Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is interesting. I am reviewing it to learn some details.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• How precise is the phrase? "were independent states"? Maybe regarded themselves as independent states. I think the British did not at that time believe that statement to be true.
  • I see that this has been fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Does the phrase "The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized people" refer to marginalized people in the United States or does this motivate international marginalized people?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I read that as marginalized people all over the world. The sentence has certainly been used internationally. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Please clarify in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, done. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

• No need to link Thirteen Colonies again.
  • Fixed. (Most of these below were already fixed before I got here.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Date the Boston Tea Party.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• What is the north ministry, which also appears later in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Linked to relevant article. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Toward independence

• I don't know what the sources say, but logic seems to suggest that "one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress" should read something like "one colonial government would need to specifically instruct (or grant permission for) its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress". I.e., it seems possible that during the course of debate representatives might be permitted to initiate a declaration. Not sure though.
  • Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• It is not clear to me how Congress relates to the prior terms First and Second Continental Congress. Is there a link for the Congress that you are now referring to?
  • Examining the Hazelton source, I'm confident this refers to the Second Continental Congress, or at least to the possibility (in the abstract) of a Continental Congress in general. I'm not sure how to phrase this in the section, but I'm open to suggestions. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You can either request a third opinion from someone at one of the projects associated with this article (see the talk page) or I can put in a 2nd opinion request through GAC. Your choice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see that the Second CC was in effect throughout the entire period discussed in the "Toward independence" section. As such, I linked (in this edit) the first instance of "Congress" to Second Continental Congress there. Does that clear up the ambiguity? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Richard Henry Lee should be linked on first use. Not second.
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• You need to explain or link exigencies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• The term Royal Governor needs a link.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Text

• This section needs proper citations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. (I did this.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• You will need to source all interpretations of the primary text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. (I did this.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Influences

• I think the phrase "in turn" needs to be set of with commas although I am not sure.
  • Done. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see more of today's prominent thinkers (living people under the age of 65) in this section, but that is just my preference. However, it is important to make it clear that some of these controversial opinions have yet to be resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Contemporary historians Garry Wills and Dennis J. Mahoney are now cited. Wills is getting older, but I guess that can't be helped. I think the text now indicates the controversial and unresolved nature of certain interpretations, especially these. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Signing

• "Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration." should come earlier in the section. It may belong as the first sentence of the section, but if not a first paragraph placement would be good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I moved and reworded this. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

History of the documents

• Is there any link for "Congress's secrecy rule"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Linked and moved. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

• It is unclear what period of time the first paragraph refers to (a few years or a century)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The sources make clear it was a few years, during the war and just after. Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you make it clear that this paragraph refers to late 18th century if that is the case.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I changed it from "was initially neglected following the American Revolution" to "was initially neglected in the years immediately following the American Revolution". I don't feel comfortable making it much more specific, since the sources don't give very clear dates for it, and it would be my own interpretation to say exactly when it stopped being neglected, I think.

Influence in other countries

• The opening sentence belies the rest of the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The way it is currently written, there doesn't seem to be a conflict. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The sentence beginning with "The Manifesto of the Province of Flanders" seems to say something different than the first sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you mean. In this edit I reworded to show that some leaders were not directly influenced, but others were. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Revival of interest

• "had lost none of its relevance" doesn't really make a proper statement about its relevance.
  • I reworded. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• "But the Declaration would have its most prominent influence on the debate over slavery." should be cited. It also belongs as an introductory statement in the next section rather than here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Moved, and sourced. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery and the Declaration

• Thomas Day seems to be making a statement about Jefferson or other patriots and signers who owned slaves. Please clearly explain his statement.
  • I clarified. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• "From this time forward, defenders of slavery, from John Randolph in the 1820s to John C. Calhoun in the 1840s" presents a confusing time period to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I reworded. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This is clearly the result of a lot of scholarly research. With a few minor changes, it will be a GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article could benefit from the British historical perspective

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I think this is written from the American perspective. I pointed out in the review of the WP:LEAD that this article might be written without regard to the British perspective.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   I will have to review the images

   Images are all tagged correctly. Two WP:CAPTIONS use periods at the end of phrases that are not complete sentences. Either remove the periods or reword.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I could require some British perspective, but I am not sure what is out there and a bit is incorporated. Not enough is truly included for me to believe this is ready for FA, but it serves the purpose for most history students. With a few changes I think it will be GA quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed that there may be a new editor taking over the nomination in the absence of a vanished nominator. I will check back in seven days to evaluate progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this today. I am willing to take over this nomination. I will look over the suggestions and make improvements. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hancock's signature

I have added information on the signing of the Declaration. According to the State Department, Hancock signed the Declaration on July 4, 1776. This would make that act legally binding on July 4 since Hancock was the President of the Continental Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Summary of new substitute nominator

I've addressed all the itemized concerns above. I'm afraid I don't have the ability to do a thorough reword to make sure the British perspective is adequately given. It looks good to me as I read it, but then again, I'm a yank. I know the stuff against King George was quite slanted, but that's the nature of the document, and I understand old George doesn't have many admirers in England either. I hope it's up to GA standard at this point! – Quadell ^(talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see your feedback. We're very close. I think I can get all those finalized today. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made my second round of fixes. Let me know what you think. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Quadell for your contributions to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Signing controversy

Before going to good article I believe there needs to be some discussion on the signing controversy. Wills relies on an 1884 State Department investigation. The 1911 State Department states Hancock signed the Declaration, not the Parchment copy, on July 4. I believe this is crucial in terms of deciding when the United States became independent. Is Wills reliable? I have read the source page. Seems to be he does not believe Hancock signed on July 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see Willis in the text right now. I am satisfied with the content that you added, if the replacement nominator is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am satisfied. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Cmguy777, I am ready to pass this. Is there an outstanding issue in your mind?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• My lone other remaining issue is the unresolved image issues from the checklist above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'd missed that! You're right, that was a grammar error. I removed one stray full-stop, and reworded the other (since I think it's obvious that it's his signature pictured). – Quadell ^(talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad there is agreement on the signing controversy. I just believe that from an American standpoint there needs to be some clarification as to when the United States became independent. From what I understand, Hancock and others signed the Declaration on July 4, 1776. Copies were made and passed around states to be read by the military officers or legislators. Then a special Parchment copy was made that many signed on August 2, 1776. That would mean Hancock signed twice on July 4, and then on August 2. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not have any objections on making this a good article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Coemgenus (talk) might have some opinion on the matter of the Declaration signing controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to pass it as it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TonyTheTiger for giving the U.S. Declaration article GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work everybody. I was off-wiki while this was going on, so I'm glad to see that people worked on this even after the original nominator vanished. Drinks all around. —Kevin Myers 03:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)