Jump to content

Talk:United States Declaration of Independence/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
WP:LEAD
Background
Toward independence
Text
Influences
  • I think the phrase "in turn" needs to be set of with commas although I am not sure.
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
Signing
History of the documents
Legacy
Influence in other countries
Revival of interest
Slavery and the Declaration
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Summary of new substitute nominator

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Signing controversy

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I do not have any objections on making this a good article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus (talk) might have some opinion on the matter of the Declaration signing controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to pass it as it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TonyTheTiger for giving the U.S. Declaration article GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]