Talk:John Rutledge/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Rutledge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article is generally well written; I have done a little copy-editing. The lead needs to be expanded; it should be at least two substantial paragraphs for an article of this size and importance.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

That's the least of its problems, however, the greatest concern is with WP:RS ("some material may be outdated by more recent research"). The article relies almost entirely on Flanders book from 1874, which surely must represent outdated scholarship by now, especially considering the easy availability (Amazon.com) of Haw's recent biography. The result is that the article reflects the laudatory, heroic style so common in the "great men"-biographies of the time, with phrases like "Rutledge used his dictatorial powers wisely" and "Rutledge was an excellent politician, possessing great wisdom as an administrator". Though I haven't read the book, I'm pretty confident Haw would have a better analyses of Rutledge's mental state than that he was "wearing out, for lack of a better term". This is in fact one of the most interesting parts of the biography, and would benefit from the insight of modern psychology and pathology. I know this represents a major revamping of the article, but before this is rectified I don't see how this article can pass.

(PS: A quick look at Haw's book tells me that financial troubles also contributed to his depression (p. 230). This also explains why he sold off his slaves, and not some anti-slavery sentiment as the article seemed to imply before I removed it. Pp. 257-8 and a note on p. 342 also say something about an illness behind the depression. This needs to be explored.)  Lampman  Talk to me! 17:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Few changes have been made, and I find it impossible to promote the article in its current state. WP:RS should be as much about current scholarship as anything else. A few suggestions have been made, however, and it should be possible for anyone interested to bring it up to GA-status with a moderate amount of work.  Lampman  Talk to me!  19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article also needs more on what is probably his most lasting national legacy: his successful effort to protect slavery and the slave trade in the US Constitution. This is only briefly mentioned here, and worded in such a way to make him seem almost a reluctant supporter of slavery. Clearly more modern sources are needed! —Kevin Myers 01:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. This seems to confirm my point about the risks of using outdated sources; in this case resulting in a complete white-wash.  Lampman  Talk to me!  12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)