Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Federalist No. 10

Federalist No. 10
This is one of 85 articles on the Federalist Papers. Let me know of any problems and I will try to address them forthwith. The article was peer reviewed, and you can find the archive here; I think the points made there have been addressed. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to explain what faction is in an article about Federalist 10! Superm401 | Talk 23:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Really good article, but I agree with Superm401. The article needs to define 'faction' as Madison used the word.  Jkelly 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to these points, the article already specifically quotes Madison's definition of faction from Federalist No. 10: "He defines a faction as 'a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'" Is more than this needed? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've pipelined the first instance to Political faction. That should do it. BD2412  talk 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It does for me. Jkelly 04:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'm sorry I missed the inline quote of Madison's definition.  To be fair, though, it's much better to have it defined (or at least linked to a definition) at the first mention.  I'm satisifed now, at any rate. Superm401 | Talk 00:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can the redlinks be fixed or unlinked? OmegaWikipedia 12:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If by fixing you mean stubbifying them, I'd be happy to but all I could write would be "X was a newspaper/publisher in New York in the late 18th century." This really doesn't seem worth it. On the other hand, most of the redlinks probably do deserve articles, and hopefully their presence will convince someone more expert in the area to add knowledge. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I still think a redlink would look bad for a featured article. Maybe you could move them to the talk page so that people who want to fix them could and remove them from the main article? OmegaWikipedia 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed 6 wikilinks from the article and created stubs for 2. A couple of redlinks remain, but only as the names of works in the references section, none in the article body. Is this satisfactory? It should be noted that many featured articles contain redlinks (indeed, quite likely a majority). Redlinks do, after all, help Wikipedia grow. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Great job on fixing the redlinks! It looks much better (you too BD2412) OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have created stub articles for the three Supreme Court decisions cited, and will expand those later. BD2412  talk 21:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Succint but a very informative and enjoyable article. Johnleemk | Talk 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Great article. OmegaWikipedia 22:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Have I mentioned, support? BD2412  talk 00:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, this is the best article I've read today. Falphin 01:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. User-unfriendly. Here, I've listed a small, representative example of what needs to be addressed throughout. It will take many hours.
 * Can you hit us with a more functional description right at the top? At the moment, the poor readers have to wade through several sentences to learn what the topic is about. It was a high-profile political commentary in the lead-up to the debate about the US Consitution, was it? How, very briefly, did it influence the consitutional debate? You need to engage the reader by painting the big picture at the start. It's kind of ... boring, as is.
 * What is 'faction' in this context? Without an article, it's an unusual usage; we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn about it—briefly gloss it in a phrase or two here.
 * Any reason for initial caps in 'Anti-Federalist'?
 * Again, in 'Circumstances', the reader first gets bogged down in matters of process; why not start with the larger meaning and then move to process.
 * Are you a lawyer? You write like one. Someone needs to go through the entire text and simplify expressions such as 'Madison comes to the conclusion' (Madison concludes).
 * 'Madison takes the position that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by faction. The first, removing the causes that provoke the development of factions, he contends can be accomplished in two ways. One, the elimination of liberty, he rejects as unacceptable, and the other, creating a society homogenous in opinion and interest, he sees as impractical because causes of faction, among them variant economic interests, are inherent in a free society.'
 * Unclear whether 'the first' refers back to 'position', 'way', 'damage', or 'faction', until you read further and then reread.
 * Rather long sentences, with multilevel nestings in one. We have 'The ffirst', then we have 'One ...'. Perhaps you might consider the judicious use of bullet points, for ease of reading, and to make the grey mass less daunting.
 * 'because causes'—avoid such jingles.
 * 'the majority can always enforce its will'—remove 'always'.
 * 'the number of citizens to a representative'—better wording required.
 * 'Each representative being chosen from a larger constituency also, in Madison's view, means that "vicious arts" of electioneering will be less effective.'—Clumsy word order. 'Each representative being chosen'—not strictly grammatical.
 * 'The larger populations and areas a republic is able to cover also motivate in favor of that form of government.' Huh?
 * 'This is a general application of the principle of checks and balances central to the American constitutional system.' Comma needed.

We want an interesting, enlightening text. This is boring, and you're asking the readers to work too hard. Tony 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In most cases, I've altered the article to reflect your suggestions. Regarding two of your specific points: (1) "Anti-Federalist" is almost universally capitalized as the name of a movement or party. (2) Your first point was also difficult, as Federalist No. 10 did not especially influence the constitutional debate (hopefully the article did not imply that it did). I've tried to improve the lead in terms of placing motivating material nearer the beginning, however. If you could take another look, that would be excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a lot better now, but can you find someone else to have a run through? And leave it yourself for a few days and run through it again. There's still a considerable amount that needs to be fixed. My eyes picked out a few more things at random:
 * 'The fact that a republic can encompass larger areas and populations also motivates in favor of that form of government.' 'Motivates' is the wrong word.
 * A sentence like: 'This is a general application of the checks and balances principle central to the American constitutional system.' reads poorly without a comma after 'principle'. Go through the whole text looking for such places. Here's another example: 'differing economic interests had created dispute even when the Constitution was being written'. There are lots more.
 * 'Madison's argument that restraining liberty in order to limit faction is an unacceptable solution has been used by opponents of campaign finance limits. This is a convoluted sentence. 'In order to'—PLEASE just 'to'.
 * Sift through for redundant words: 'compromise ideas like this one' (remove 'one'); 'In making their arguments, the Anti-Federalists appealed to both historical and theoretic evidence in making their case.' (we don't need both first AND last phrases).
 * Numbers over ten, use numerals (36, etc).

So you see that there's still work to be done to bring it up to standard. HINT: Read through each sentence in reverse order, starting at the end. It often helps you to see faults. Tony 13:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Should the title 'The question' be 'The faction question'? Tony 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm afraid that going through the article myself will not be very productive in producing the sort of changes you seek. This is because most of the things you see as needing to be fixed I would say are fine as is; after all the way the article is written more or less represents my style of choice. For instance, I could read the article 10000 times and never add commas in the two places you suggest above, or change thirty-six to 36. If you want me to make changes to the style of the article to reflect your standards, I'm more than happy to do this, but the changes will have to be suggested by you. I have, however, made the specific changes you requested. "The question" refers to the question the essay answers. I have changed it to "the question of faction" to clarify this. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine stylistically - people looking up an article on an edition of the Federalist Papers should expect some erudition, just as those looking up an article on a math topic would expect to see some formulae. In any event, any reviewer who disagrees with the turn of a phrase or the lack of a comma can make that change to the article in less time than it takes to point out this shortcoming. Cheers! BD2412  talk 19:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The changes I propose are to make the text easier to read. They don't arise from a personal preference on my part, unless that's for easy reading. For example, without the commas in my examples, and in many other instances in the text, nominal items jostle against each other, and initial adverbial phrases are not as clear as they need to be. Suit yourself: I'm only thinking of your readers. No matter how 'erudite' you intend the article to be, it makes no difference to these matters. Tony 01:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to imply that they are personal preferences in the sense of being arbitrary or capricious, they are personal in the sense that they are not universal or fundamental rules of English. People can reasonably differ on whether to include a comma in a certain place, surely. My point as far as this FAC nomination goes is that while you say that there are lots more places where the text reads poorly without a comma, this isn't an actionable request unless you can indicate where such places are for me to fix. I hope I'm not coming off as rude, but our obviously differing interpretations of what's unclear means it will be difficult/impossible for me to imply your general advice. (By the way, I've refactored these comments in with your previous ones; feel free to reverse this if you want). Christopher Parham (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Someone looking this up on Wikipedia will find exactly what they wanted. If that doesn't qualify the article for featured status, I don't know what would. -- ⟳ ausa کui × 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)