Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Conventions/archive1

Virginia Conventions
I've listed this article for peer review because two editors at the Virginia Project are considering nominating the article for Good Article status. The article is well sourced, and it is of high importance to the project, but there may be issues of format and style to be addressed.

Thanks, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I go through the article; it might take me a day or so.
 * The first sentence of the lead says "were" but as far as I can see the assemblies have not been abolished, so I think "are" would be more natural.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think "have met to bridge the differences among their respective populations to forge community in each historical era" is a bit too much of a value judgement. Can this be rephrased to be a more straightforward statement of purpose?
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I'd avoid saying "Revolutionary era giants". And I've never seen an embedded carriage return in a caption before; I've no objection to it, but I'm curious to know the reason for it.
 * The sourced note is cited. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I follow the third paragraph of the lead. I'd suggest enumerating first and then explaining; currently the reader has to work out that the 1861 Convention hasn't been mentioned before, but the 1902 one refers to the list at the start of the paragraph.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading through the lead without having read the rest of the article yet, I'm not clear if the Commissions for Constitutional Reform are regarded as Conventions or not.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Provisions for special attention": I'm not sure what this means.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Each of these 20th century recommendations were placed": to my ear, this should be "was placed", but this may be an American English vs. British English thing.
 * I like the gallery, but I think it should come further down the article; it's odd to have it right where one expects the body text to start.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "operating as the First Convention": what does "operating as" mean?
 * ✅ "convened" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "would continue to meet and govern as necessary": suggest either "was instructed [or expected] to continue to meet and govern as necessary" if the point is the intentions of the Convention, or "continued to meet, and acted as the government of Virginia", if the point is to make it clear that's what actually happened.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Fourth Convention in Williamsburg met in December 1775. It denounced Dunmore (in November the royal governor had declared the colony to be in revolt, and had begun battling militia forces in the Hampton Roads area)": suggest putting this in chronological order: give Dunmore's actions first, then mention the Convention.
 * ✅ removed parentheses TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The newly elected fifth convention": this is the first point at which I realized the delegates to these conventions were elected. I understand there are separate articles about each one, but a word or two about the fact that elections happened seems necessary.  And shouldn't "Convention" be capitalized in that sentence?
 * ✅ elected Burgesses noted in First Convention paragraphTheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "One historian maintained that this party ensured the continuation of slavery at a time when other states began gradual emancipation": seems this is from an 1855 source. Is this still a respected source?  If it's not repeated by any modern historians, perhaps it's no longer an accepted view.
 * Grigsby is still a current authority. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm unfamiliar with the term "fourth realm"; is there a possible link or explanatory footnote?
 * Realms are nations that share a common monarch, such as England, Scotland, Wales, and Virginia. I could not find a link to the 1600s British Empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Richard Henry Lee ... carried out these instructions": I'm not clear what instructions are being referred to here.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The long sentence starting "This paved the way..." seems to be cited only to the Declaration of Independence, but it asserts that the Virginia declaration in some way led to or prepared the ground for the DoI. I can see that's plausible, but it needs to be sourced.  Or am I missing something on the National Archives website that discusses this?  If not, I think this could just be cut; it's essentially an editorial comment, and I'm not sure it's needed even if well-sourced.
 * ✅ provided scholarly citation, removed unnecessary original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Patrick Henry delegate to the First Continental Convention and Revolutionary wartime governor": if Henry held those posts then I think you're missing commas after "Henry" and "governor".
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the Ratifying Convention section is incited.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "George Mason had refused to sign due to the lack of a Bill of Rights in Philadelphia": why is this relevant? Presumably Mason was present at the Virginia convention; did he sign there?
 * ✅. The Virginia delegation was divided in Philadelphia, the Founding Fathers were divided in Virginia. Mason continued his opposition. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Consolidated government would put an end to Virginia’s liberties and state government. Nine states making a new nation without the rest would abrogate treaties and place Virginia in great peril." I think these sentences give Henry's view of affairs, but that should be clearer; similarly for the comments on Randolph's views. You give Mason's views in the next paragraph clearly marked out as in his voice, but then Madison's views have the same issue as with Henry and Randolph.
 * "the history of Confederations like that provided in the Articles government": looks like this is missing an apostrophe or a preposition somewhere.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "a final vote ratifying on George Wythe’s motion": should be "vote on ratifying"? Or strike the "on"?  And I don't think you've mentioned Wythe's motion before this sentence.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

* A general point, now that I'm well into the article; it's quite long, and since you have sub-articles on the conventions I wonder if perhaps some of the detail could be compressed and moved to the sub-articles. For example, in the Ratifying Convention section you give Henry's, Randolph's, Mason's and Madison's views in some detail, but would a summary of them be more useful to the reader at this survey level?
 * Is the "gathering of giants" quoted from the source? If so I'd cite it right after the closing quote.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it normal to capitalize "Eastern Shore" as you have it?
 * Yes. Two new maps are introduced at the beginning of the article to orient readers to Virginia geographic regions. ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "eventually there were twenty-eight such counties calling for reform": this would be more meaningful if you could mention the total number of counties in Virginia at the same time.
 * Agree, but secondary sources do not furnish the count. Original research might be conducted making a count by making a chronological list of the counties created in Virginia, deducting those names superseded, and those ceded to Kentucky, and reporting the sum of a given year, using the Hornbook of Virginia History by Salmon and Campbell.


 * "Malapportionment in the Assembly was seen as “an usurpation of the minority over the majority” by the slave owning eastern aristocracy": I can't tell if the malapportionment was seen that way by the slave-owners, or if it was to the benefit of the slave-owners and was seen that way by others.
 * ✅ as seen by the reformers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "But the easterners in the State Senate had stacked the deck in their favor, by apportioning the delegates by four per Senate district, producing a group of men which was more wealthy and more conservative than the House of Delegates": I don't follow -- how did this produce a more conservative group?
 * ✅ The Senate was apportioned on a mixed basis of population and eastern slave property. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Any white male who had served in the War of 1812 or who would serve in the militia in there future defense of the country deserved the right to vote": I think this should be "the future defense"; but it also is opinion; is it Marshall's? Similarly I think Upshur's opinions in the next paragraph should be more directly attributed to him.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The divisions which would lead to West Virginia’s split were evident": I hadn't realized until this point that Virginia at that time incorporated what is now West Virginia. You mention this in the lead, but I think it would be worth clarifying, for readers who, like me, aren't up on early U.S. history, what territory we're talking about.  In the lead you also mention Kentucky, but that point isn't clarified in the body either and that would also be good.
 * ✅ Two maps are introduced in the beginning of the article, one showing West Virginia and Virginia united. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "the final vote 55 yes to 40 no": I'd make this a little more formal: "the final vote of 55 to 40 in favor of...", which would also allow you to say what vote is for -- I'm not sure as it stands.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Some malapportionment in the General Assembly was eased relative to the majority of voters and white population in the Valley in the House of Delegates, but nothing for the transmontane west": I'm not sure what "the Valley" refers to, and I think the rest of the sentence needs rephrasing -- it's a bit vague.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The Constitution of 1830 was a "triumph of traditionalism."': suggest attributing this in the text; it seems a reasonable assessment, but if we use it as a quote we should let the reader know whose opinion it is.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Democrats were divided between easterners who": this sentence never gives the second part of the divide; looks like it was originally intended to be joined to the next sentence.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "insistence to expand suffrage": suggest either "insistence on expanding suffrage" or "determination to expand suffrage".
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "extending the existing Assembly apportionment": I think I know generally what this means, but I don't know exactly what is meant by "extending".
 * ✅ "perpetuating". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Only in Virginia did the reactionary basis remain a mixed basis of population and property to reflect the “majority of interest” in slaves': I don't know what is meant by "reactionary basis", and though I think I can guess what is referred to by "majority of interest" I think the term can't be used without some explanation.
 * ✅ The majority of property interest was in slaves, '"majority of interest' in slaves". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You have both "Richmond Junto" and "Richmond Junta"; are both used?
 * ✅ no, not in English. Richmond JuntoTheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "opposed expanding the franchise to prohibit internal improvements that might benefit the western counties": I don't follow this; wouldn't expanding the franchise have benefitted the west?
 * ✅ yes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "voting vive voce aloud": suggest voting "vive voce (aloud)", and perhaps italicize "vive voce" as it's not common in English use.
 * ✅ dropping 'aloud'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Virginia state government had the democratic form of Jacksonian America at last": I don't know what this means (and "at last") should probably be cut as non-neutral).
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I'll stop there for now; more tomorrow if I have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. This is all very useful. Virtually all of your observations can be taken as direct instruction for copy edit.


 * Perhaps the Gallery of presiding officers could go as a break between the first five Conventions of the Revolutionary era, and the rest. Grigsby is still a primary authority for the Conventions of 1776, 1788 and 1829-30, notably the president of the Virginia Historical Society after the Civil War whose correspondence with Northern friends from before the Civil War brought the return of captured Confederate flags now hanging at Battle Abbey in Richmond -- his volumes were reprinted in 1969 by Da Capo and remain currently in print by Applewood Books.


 * A continuing theme throughout the article is that Virginia delegations always have been divided; noting Mason’s refusal to sign at Philadelphia is a part of that narrative. I believe that Grigsby should give us the roll call vote on final ratification to see if Mason finally supported ratification in the Virginia Ratification Convention.


 * Much of the detail should be compressed. The sub-articles are mirrors of text first written here. They should be expanded with historical context before and constitutional provisions after as well. Eastern Shore is a capitalized region as is Tidewater and the Valley of Virginia. The Great Valley between the Blue Ridge and the Alleghanies/Appalachian Mountains runs from Pennsylvania to Georgia — I think that a regional map showing the geographic divisions would be useful, perhaps where the Gallery now is located. I’ve seen one focusing on Virginia-West Virginia, with Kentucky as an inset (KY became a separate state in 1792)… but I've not found it on Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the comments are useful. Re Mason, your comments sounds good but I'd make sure that that's apparent to the reader.  Re the subarticles: it sounds like you might shrink this article as you expand the subarticles.  Do you want me to go ahead and review the rest of the article now, or wait for you to move some text across? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please continue through. Your critique here also applies to the text copy-pasted into daughter articles for the five Revolutionary Conventions, 1829-30, 1850, 1864, 1868, and 1902. There are also stubs established by copy-paste for the 20th century commissions in 1927 and 1969, and limited conventions in 1945 and 1956, -- I am not sure about their status in the long run, but their existence serves as an invitation to other editors to expand them beyond the references I have at hand.


 * opened the new articles, I have followed up adding the images of the presiding officers from the Gallery, and begun with 1829-30 and 1850 filling in full citations for the author-only references in the copy-pastes, and linking bio articles to each subarticle (and restoring Dallyripple's earlier good faith efforts in Revolutionary Conventions on bio article links to sub articles that I misread).


 * Earlier work has been done by others on the Virginia Convention of 1788, Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 and the Wheeling Convention, all of which I believe would benefit from your copy editor’’s eye. Perhaps you could post a critique on each Talk page, and I could follow up. My secondary source for Wheeling got a wrong county attributed to one of the Wheeling Delegates but collaborating editor is fact checking contributions made by us non-West Virginians to keep the record straight. In any case, thank you again very much for your contribution here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and finish reviewing this article, but I doubt I'll have time to look at the sub-articles -- I posted an article here at PR for review, and when I do that I try to do a few reviews of other articles here; it seems only fair to do reviews if others are reviewing my work. Similarly I have an article at FAC, and am doing reviews of articles there for the same reason.  That's keeping me quite busy! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

More comments:

 * "Conditional Unionists objected to coercion manifest in Lincoln's call for state quotas to suppress the rebellion": I don't follow this; I suspect it would be clear to someone who knows the history, but that won't be true for many readers.
 * ✅ removed "coercion manifest" as it seems POV to Confederacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Generally the first paragraph of the secession convention gives a sequence of quotes but there's no overarching encyclopedic viewpoint to them; or, less pompously, you don't have a theme sentence. If you're selecting quotes, you're doing so to illustrate ... what?  Whatever that is (even if it's "No theme connected the speeches made by the delegates") I'd suggest saying so at the start of the paragraph; and of course you need a source for the summarizing statement unless it's very anodyne.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't repeat this point, since I've hinted at it a couple of times, but this section strays into reportage rather than summary on occasion, and I think this is connected to the "in-viewpoint" voice that you use on several occasions in the article. It feels more like a narration, by someone intimately familiar with the events, than an encyclopedic view of those events.
 * "the new secessionist majority resolved the Convention into secret session": is "resolved" the right verb?
 * It is the verb used in the literature...I'd be happy with a replacement if it suits. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "His demonstration with a drawn horse pistol": this doesn't tell me what he did -- did he brandish the pistol in session?
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The secession convention section mentions a referendum in passing a couple of times without explaining it; was the referendum already planned, or was it set in motion by a resolution of the convention?
 * ✅ mandated in the Assembly's call to Convention. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "as the ensuing conflict is named": probably should be "was named".
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The “War in defense of Virginia” as the ensuing conflict is named by the General Assembly failed, as did secession and the Confederate promise of slavery into the twentieth century": I don't understand this sentence -- it appears from the following section that secession did not actually occur till after the referendum, so what is the "War in defense of Virginia"? If you mean the Civil War, then I'd just cut the sentence; it's an editorial look-ahead, and I don't think it's needed.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "While the ballots from Unionist counties were lost": why "while"?
 * ✅ "though". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

* I think the article is a bit underlinked; of course the quotes shouldn't usually have embedded links, and there are a lot of quotes, but here are some examples you could link: John S. Carlile, Wheeling, Virginia, Unconditional Unionist, Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, and perhaps a couple of county names.
 * The caption "Independence Hall, Wheeling VA, Wheeling Conventions met here" seems ungrammatical; is it missing some punctuation?
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Unlike in Kentucky and Missouri, Federal arms were unable to reclaim Virginia counties for incorporation into the Restored Government by 1863, and West Virginia was made its own state": another example of a sentence which doesn't mean much to me, but which I'm sure is clear to someone who already knows the subject. This whole paragraph is uncited, by the way.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we need the paragraph on the Restored Government of Virginia? It's relevant to the history of the period, but does it belong here?
 * ✅ moved to Restored Government of Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

* Another general thought: you begin each section on a convention with the date of meeting and the events of the convention, but shouldn't the article also discuss what led to the convention being convened, and how that process worked?
 * "only one edition remains covering the convention": I'm not clear what is meant by "edition". Do you mean there were multiple issues of the journal, but only one of those issues is extant?  Or that there was only one issue covering the convention's debates, and only one copy survives?
 * ✅ only one issue of the Journal remains. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The Convention proposed two "obnoxious clauses"': I think we need to be told who described the clauses this way. I see you explain it later in the section, but I'd suggest either moving up the explanation or deleting the earlier reference.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the 1868 section is incited.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Radical Congressional Reconstruction legislation": is this the same as the Radical Reconstruction Acts of Congress, mentioned a couple of sentences earlier? If so I'd just say "the legislation"; though you could probably combine that point with the second sentence and shorten the paragraph.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "A radical proposed inclusive language to read": suggest "A radical proposed including language that read".
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "though Virginia, Mississippi and Texas did not participate as "unreconstructed" states": do we need this?
 * ✅ no. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Martin political machine": a link at least, and perhaps an explanatory note, would help readers who've never heard of Martin. I see you explain it in the following paragraph, but even that's too much of a delay; the reader's already confused by then.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

* I think some explanation of the political landscape is in order -- I've no idea what the "Progressive" party stood for at the time, and am having to work it out from context as I read through. For example, I can't tell from Watson's statement about "the elimination of the negro from the politics of this state" if he supported or opposed the elimination.
 * ✅ as Watson saw it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is Alfred Thom's opinion relevant? Did he write a contemporary review of the clause?
 * Thom is representative of the machine politicians who misled the electorate by promising that whites would not be disenfranchised, only blacks.


 * "the father of the State Corporation Commission": who does this refer to?
 * ✅ Braxton. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

* The twentieth century conventions are covered in much less detail than the earlier ones; I assume from your comments above that the article will be rebalanced, but I wouldn't expect there to be a great deal less detail on them than on the earlier ones, at least at this summary level.
 * How about including a list in table form of all the conventions at the end, showing dates, name, and perhaps precipitating events and outcomes?
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not clear from the "Twenty-first century contests" section if a convention actually happened this century, though it appears not. Does "Two proposals for Constitutional Amendment have failed to be enacted" refer to action in the state government that would have led to a convention had either passed?
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear why the material in the "State and Federal Courts" section is included -- obviously this material could have been the subject of conventions, but so could much else.
 * State and Federal courts continue to find that the Virginia General Assembly has failed to meet it Constitutional duty by Virginia and U.S. fundamental law relative to districting that allocates power among the regions of the state. Even though districts are reasonably equal in size of population, they are not compact or contiguous, resulting in gerrymandering violating the U.S. Voter Rights Act. It seems appropriate to have a current update to the fundamental issue facing Virginia Conventions throughout their history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That completes a first pass. Let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. There's some terrific material here; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've followed virtually all your line edits. Thanks again. below is a summary of your more global critiques. Do you have a sense of what should be prioritized?
 * I'd suggest fleshing out the subarticles first. Even if you don't get them to GA level, by the time you've finished deciding what contents they should have I think you'll be in a much better position to figure out what summary information is retained here.  And if you do get some or all to GA level, this article will be a great deal easier to write (and you might have a Good Topic on your hands).  The other global comments -- reportage, details of election methods and convening/calling the conventions, background politics -- can all be addressed within the subarticles first.  If you'd prefer to work on this article first, I'd start by adding details before you cut -- add the background politics and election information, and then cut to the subarticles.  My own experience is that it's always easier to write the subarticles first, but your mileage may vary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Global critique summarized
- -
 * The article is a bit underlinked; of course the quotes shouldn't usually have embedded links, and there are a lot of quotes, but here are some examples you could link: John S. Carlile, Wheeling, Virginia, Unconditional Unionist, Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, and perhaps a couple of county names.
 * You begin each section on a convention with the date of meeting and the events of the convention, but shouldn't the article also discuss what led to the convention being convened, and how that process worked?
 * I think some explanation of the political landscape is in order -- I've no idea what the "Progressive" party stood for at the time, and am having to work it out from context as I read through.
 * The article; it's quite long, and since you have sub-articles on the conventions, some of the detail could be compressed and moved to the sub-articles. For example, in the Ratifying Convention section you give Henry's, Randolph's, Mason's and Madison's views in some detail, but would a summary of them be more useful to the reader at this survey level?
 * This section strays into reportage rather than summary on occasion, and I think this is connected to the "in-viewpoint" voice that you use on several occasions in the article. It feels more like a narration, by someone intimately familiar with the events, than an encyclopedic view of those events.
 * The twentieth century conventions are covered in much less detail than the earlier ones; I assume from your comments above that the article will be rebalanced, but I wouldn't expect there to be a great deal less detail on them than on the earlier ones, at least at this summary level.
 * Unfortunately, after a year's research, this is about all I've come up with. More contributions are needed, perhaps if someone will delve into the daily reportage of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear why the material in the "State and Federal Courts" section is included -- obviously this material could have been the subject of conventions, but so could much else.
 * ✅ TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)