Talk:Federalist No. 5/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 05:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Introduction 1. Wikilink The Independent Journal (consistent with previous articles) 2. Wikilink Publius (consistent with previous articles) Analysis section 3. Argued and then arguments are repeated in the consecutive sentences. Argued is used quite often. Perhaps change “Jay argued that once this…” to “Jay contended…” 4. Likewise, Jay’s arguments is followed by “in which he argued”. Perhaps another word, such as “in which he asserted” could work better. 5. “He likewise believed that a system of confederacies would be reminiscent of the conflict-ridden nature of the British kingdoms prior to unification” change to “Likewise, he believed…” as it reads better. 6. “…until Federalist No. 64, his final entry in the series” change to “until Federalist No. 64, which was his final entry in the series”. This reads better and avoids shorthand.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio looks good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I can see you have many similar articles on this matter. This shouldn't take very long to review. Once these small changes are made I'll be happy to pass this.

BritneyErotica, Publius doesn't have its own article, and it probably shouldn't be linked in the other articles either. I've made the other recommended changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

All good. I was referring to your other article Federalist No. 4 but I can see Publius just links to The Federalist Papers. I've looked through this again and everything looks great so I'll go ahead and pass it. BritneyErotica (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.