Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2020 [1].

1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little known but important episode in US history. The article has, perhaps, not the most impressive of titles, but tells of the only congressional election in US history to feature two future presidents, James Madison and James Monroe. Madison was the victor of this battle fought one cold Virginia winter, and had he not been in Congress to use his influence to fight for the Bill of Rights, the key issue in this campaign, it might not have passed.Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
How so? It's not in the article anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a crop would be helpful because there were no state lines near the Fifth District. As for a jpg, the best I could do is screenshot the tif, which strikes me as rather crude. Open to suggestions.
I just meant crop out the areas that weren't part of the map. Anyway, I was able to create a jpg using GIMP. The filesize was reduced from 80mb to 2mb without reducing map detail. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the Madison and Monroe images in the infobox, which was added recently and not by me. I doubt an infobox is that useful, but I'm not getting into that. Note my comment above re the map. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There appears to be a rounding error in Madison's infobox percentage
  • The lead says Madison got frostbite from the debate, while the text says it was from riding home afterwards - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with these. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I checked the image that was added, and it is also freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I think it would be worth mentioning in the lead that the election was to the First Congress; no doubt a US reader would know that, but I didn't.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map is good to have, but can we also get one that shows the district that's easy to read? A modern map outlining the (current) counties comprising the district would be fine. I wouldn't oppose over this.
    I don't have a better one. Four of the counties in the district have split into two counties, plus there are the independent cities of Fredericksburg and Charlottesville that have split off from their counties. And since the Fifth District was not near a state line, I wonder if a map detailed enough to be helpful at thumbnail size would really help the reader unfamiliar with Virginia. I'm open to ideas.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes think that one paid service that the WMF could provide is a full-time mapmaker who could create maps for high-profile articles, or FAC or GAN nominations. It's a specialist skill, with high value to the reader, and surely not controversial enough. Anyway, no problem for this article, just a nice-to-have if a map is ever available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the map: One could be based on the one here; the Fifth District is the one in the middle with red in its southwest corner that is above the one that is almost entirely brown.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That links to this which per this page has a Creative Commons licence. I'm no image expert but I think that could be used at least on the 1789 Virginia elections page, and I think it would work on this page too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added this image. I'd like the image reviewer, buidhe, to take a look at it (and also check the one remaining issue in the original review). My thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Buidhe's approved it; outstanding. I think that's a great addition, and perhaps that site will be a source for other articles about early US elections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, rather than an Article V convention favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe, feeling that route to be the quickest, easiest, and safest means of passage. It took me a moment to parse this and realize that the last clause is Madison's opinion, not Monroe's. Suggest: "But he felt it to be important that Congress proposed them, feeling that route to be a quicker, easier, and safer means of passage than an Article V convention, which was favored by the Anti-Federalists such as Monroe." That has "felt/feeling"; perhaps "considered it important"?
Done that using "believing".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come; still reading but I have guests arriving shortly so it will probably be tomorrow before I can add to this. It's very good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to date, thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • In the negative campaigning paragraph you list two accusations made by Monroe's supporters, with parenthetical explanations. The first one explains the basis for the accusation ("he had supported including such a power...") but the second one seems to contradict the accusation. I was expecting some parallelism here -- that is, an explanation for why it was claimed he pronounced the Constitution perfect, or else something like "(in this case there was no basis for the accusation)" or "(he had done so, but had subsequently admitted...)".
I've clarified that the basis was that he had been against amendments, and his opponents used that against him.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be a contradiction to say that Monroe was initially taken by surprise by Madison's idea of campaigning via letters, but then to say that Monroe took this approach "from the first days of the race".
The quote from McGrath is “Knowing he was no orator of Patrick Henry’s caliber, Madison bombarded the district with a letter-writing campaign, arguing for his beloved Constitution. Taken unawares, Monroe responded with his own broadside of letters.” I guess this was still "the first days of the race". The campaign did not have a formal beginning, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it I think this is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • did not provide sufficient protection to their religious liberty: I think "of" or "for" would read more naturally than "to". I didn't copyedit this in case it's a common usage I'm just not familiar with.
"For" is probably the better of the two.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monroe stated of Madison, "It would have given me concern to have excluded him." I'm not sure I follow -- Monroe is saying he would have been sorry to have won?
He's writing to Jefferson so he's putting the best face on the situation. It's the same letter as quoted earlier to the effect that those who were impressed with him sort of dragged him into the race.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You used "noted" in quoting two historians at the end of the article; "note" carries an implication that what follows is definitely true, rather than just an opinion, so I would suggest something like "commented" instead.
I've used that and similar synonyms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=" against the DeRose and Labunski sources at the end of the article. I opened up the section to see if it was an easy fix but whatever is causing it appears to be buried in the sfnref template.
I don't see any cite errors and the citation appears normal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently what's going on. It seems to be not something you did, so I'm going to ignore it, but perhaps someone who knows more about the way these things work will come along and fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed it now. I doubled the "|" and thus it is detecting an empty parameter. They should be fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see. A very engaging read about something I knew nothing about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed or responded to each item, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very easy read, well-organized and well-written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • All of the sources appear reliable.
  • Formatting looks correct, but I wonder why you didn't put the sources in footnotes 2, 3, 13, and 20 below and link to them by a short cite, as you did with the rest.
I've done that for the books. For the other two, which are brief bios of Madison and Monroe before their presidencies, I generally don't put single-page web pages into the bibliography.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vote numbers match those in the article cited. Other than that, spotchecks not done, but I could do them if necessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted, done. Thanks for the source review. Hope you're doing well and staying safe.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope you're well, too. I'm hoping to be on here more again, so I'll see you around. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil edit

Fascinating. My support is based on prose and (from my POV) reader engagement; its a gripping read, depicts realpolitik at its rawest and is wonderfully told. Am impressed that you kept the article relatively short when it could have been bogged down with dry facts, rather than paced by narrative thrust. Made light copyedits, nothing major, feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

  • As a resident of a county adjacent to this congressional district, how can I resist reviewing this article?
  • A bit too much detail in the second para of the lede, IMO. I'd suggest deleting all after Monroe campaigning.
  • Link Sect'y of State, President
  • I have no other comments other than to say, "Very well done". I'll withold supporting until I reread it in a few days on the off-chance that I see something that I missed this time through.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten these covered. I did keep one sentence in the lede. I think something has to be said about the campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. My county's three away from the district.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm edit

I'll take a look at this soon. Might claim it for the WikiCup, or I might not. TBD on that front, but I've still got to make the disclosure. Hog Farm Bacon 15:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get a better source for the Monroe infobox picture than "own work"? The image is clearly PD, but I'm not so sure that's the best way to put that
I've changed it to the painter's name
  • Link Anti-Federalists at the first mention in the body
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although defeated for Congress, Monroe's frequent court appearances kept him in the public eye in Virginia." - Maybe it's just a comprehension issue for me, but it's unclear to me what court apperances these are referring to.
As a lawyer. Clarified.
  • "Riding away afterwards, likely home to Montpelier, Madison suffered a frostbitten nose. In his old age, former president Madison would tell the story of that night, and point to the left side of his nose" - So is the note saying there's ambiguity where Madison was frostbitten, or where he would point?
He would point at the injury site. It's a question of who you believe. I find the ear in William Rives's bio in the 1860s and the nose in Gaillard Hunt's of 1902. They may go further back and I don't know of any way of determining this with certainty. I did look at a couple of paintings of Madison but they were no help and paintings tend to flatter. It's too good a story to ignore.
  • Maybe this is common practice, but I'm pretty sure that Virginia did not have an official state flag in 1789, so that flag in the infobox is a bit on an anachronism.
Cut. I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this one. That's all I've got to say, and most of these are probably just comprehension issues on my end. Hog Farm Bacon 18:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Hog Farm. Thanks for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Very interesting and informative read. Hog Farm Bacon 18:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1789_Virginia%27s_5th_congressional_district_election/archive1&oldid=986131294"