their thoughts.
 * Many were contacted months ago, with some making partial responses and edits. It seems like many editors have moved on to other articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Section break 13 September

 * Sources should either use shortened footnotes or complete references; not both. Feldman 2017 uses both, check for others too.
 * Footnotes should have citations.
 * I have never loved the use of isolated polls to assign presidents their place in history, and would prefer that a synthesis be used, if available. I suspect I'm in the minority here, so this is entirely optional.
 * I've shortened that discussion of 2 sentences into a single sentence, and retained the cites. Could shorten further as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think Madison's own writings should be used as sources at all. Madison wrote a number of works; how are quotes to be chosen? If a quote is of significance, a secondary source will have reproduced it; if not, it's likely not worth including.
 * I'm assuming that's a reference to footnotes 242 and 243 where Madison discusses church and state; there is that quotation of Madison used there. Should the quote be deleted and written in narrative format, or, shorten the quote of Madison currently being used there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "American Revolution and Articles of Confederation" strikes me as carrying too much detail, and the fourth sentence in particular is a bit of a mess.
 * Rewrite for that section now in place; section shortened from 5 paragraphs to 4 paragraphs. Could shorten further as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Information about the Anglican church in Virginia is present in both the section just mentioned, and later in "religious views".
 * Adapt wording for emphasis on Madison as supporter of a high wall of separation between state and religion. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Citing the declaration of independence strikes me as unnecessary...
 * During peer reviews, some editors requested that the dates of the actual printing of the document, and its actual delivery to British officials be documented; that is why the citation was added, for the dates and not so much for the prominent document itself. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The transition from the declaration of independence to the articles of confederation (para 2 to 3) is very abrupt.
 * Dating of Madison's debates for the Articles of confederation in November 1777 added for historical context of transition from the Declaration in 1776. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Before a quorum was reached at the Philadelphia Convention on May 25, 1787," seems unnecessary detail.
 * Adjusting and shortening text. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Article jumps straight from "the delegates went into a secret session to consider a new constitution" to "After the Philadelphia Convention ended in September 1787" what happened in between? What were the effects of the secret session?
 * Adding sequence of details leading to ratification debates for clarity. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Father of the Constitution" strikes me as an odd title for a section; the section is about the constitution, not a person, and we can hardly call it "fathering of the constitution".
 * Adjusting section title to Ratification of the Constitution. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The fourth paragraph of that section mentions a "Henry", not previously introduced; the only Henry mentioned is a 20th century painter.
 * The Wikipedia article for Patrick Henry states that he was a painter and debater of political issues with Madison. I've added his first name for clarity ("I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!", as attributed to Patrick Henry). ErnestKrause (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "At the start of the convention in Virginia..." To the non-specialist it isn't obvious that this was the convention at which Virgnia would or would not endorse the constitution previously discussed.
 * This was the ratification convention. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "New York ratified the constitution the following month" the relevance of this fragment isn't clear.
 * Signify why New York ratification was significant. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Madison and the Democratic-Republican Party fought back against Hamilton's attempt to expand the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the sovereignty of the individual States by opposing the formation of a national bank." This is rather wordy, but I hesitate to trim it without access to the sources.
 * Rewriting both that sentence and the one after it. Change grammar for simplify clarity of their opposition. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Hamilton's faction, which allegedly sought the establishment of an aristocratic monarchy and was biased in favor of the wealthy" this strikes me as a bit POV. Surely the historians write about what they actually represented, which we can replace this with? I say this with no recollection of the details of Hamilton's goals.
 * The point is summarized fairly well in the Legacy section of the Wikipedia Hamilton page stating: "The older Jeffersonian (and Madisonian) view attacked Hamilton as a centralizer, sometimes to the point of accusations that he advocated monarchy." This was part of the political recriminations of that time as covered in Chernow's biography on Hamilton. Is this preferable? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The half-paragraph about Kentucky resolutions vs Virginia resolutions strikes me as too esoteric for a high-level article; I suggest removing it, or trimming it at the very least.
 * Shorten discussion of Jefferson and nullification by half. Keep the part about his debate with Monroe. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The material about West Florida strikes me as something that could be removed. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've shortened and combined the 2 sentences into one sentence to preserve the cites. If you prefer, then it can be fully deleted. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "After bitter party contention" I assume this means "intra-party contention"
 * Change to 'intra-party'. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The 1812 War section strikes me as overlong; a stricter application of summary style may be needed.
 * I'm open to shorten it by a quarter, or by half to deal with length issues. Shorten by half? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A third at least, I'd say. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Its further shortened at this point; I've tried to retain most of the footnotes and citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "In leading up to the 1812 presidential election, held during the early stages of the War of 1812, the poorly-attended 1812 Democratic-Republican congressional caucus met in May 1812, and Madison was re-nominated without opposition" Four uses of "1812" in one sentence, suggesting redundancy.
 * Removing two of the references to '1812'. It was two too many. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Federalists made gains in most states outside of the South, but Pennsylvania's support for Madison ensured that the incumbent won a majority of the electoral vote.[165] Clinton won most of the Northeast, but Madison swept the South and the West, and won the key state of Pennsylvania.[166]" More redundancy; I don't want to reword, given that I don't know which piece precisely is supported by which source
 * Shorten wording. Combining two redundant sentences into one sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't imagine Tecumseh was the only one critical of the Treaty of Fort Wayne?
 * Others were not as prominent, and only Tecumseh was able to make a military alliance with Britain which escalated into military hostility. I could tweak the wording further to amplify this point. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean contemporaneously; how do historians write of it? Vanamonde (Talk) 08:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The approach of historians is to discuss Tecumseh's War as a precursor to the War of 1812; they read a type of historical continuity between these two events. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Native American policy" is oddly structured, returning to Tecumseh twice.
 * I've amplified the wording to state the two phases of Tecumseh's response; first raising the voice of opposition against unfavorable treaties, and, second, to make alliance with Britain leading to hostilities. Also added a link to Tecumseh's War on Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. As best as I can tell, the article is well-researched and comprehensive, but suffers from the problems typical of such articles, being too long, and in places not explaining itself, because necessary information is buried in a sub-article. I've left some suggestions as to where general trimming could be undertaken, and I'd be willing to take another look at this at some point. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to continue with the editing here if you see any value in my citation expertise (such as it is); possibly you have thought about if you might still consider being a mentor or a co-nominator for this article after I've completed the rest of your remaining items here. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The work I've seen you do so far has been solid, with the proviso that I haven't the time to read the sources myself. As such I don't think I'm willing to co-nominate, but I'm willing to give as much feedback as you'd like, about content as well as process (which I began above). Are there other things you'd want from a mentor? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your list above is mostly addressed now and I've added an invitation below after bolding the first few words of your list of comments in the above section. I'm going to offer to continue to do the 'heavy lifting' for the edits in the main space for this biography as it is being considered for nomination, and am going to offer that if you could do some of the citation editing and image updates (mostly formatting and interfacing edits), then it might be useful for me to offer this to you, in this context, as a mentor or co-nominator for FAC. I'm recognizing that you have over twice my experience with quality control and improvement of articles at Wikipedia, and therefor I don't have problems with your getting full credit as mentor or co-nominator for the nomination if it is successful in moving forward. Your experience level would be useful to the article. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working through the list. I'm going to be busy for a few days with travel, if I don't reply by the end of the week please feel free to ping me again. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Section break 30 September
I'm rather late to return, but I will go through my comments to see if they've been addressed, and leave additional feedback. My largest concern remains length: WP:TOOBIG suggests 50kb of readable prose is ideal, 60kb is okay for a large topic. My personal preference is for 8k words as an upper limit, this is at 10k, so I think we still need to find ways to trim. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Adding: I don't think I'm comfortable being a co-nominator here. It's not just that I feel I haven't done enough, though that's a reason, it's that I don't feel like I have the time to engage deeply with the sources, in the manner I expect of myself for a collaboration. If there's curation-related things you'd like help with, I'd be willing to chip in, though you've done a fine job so far. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By way of reference points on size, the FA for Truman is at over 200Kb in total file size, while the FA for John Adams is at about 180Kb total file size; compared to about 110Kb for Madison in total file size. I'm happy to keep trimming though I am concerned about the state of Truman and Adams given current trends for 'best' size of readable prose for current FAC nominations. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose size was at 59kb at the time of the latest promotion at FAC. It's now at 79kb, which goes to show what happens when an FA isn't maintained. 50-60kb is a good target. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made some copy-edits, to the lead and elsewhere; happy to discuss any individual change, I have no strong opinions on specific wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They generally all look pretty good to me. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you need a footnote explaining what disestablishing the church meant. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence or two about this significant historical transition, with added citations to Edwards. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "Ratification of the constitution" strikes me as probably too detailed, given the length issues I've mentioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Shorten further and remove excessive detail for conciseness. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment about montpelier.org still stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about asking one of the historic sites experts at Wikipedia to look at that section; possibly its time to trim further or reconsider further what's covered there. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Unless the quote from Madison that's at the bottom of "Religion" is one that's been quoted elsewhere, I would drop it. Picking quotes from a prolific writer is always tricky in any case. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dropping quotation and adjusting paragraph breaks for shortened section. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment above about footnotes needing citations hasn't been addressed.
 * I'm still not sure which footnotes will make through the trimming process; whichever ones are left should get citations. I've made note of your comment here to myself. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think various polls all ranked Madison 12th among presidents...I'd drop the rank altogether, and put it and similar ones in footnotes.
 * Shortening that paragraph and adjusting section breaks. Delegating disputable rankings to footnotes with cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the fragment "Before a quorum was reached for the Constitution" is needed at all. I don't think it conveys more information about timing, and can be confusing.
 * Further shortening of paragraph while retaining the cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "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 as being antithetical to the sovereignty of the individual States." This is a very difficult sentence to parse; it also mentions the DRP before its founding has been discussed.
 * Clarifying formation of the party in opposition to Hamilton and the Northern states. Simplify discussion of Madison being against a federal bank and Hamilton being for the formation of a federal bank. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the second paragraph of "Adams presidency" can be jettisoned altogether, or greatly shortened. Everything of substance in it appears to be about other people; it's interesting as history, certainly, but is it necessary to the biography?
 * Madison as an opponent of Adams is of significance to explain his closeness to Jefferson. I've shortened that section significantly though the remaining parts may be worth retaining. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "Secretary of State" could be pruned in the places where it isn't directly discussing Madison.
 * The implications of the Louisiana Purchase for US expansion under Madison is fairly significant; how much of it should be cut, by half, by a quarter? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There's some repetition of "concerned with the constitutionality" in Secretary of State, paragraph three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've further shortened that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Federalists made gains in most states outside of the South [...] Madison [...] swept the South and the West" This is contradictory with respect to the West. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Text shortened for accuracy. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Privately, Madison did not believe American Indians could be civilized." Today we'd generally agree they already were. Is there a way to rephrase this that reflects Madison's beliefs without the implied criticism of indigenous people?
 * Madison did not see alternatives to the assimilation and autonomy question of the Native American tribes. He did not have access to contemporary enlightened thinking on this subject. I've altered the wording somewhat to reflect this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Though the Hartford Convention did not explicitly call for the secession of New England" This implies, but does not make clear, that they did something which came close; possibly worth rephrasing.
 * Clarified wording; it was an adverse political millstone which worked against their party. Clarified wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Were the payments as part of the treaty of Fort Wayne to each tribe, or to all combined?
 * Add Owens citation. Some tribes were incentivized with subsidiary payments. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about the Virginia convention of 1829-30 strikes me as too long relative to others in the section; was Madison's role large enough to justify that length?
 * Shortened by half and adjusted the paragraph breaks. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "but even forged Jefferson's handwriting." but it's a letter written to Jefferson; why would it have Jefferson's writing? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated wording; he apparently did receive correspondence from Jefferson which he tried to modify. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Historian Gordon S. Wood says that Lance Banning, as in his Sacred Fire of Liberty (1995), is the "only present-day scholar to maintain that Madison did not change his views in the 1790s"." There's a lot written about Madison's views; is this sort of historiographical debate needed in the top-level article? I'd prefer it be worked into "father of the constitution" or some other page with smaller scope. The same could be said of the last two sentences of that sub-section.
 * Moved to Legacy section concerning Madison's consistency and adaptability during his long political life. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but my impression has been that less than ten people are generally considered "founding fathers". Among a group this small "one of the most important" loses meaning. Also, "widely regarded" is tricky, unless a source says "widely regarded"; it's almost harder to justify than just writing "was one of the most''... I'd suggest some minor reworking here, possibly along the lines of "One of the Founding Fathers, Madison had a wide influence on..." and then moving to Stagg's quote.
 * Adjusted wording to your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Entirely optional comment: I personally don't like images intruding into notes/refs; consider moving the statue photo up?
 * Moved up one paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Edwards and Kenneth sources aren't cited at the moment.
 * Two cites for Edwards at present on footnotes 19 and 20 in the current version. Kenneth Thomas is cusrrently footnote 83. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've now read through the whole thing twice, and as far as I can see it's at FA standard. I regret that it's too large a subject for me to explore the literature, it would take me weeks, as an unfamiliar reader. The sources look generally reliable (exceptions noted above), the sources I've spot-checked looked alright (I only checked online sources, so not many). The prose has been greatly tightened, and if the remainder of my comments are addressed, the total length should not longer be a bar to FA status. , I think you've done an excellent job here, and once you've taken care of Hog Farm and my comments, I see no reason you shouldn't go to FAC. If you wish to be absolutely sure of yourself, you could ask an experienced editor to do more spot-checks of source use; they will be required at FAC anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about healthguidance.org as a source, what makes it reliable?
 * law.justia.com is not a source I'm familiar with, but a secondary source would be preferable, I think. And if it's not been mentioned by books or the media, is it worth including?
 * Lots of useful comments from you. If the article does make it to FAC, I'll try to make note of your peer review. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Pre-FAC from HF
- going to look over this as requested, with an eye for pre-FAC.
 * See WP:FACR #2c. The citations are not consistently formatted. Compare, for instance, the Langguth p. 166 to the sfn-formatted book cites. Recommend also treating things like "Feldman, Noah (2017). The three lives of James Madison : genius, partisan, president (First ed.). New York. ISBN 978-0-8129-9275-5. OCLC 968212558." in the same manner as the other book sources
 * Feldman now in Harvard cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Also check for general citation formatting issues. For instance " Roosevelt, Theodore, The Naval War of 1812, pp. 147–152, The Modern Library, New York, NY." will need the date
 * Date was 1999 for publication, and publication imprint was actually Modern Library War. Updated and added. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Be prepared for HealthGuidance.org to be challenged and have to be defended at a FAC (I'm unfamiliar with the source and can't give a general comment on it)
 * That's actually a double citation and its confirmed also by the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia, which is cited right next to it. It looks verified. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Madison, Wisconsin and Madison County, Alabama were both named for Madison," - not sure it's worth listing these, as it's not a complete list (Madison County, Missouri)
 * This was not intended as an exhaustive list. Changin wrding to indicate that these are examples of honorary attributions. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Walking Off the Big Apple: Madison Square Part 1" on the Manhattan User's Guide website. Accessed:2011-02-15" - don't think this is high-quality enough RS for FAC
 * I've changed it over to Madison Square Garden as a more recognizable landmark, and also changed the cite to go with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Dejope Residence Hall Archived December 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved on June 24, 2012" - formatting issues, needs publisher
 * I'm not sure this is really needed as yet another example of numerous honorifics already mentioned. Its not an exhaustive list, and this one is not an essential example. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Be prepared to have to defend how you're selecting which of these cultural namings to include - see some of the comments at Featured article candidates/Beaver/archive2


 * ""Violet Edwards elected Madison County's first Black woman commissioner". July 17, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020." - missing the publisher and author, and doesn't mention James Madison anyway?
 * This was added because of the attribution of Madison County and not so much for the elected official mentioned from that County. I've added the website name, and it seems to be a previous editor's example of another honorific name assiciated with the president. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there's still the problem of the source apparently doesn't say that the county is named after James Madison. And do any of the sources actually support the ship, either?
 * Added two cites for the ship on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also added a cite for the attribution of the county name in Alabama to the president. There are over a dozen states that have a similar county name recognizing Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * File:Statue of James Madison -02- (50998808691).png - no freedom of panorama in the United States, so you'll need a tag to indicate what the underlying work (the sculpture) is in the public domain as well
 * The image was photographed by Ben Schumin who gave permision for its use. Current justification at Wikipedia states: "It was reviewed on 10 March 2021 by FlickreviewR 2 and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0." ErnestKrause (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but under US copyright law, the photograph itself is a derivative work, and you'll want a license for both the derivative work (the photograph) and the underlying work (the sculpture). US copyright law is rather annoying. Hog Farm Talk 21:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "According to historian J.G.A. Stagg" - J.C.A. Stagg per the source?
 * It is JCA. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it ought to be made a bit more clearer where in the narrative the Revolutionary War ends
 * The current last paragraph of that section states that it ended with the Treaty of Paris; should I also add the date of that treaty in the closing paragraph there? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd recommend adding the date of the treaty. Hog Farm Talk 21:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * " as was his change to the Constitution's preamble" - is this worth (briefly) elaborating on?
 * Briefly, Madison wanted a precursor paragraph to the preamble to mention that governmental power is vested by the people. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

More to come later, will focus on prose/content next. Hog Farm Talk 18:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very useful list, and I've done most of them. I'll keep pressing on the validating of the citation formats, and if you see anything then let me know as well. I'll look forward to your comments which you mention above for prose/content next. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get back to this soon: I've got ~3 other articles I'm doing various reviews on as well, so I'm sorta rotating amongst them. Hog Farm Talk 02:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - work was too busy for me to edit much for most of this week, but I'm back on this now. Will pick back up with the Secretary of State material next. Hog Farm Talk 01:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Those were useful comments to add here; looking forward to the next section comments on Secretary of State. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Do sources indicate a specific reason as to why he was appointed to Secretary of State?
 * The conventionally accepted version is that he was Jefferson's closest confidant. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can that be succinctly added?


 * "the United States was defeated at Queenton Heights" - is the spelling "Queenton" intentional or an error for Queenston?
 * ce. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Something to watch in the War of 1812 military stuff - "General" is not a formal rank at the time, and using the more correct "Brigadier General" or "Major General" as appropriate would be preferable.
 * It was Major General. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "resistance of the British-allied Muscogee in the Old Southwest with his victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" - consider changing to "Muscogee Creek", as IIRC the Native Americans at Horseshoe Bend are more commonly referred to as the Creek than as the Muscogee
 * Switching to your version. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ready for the Native American policy section, see a couple replies above as well. Hog Farm Talk 21:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like its all caught up to your comments. Looking forward to the next group of edits when you have time for them. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Before leaving, Tecumseh informed Harrison that unless the treaty was nullified, he would seek an alliance with the British" - this, to start a section, comes out of nowhere and has no context. The only other spots Tecumseh has been mentioned so far is him collaborating with the British
 * *Adding Owen preface to Tecumseh's break with Harrison. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In the historical reputation section, you seem to be missing the ending quotation for the Wills quote
 * *Add close quote. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Still some references that need converted over - see most of the Ketcham 2003 ones, for instance
 * Edwards 1983 doesn't seem to be used, move to further reading or (probably better) remove
 * Edwards cites were just added in two places. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Gonna be obnoxious, but for the FA standard (which is much higher than GA), you'll probably want to format all of the books in the sfn in text/long citation at bottom format. See "Chernow, Ron. (2004). Alexander Hamilton. Penguin. pp. 571–74. ISBN 978-0-14-303475-9. Retrieved February 16, 2017" as one that probably needs moved over)
 * I've seen a good number of FA articles which use both formats which do pass FAC; if its useful to the article then let me know which format you prefer. It'll require some doing to incorporate either way. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Recommend having a good copy editor go over this before taking it to FAC
 * Backlog at GOCE in the end of summer was about 12-14 weeks for a once over from them. I'm willing to do the GOCE edit myself top-to-bottom if you like, or, if the article is starting to look well enough for you to consider joining in as co-nominator or mentor then possibly you could jump in to help on this and I'll support your copy edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the whole thing for prose tightness now. More eyes never hurt, but I don't believe there's serious issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the first run. Will revisit once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems mostly caught up for now. I'll look forward to your next set of edit comments when you have time to do them. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably just seemed clunky to me in parts because I read it over the span of like two weeks. I think the only thing still outstanding is derivative/underlying work issues with the sculpture image.  If you'd like another opinion on that, I can point you to one of the FAC image reviewers I sometimes run things by before adding images to articles. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Second opinion is often useful. There is also the possibility of using one of the other statue images on Commons such as the one of Madison in Washington which should be in the public domain. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just found this alternate statue image which may work better since it is located in a public space. Maybe it works better than the other statue image. Also, comment from Vana directly above to you. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - would either of y'all be able to opine on the sculpture image licensing? Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The one pictured above? Is the given tagging meant to apply to the sculpture, photo, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, the tagging for the one pictured here is unclear. The one currently needs a tag for the underlying work IMO. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like it would be helpful for HF and myself to know which one of the 4 statues of Madison on Commons looks like the better choice in moving forward with this pre-FAC for Madison: does one of these four statue images look like a stand-out for moving this pre-FAC forward? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The United States does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, so in each of these cases we need separate tagging for the photo and the sculpture itself. None of these appear to have that at the moment (unless the tagging is meant to be for both photo and sculpture). I'm guessing that that is likely to be easiest to figure out for the Hancock, but that's only a guess - I really don't have enough information on the others to be sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that if you can make Hancock work then that might be the better sculpture image choice. Otherwise, there are already a dozen images in the article and Vana has stated above that the portrait mode for sculpture images may not be best suited for the end of the article; maybe consideration for not using a sculpture image depending on how you feel about it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even the Hancock one will require some digging to determine why exactly the sculpture would be public domain. Probably best to just not use a sculpture image; due to US copyright law it's really hard to use United States sculpture images for FAs unless the sculpture is really old. (Other countries like the UK are more friendly). Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead and deleting the sculpture image now based on everyones comments above. In terms of moving forward from pre-FAC, what are your thoughts? Is the article ready for your co-nomination or mentorship at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Review ahead of possible featured article nomination
I have been asked by to look at the article to see if it qualifies for featured article status. I will do my best to do so. As I mentioned on 's talk page, although I am familiar with early American history and have experience writing featured articles on that subject on Wikipedia, I am not very familiar with Madison, and what I know about him comes mainly just through what I have gleaned from biographies on other Founding Fathers and general works about the time period. Therefore, because my factual competency on the subject is limited, my comments are likely to be focused mainly on the style of the article as well as on pointing out anything that I may not understand.

One thing that I want to mention, before even having read the article, is length. My preferred length for featured articles on important and highly visible subjects such as major U.S. presidents is 14,000-16,000 words. I will say before going forward that many editors disagree with me on this matter. The article on Andrew Jackson, one of my five featured articles, was close to 16,000 words at the time of its promotion to featured article status. Its size later increased to just over 17,000 words, which was too long. I trimmed it to a little over 15,000, which I felt was close to an ideal length. Yet a few editors demanded that it be trimmed considerably further. My firm opposition to doing so was a contributing factor in me being indefinitely blocked from that article and its talk page, which is why I have now chosen to semi-retire from editing Wikipedia. That is why I want to say before I get beyond this point that my views on article length are opposed by either a considerable number or at least a loud minority of editors.

As a result of heavy revisions taken place after I was blocked from that article (and to which I am heartily opposed), the Jackson article currently sits at just over 12,000 words. That's too short in my opinion, but it is still 2,000 words longer than this article, which at the time of my writing is a hair over 10,000 words. 10,000 words places it on the lower end of the spectrum for featured articles on U.S. presidents, and given Madison's significance, I believe that it should probably be average or slightly above average compared to the others in length. I believe that this article can probably be expanded. Again, I haven't yet read the article and my views on the subject may not be popular, but I needed to throw that out there for considertaion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, but while WP:TOOBIG exists, an article is always going to have an easier time when it meets the guideline than when it flouts it. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , that policy says that articles of up to 99 kb can exist on important subjects. 99 kb equates to a little over 16,000 words of text. Therefore, my preference is consistent with that policy. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an overly generous interpretation of that guideline, which says that 10,000 words is a good size, and that articles above 60kb probably should be split. Also, while it says larger topics may justify extra length, you need to justify that on the basis of the material. Arguing that 12,000 words is too short on principle has no basis whatsoever in policy; it's a personal preference of yours, at odds with the preference of most other editors. This page is now at almost exactly 10,000 words; if it sees a 50% increase in length, I will oppose at FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Vana and Hog Farm have been consistent in commenting about current trends on the FAC page to keep articles shorter, and its likely a good idea to endorse this trend and their assessment to keep the article at the size Vana has been recommending; previously it was 30-40 larger before my edits started several months ago. That said, Display name 99 makes points which appear to want to enhance the article, and I'm assuming that they are AGF. I'm still trying to attract a co-nominator for FAC, since the nomination of such a prominent president is apt to garner more attention than is usually expected at FAC. I'll be taking a few days to get through Display's list and all comments from the other editors are welcome. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if there are specific pieces of information that someone else wants in the article, I would discuss these on the merits. My issue is with the general suggestion of lengthening, which I believe is contrary both to the guideline and to recent practice. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead

 * Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, it is generally best to have the lead be four paragraphs. The paragraphs in the lead here are generally fairly short, and I encourage you to look for ways to combine some of them. If I were you, I might combine the second and third paragraphs, and move the final two sentences of the third paragraph (about Madison's performance as Secretary of State) to the fourth paragraph. But as the policy states, four paragraphs for the lead is not an absolute rule, so I would not be disenchanted if you chose not to implement this suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Giving it a try to see four paragraph version. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Madison...organized the Democratic–Republican Party in opposition to Hamilton's Federalist Party." Would it not be more accurate to say that he did so alongside Thomas Jefferson? Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alongside Jefferson is better. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For the paragraph on the War of 1812, I would mention not only that British interference with trade led to the war but also the desire for land held by Britain, Spain, and Native Americans. To that end, I would move the sentence about the amount of land lost by Native Americans to the end of the section discussing the War of 1812. That sentence seems clunky and out of place where it is, and it would fit better in the section on the War of 1812, as virtually all of these losses occurred either during the War of 1812 or in conflicts directly related to it. Adding a greater focus on the role of land acquisition in the War of 1812 will also help this sentence to make more sense. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Add comment about Madison and American expansionism in lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks good, although I would encourage you to implement my suggestion of moving the sentence about Native American land cessions to the end of the discussion of the War of 1812. Display name 99 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like the final paragraph could do more to summarize Madison's legacy. What were his unique contributions to American political thought? One of the things that characterizes Madison is his seemingly shifting political philosophy. He was a nationalist in the 1780s who favored a strong central government, then a strict constructionist in favor of a limited central government during the 1790s, and then a nationalist again from his tenure as Secretary of State onward. He supported nullification in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 but later contradicted that position in retirement. How did Madison's positions impact, and how were they impacted by, the events taking place in the United States around him? What things caused Madison to change, and what impact did these things have on the nation? That's a thing to think about when writing biography. Focus on the subject, but never lose sight of the broader picture. Display name 99 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments to think about. The issues of seeking strong centralization, and the issues seeking limitations on centralized government are not necessarily contradictory. For example, one could speak of the importance of a strong centralized military, while still maintaining that there be limitations on a centralized government in asserting control over a free press. I'll see if I can add something along the lines of your comment to the summary in the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuing

Early life and education

 * "might have strained his delicate health." Unexplained illusion. If his health problems were significant enough to have a major affect on his life in such a manner, it is necessary to elaborate at least briefly upon what they were. A little later: Okay, so I see you did mention that at the end of the section, but the details should be explained before they become relevant, not after they have already been alluded to. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * These are references to his mental health issues which previous editors did not engage; Madison was subject to nervous exhaustion in his life, though for physical health he seemed to be otherwise robust for most of his life. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This does not address my problem. The subject of his health is alluded to only vaguely, and it is not until several paragraphs later that we get an explanation. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The mental health issue as opposed to the physical health issues were discussed as these issues were discovered to have occurred as covered by biographical sources. If Madison suffered from nervous exhaustion at a particular juncture in his career, then it is covered at the time that the historical juncture is encountered in his biography. I can list the examples, though I think you may have already read them in the subsequent sections of this biography. What alternate approach do you suggest for discussing this which might be preferable from your viewpoint? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, my problem is that you allude to him having concerns about his health but don't get any more specific than that, and it is not until the end of the section that we actually have a specific explanation of what any of his health problems were. Saying "might have strained his sensibilities concerning his own health" is extremely vague. In what ways did he perceive his health to be in danger? If it's related to what's at the end of the paragraph, then you need to move some of that stuff up. If it isn't, then say what it was. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that such a level of detail and reconstruction of RS for Madison's mental health is useful here even it may be an interesting topic for a long biography about Madison. As you discussed with Vana above, FAC articles are generally expected to be read in thirty minutes or less, which is pretty much the size of the article at present. If you would like to see Madison's mental health discussed comprehensively then something would hve to be deleted from other parts of the article. Do you have suggestions as to which is more important here. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All that I am asking for is a sentence or maybe even just a few words about a subject that seemed to have a very big impact on Madison. That isn't too much to ask for, especially when the article is shorter than most other featured articles on presidents. Display name 99 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I read in Chernow's biography of Hamilton that Madison's rigorous college study program forced him to go with minimal sleep and eventually exhausted him, endangering his health. If this is is so, does it not deserve mention? I think it does. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also read Chernow's Hamilton, though I don't have a copy in hand at this moment; if you happen to have the Chernow quote and page number, then I can add it. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fond of Witherspoon and too weak to travel after graduation, Madison had lingered in Princeton for a year to study privately with "the old Doctor." When Madison finally returned to Virginia in the spring of 1772, he was still so debilitated from his intense studies that he feared for his health." (Chernow 2004, p. 48) The quote is not as specific as I remembered, I would look for more detail in a Madison biography. If it gets a mention, however passing, in a biography of another founder, it seems important enough to warrant inclusion here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Chernow often give his citations at the end of his book by page numbers, rather than by citation footnote numbers; did he give a citation at the end of his book for where he got this information? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is cited to Ketcham p. 38. The second has no citation after it. Again, look in a biography of Madison. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We haven't even started talking about the Revolution yet, so why are we jumping ahead to what Madison did after the war in preparation for the Convention? Stay focused and leave that stuff for later. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The section goes up to 1773, and the next section effectively starts with 1774 at the start of the Revolution and just prior to the Declaration. Where is that comment about the subsequent 'Convention' you refer to? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right here: "Following the Revolutionary War, Madison spent time at Montpelier in Virginia studying ancient democracies of the world in preparation for the Constitutional Convention." Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Good section overall. Display name 99 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

American Revolution and Articles of Confederation

 * Why are we talking about an act that was passed in 1786 here? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its meant to talk about the events leading up to the act eventually passed in 1786. I'll look at the wording there. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Article chronology does not mention 1786 until the following section; am I missing the reference you are referring to in 1786. This section is intended to get from the Declaration of Independence up to the Second Constitutional Convention; I do see '1786' mentioned at the start of the next section. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Was the Church of England disestablished in Virginia? The text doesn't say for some reason. Did Madison take any active role in helping to make that happen? It's not clear here that he did, and if he didn't, why are we talking about it? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Disestablishment has a longer history, though "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...". Madison earns his place in public debate at the Articles convention due to his comments on religion. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Historically, legislation was passed in the British Parliament (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)." We're talking about an act that was enacted in 1786 and the colonies being "former" way before we have reached that point in the chronology. I see where the disestablishment is mentioned in the next section, but that makes me ask, why are we talking about it here? The whole second half of the first paragraph in this section needs to be moved to the next section. It's awkward and out of place here, and ends inconclusively without mentioning anything that Madison did. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to reflect that this was an on-going debate which only eventually became law afterwards. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. "Historically, on-going debate and eventual legislation was passed" makes no sense. How can on-going debate be passed? And my central problem-that we devote several sentences to talking about something but leave it unclear as to whether Madison had any impact-has not been remedied. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "In 1774, Madison took a seat on the local Committee of Safety, a pro-revolution group that oversaw the local Patriot militia." I would specify the region or town here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Back at Montpelier after Princeton. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The way that you worded that sentence is very awkward. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It still is: "In 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." Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What did Madison do to earn a living between returning to Montpelier in 1772 and holding office during the revolution? Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Estate management at Montpelier was in the hands of his sibling Ambrose who helped manage Montpelier for both his father (died 1801) and older brother until his own death in 1793. James was free to pursue and continue legal studies circa 1772. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did he earn any money doing that? Did he just live off his family? Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He was not employed at the time if that is what you are asking. I'm not sure that as a student from a wealthy family that much more was expected of him by his family during his student years. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In what sense did he become a close ally of Jefferson? Given in particular the lengthy partnership that would endure between those two men and the great impact that it would have on the course of American history, surely the subject of what they had in common in this early stage should be explored, if only in a few brief words. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more in the article about the close relation in the Ratification section, and in the Jefferson presidency section. Madison ended up closer to Jefferson even than to Washington. Are the comments in the subsequent sections sufficient, or, add another comment here? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to add another comment here if you're going to mention the relationship here. This sentence refers to Jefferson as governor, which he was not during the ratification of the Constitution. Whatever you're saying about their relationship there cannot be the same as what you're saying about it here. This is the same problem as with the health and disestablishment on religion issues. You can't expect people to hop back and forth around the article and still follow what you're saying. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I could speak to the issue of both men being from Virginia and having a long history as a result of that. Historically, their positions were aligned quite early, and went through successes and some set-backs over the years. These successes and set-backs were only clarified as the historical events took place and are covered in the article. I think its important to note, however, that we today have something like full hindsight of their life-long relationship and that with some certainty historians looks at the life-long successes and outnumbering the more limited number of setbacks. That seem reasonable to assume, possibly it can be added to the article in some way which you can share your thoughts upon here. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a simple question that you seem to be overcomplicating: How, specifically, did Madison align himself with Jefferson as governor? Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Other amendments by the committee and the entire Convention included the addition of a section on the right to a uniform government (Section 14)." Did Madison have any involvement with this project? Why is there a section number given here and nowhere else? I don't think that including section numbers is very important. I recommend deleting. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks better without specific designation. Madison participated in the draft of more articles than were eventually accepted; he debated to keep many of them though did not win all the debates. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If he affected the outcome of something, that needs to be discussed in the article. Also, it's not clear what committee is being referred to here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Virginia constitutional convention came before the convention for the drafting of the national Articles of Confederation, a year before the national convention took place. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with what I was saying. Again, did Madison have any noteworthy involvement with the project that I quoted above? What exactly is a "uniform government?" "Other amendments by the committee" What committee? Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I will delay making further comments for now until can respond to what I have already written, but I just noticed that Madison is described as a diplomat in the opening sentence. Why? He was never an ambassador. Display name 99 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just starting in today and it might a few days for these; I'll look forward to more of your comments. Regarding your very last comment, Madison was secretary of state, normally seen by many as a largely diplomatic post. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While it is true that the Secretary of State overseas diplomatic policies, Oxford defines a diplomat specifically as someone who represents a country abroad, which Madison never did at any point during his life. But I've checked other articles on secretaries of state who, like Madison, never held an ambassador post, and some of them use the term as well, and Merriam-Webster's definition of the word is more broad. I'll overlook it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That's up to date I think, and the clean-up of the references I'll keep looking at as well. Ready for your further comments on the other sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello . You are not yet up to date with all of my comments. You do not appear to have made any attempt to implement my last two comments in the "Bibliography" section. To many of my other comments, you left a number of responses that seemed off-topic or confused, and you often did not do what I was asking you to do. I would appreciate you taking another look through everything here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Bibliography section and the citation refinements which you mentioned, is it possible for you to look at some of this? I'm editing mostly from a 13-inch laptop which is very small for doing detailed citation refinements. If you could convert the Bibliography to a consistent format, then you could choose either sfn or Harvard, whichever one is preferable for you, and I'll try to support. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not doing that. In fact, I think I'm done here. Goodbye. Display name 99 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)