Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Madison/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2023 [1].

James Madison

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fourth President of the United States James Madison. Its first FAC took place mostly at the end of last year, it didn’t pass, despite having several supports, an image pass, and a nearly completed source review. At the time, Hawkeye had raised the issue of whether the slavery section could be improved which has since then been upgraded and addressed largely by the co-nominator, Cmguy777, of this re-nomination. The current updated version appears stable, with an upgraded discussion of Hawkeye's concerns from the past few months, and ready to continue with the FAC assessment. The current version of this article appears to be at FAC-worthy level and has benefited from several pre-FAC assessments last year from several experienced editors. Looking forward to responding to and addressing the support/oppose comments which are part of the assessment process concerning this nomination for this well-known president. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a neutral source to the Slavery section, Spies-Gans. She is a Princeton alumnis. Princeton was Madison's alma mater. The Slavery section is divided into three parts: History, Treatment of Slaves, and Views on Slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I hope to look at this later. I already conducted a partial review of this article late last year, but I stopped after someone added a "neutrality" tag to the article. I will continue where I left off, but I'll also quickly look over the first few sections of the article when I'm done. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

epicgenius are you still planning to comment on this FAC? (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @buidhe - I totally forgot about this. I do still plan to leave commentary; this nomination completely slipped my mind. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still quite long, so I'm going to focus on the "Slavery" section first. Here are my initial comments:
  • There are a few sentences with a large number of citations, e.g. "After his manumission, Billey changed his name to William Gardner and became a shipping agent, representing Madison in Philadelphia. In 1795, Gardner was swept overboard and drowned on a voyage to New Orleans.[273][274][271][275][276][277]". To avoid running afoul of WP:CITEKILL, I suggest combining these footnotes into a single <ref></ref> tag using {{harvnb}}, e.g. <ref>{{harvnb|New York Review of Books, June 6, 2019}}; {{harvnb|Watts|1990|p=1289}}; {{harvnb|Spies-Gans, 2013}}; {{harvnb|Ketcham|1990|pp=374-375}}; {{harvnb|French|2001}}; {{harvnb|Taylor|2012|p=27}}.</ref>
  • "he arrived at his alma mater Princeton University" - The article already mentions that Princeton was his alma mater, so I'd cut that bit.
  • "By his will" - Should this be something like "In his will"?
  • "By the 1790s, Madison's slave Sawney was an overseer of part of the plantation. Some slaves at Montpelier could read, including Sawney. Madison's plantation crops included apples, corn, tobacco, and Irish potatoes" - This reads a little choppily. It talks about Sawney, then about how Sawney was among several literate slaves, then it mentions crops on the plantation out of the blue.
  • "According to historian Paris Spies-Gans, Madison's anti-slavery thought was strongest" - I'd recommend combining this with one of the other paragraphs.
– Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally can't find anything pressing with the article. The narration could be tweaked a little for grammar errors, maybe historical context. I think the article is much improved since the FAC started. Are there anythings more that need to be done? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - do you feel that your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed? 18:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this. I did not get the ping at all. I meant to say that, other than some minor grammatical quibbles, I didn't see any glaring issues. From what I've seen, this article is pretty comprehensive, and it doesn't neglect any major facts/details per the FAC criteria. Given the large amount of scholarship about Madison in particular, I don't see anything else missing on that end, either.
I did have one remaining concern: although almost everything is reliably sourced, there is a link to history.com in the "Bibliography" section, which per WP:RSPHISTORY is not a reliable source. Even if history.com is being used as a primary source in this context, can this be swapped out with a better source? That's the only major issue that I still have with this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this website acceptable? ConstitutionFacts.com Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if this seems like a bother, but wouldn't the Library of Congress be sufficient for this? From the looks of the Reliable Sources noticeboard's archives, at least some parts of the website may be suspect. There really hasn't been that much discussion about that website, but nonetheless, it would be a little strange to have a Featured Article link to a page that, at the very least, the constitutionfacts website appears to be geared toward school students.
    (Also, now that I'm looking at the Library of Congress website, it seems like Madison may have authored or co-authored up to 29 of the Federalist Papers, rather than exactly 29 as this article currently says. It would be ideal if there is a secondary source that confirms this, though, but the LOC source should be sufficient for this claim.) – Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cmguy777, could you look at this; switching to LOC for the Federalist Papers is unobjectionable, as is Epicgenius's request to alter the wording to 'authored or co-authored'. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOC is a good source. That can be used as a source for the 85 FPs authored, but we need a source that states how many Madison co-authored. Yes, "co-authored" can be used. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a book source, instead, The Federalist Papers, published in 1992. Published by Cutchogue, N.Y. : Buccaneer Books. Detail added. I think we should leave that matter moot concerning how many Madison authored. There maybe be dispute over some authorships between Madison and Hamilton. I also mentioned the essays were published in two part: 36 anti Articles of Confederation; and 49 essays that favored the Constitution. I mentioned the letters were published under the name "Publius". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor

[edit]

Will focus on slavery section since I previously supported the rest.

  • "Madison emancipated one slave, Billey, whom Madison sold into an apprentice contract that freed Billey after seven years of servitude" - I appreciate the effort to make clear pronouns/subjects here, but it's a bit wordy as is
  • "In 1801, Madison inherited more than one hundred slaves at Montpelier after his father's death.[267][268] Madison brought slaves to the White House while president.[269]" - bit choppy sentence structure wise
  • "Although Madison grew more dependent on slavery at Montpelier," - how so?
  • " In 1786, a slave Anthony ran away. Madison's father put a runaway slave notice in a Richmond newspaper. A reward of $10 was given for Anthony's recapture. " - how does this relate to treatment of slaves?

Made some minor copyediting changes. ceranthor 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look into these. I think the slave reward letter let's the reader know slaves were not free even though they ran away. Recapture was not voluntary. I am only going by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made narration changes to the Slavery section that address the above issues. The Anthony runaway slave sentences were removed. The "dependent on slavery" information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. ceranthor 02:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that read through and the edits in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Allreet

[edit]

Also interested in the Slavery section, a point at a time.

Slavery > History section:

  • Narrative flow and clarity. Abrupt beginning, chronology, and connection between thoughts.
  • Use of some sources; e.g., book reviews instead of the actual books.
  • Connection: I should have been more explicit. The sentence "In 1783, serving as a Virginia Delegate in Congress..." leads readers to think the action was somehow tied to Congress. It's also inaccurate to indicate the action was a proactive step against slavery. Not in the least. It was purely personal and reactive. However, the story nicely illustrates the moral dilemmas Madison faced. Billey (later William Gardner) was given to Madison as a companion when both were young, so the two grew up together. Billey subsequently spent three-and-a-half years (1780-1783) with Madison in Philadelphia. The experience in a free state "tainted" Billey, who tried to escape. Punishment would normally have been in order, but Madison was fearful returning Billey to Virginia might foment rebellion, so he sold him into an indenture contract (under Pennsylvania law slaves could not be sold to new masters). Later, after Billey completed his indenture and was freed, Madison hired him as a business agent, as did Jefferson. I have sources on all of the above and am working on a condensed version.
  • Changes made to the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details on Montpelier in the intro para and first para are redundant. Something on the economics and culture in the South and Virginia might be better as a general opening. Slavery had been part of the country's social fabric for well over a century by the time of the Revolution. Allreet (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed redundant information and added detail on Southern slave plantation society. Spies-Gans (2013) was the source. I used French (2001) as a source for information on Billey taken from the William Gardner (former slave) article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery > Treatment of Slaves

  • Please sign the above comments. I removed the Taylor quote. I am not sure it is good to use first-hand primary sources. I don't think we know completely how slaves were treated at Montpelier. How did Ambrose or Madison Sr. treat the slaves at Montpelier? Madison had complete control of Montpelier after 1801. Madison was also away from Montpelier for extensive time periods after 1801 while Secretary of State and President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think we are getting into unchartered territory on slave treatment. Jennings was brought to the White House at age ten. He may have been referring to Madison's treatment of slaves at the White House. Also Jennings was a household slave at Montpelier, Madison's footman, not a field slave. All we want is to get Madison to pass the FAC Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cmguy777: I was about to add the White House when I saw your comment. Jennings was with Madison at both the White House and Montpelier, so he was writing about Jefferson for the entire period he knew him and he was referring to all slaves under Madison's care during that time. And if the memoir won't do as a source, Broadbent relates what Jennings said and he supports the words I used. Allreet (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please add your information. I would also add when Jennings wrote his memoir, his position as Madison's footman, and the time frame he was with Madison. This gives the reader more historical context. I have no issues adding the information to the Madison or Madison and slavery articles, possibly both articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To save time I added information on Paul Jennings. The National Park Service was used as a reference. I also added the Taylor reference. I did this in the interest of time. Jennings, I think is a good addition to the article. He seems to be a popular historical figure and I think would add to the reader's interest. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet; those comments are all quality research and I'm thinking which part of Wikipedia's best example of slavery among the Founding Fathers you are following. The best example at Wikipedia for slavery among the Founding Fathers is the 2 FA articles for George Washington and slavery and George Washington. On the basis of that example, then where would you think is the better place for your current edit which you just put forward: should it go on the James Madison and slavery article or the James Madison biography page? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause: Thanks. I was concerned the original text was insensitive (as if some slaveowners weren't so bad). I also think Jennings's description is convincing and that it fits the Treatment of Slaves subsection perfectly—as do Madison's instructions to his plantation's overseer. Both are hard evidence, specific to Madison's views, and not just opinions or general summations. I'd use it here since the subsection is short, and worry about the other possible FA later. Allreet (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet Thanks for your comments. Are there any more edits that you would like to see in this article in order to help this nomination to gain your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Slavery section is in good shape. I do have some concerns regarding citations in other sections, though I haven't done a thorough "sweep". This may apply wherever there are several sentences covering multiple issues and only one citation is provided at the end of the passage. An example would be the opening of the American Revolution/Articles of Confederation section. While the statements are generally true, finding sources that support broad summations like this is difficult. Allreet (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on the Slavery section. For those other sections on the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation, then this article is written with an eye to link to those two main articles as the place to find many of the references on those 2 subjects. If there is any reference from those 2 articles which you would like to bring into this article then maybe you could mention it here or give it a try. Those 2 articles on the Revolution and the Articles are well written and are the main articles for their subject areas. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the main article links are there for the readers to get specific information. I don't think we need sources on every sentence. I can check for general information in Madison Biography by Ketcham. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find anything general on the AR and AOC by Ketcham.Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added a source reference on the American Revolution. I can't find anything specific of the sentences on Madison and the Articles of Confederation. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added Taylor (2016) American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 book source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tracking down these sources. Allreet (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allreet; Nice comments. Ready for further edit requests whenever you have the time to list them here to enhance to article further. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added Taylor (2002) American Colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Allreet, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild, thanks for the courtesy. I support the nomination. I know enough about Madison to recognize the article's strengths—he lived a long, active life and generally his biography is covered well in terms of accuracy and style. Therein are also my reservations—with this much ground to cover, some inaccuracies are inevitable. I haven't had time to respond to ErnestKrause's last request for feedback, but in a review tonight I caught a few, hence my last comment. If it's okay, I'd like to handle the edits myself, since it would be as easy to make the changes as explain them. Allreet (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a coordinator I have no issues with that. If you make changes ErnestKrause disagrees with or doesn't understand, they can query them here, having first reverted them or not - as they wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments from Allreet have been well-researched and well written; he should have access to the main space for his edits or put them on Talk if discussion is useful. Thanks for his added support for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Sixteen images.

File:1811, Sharples, James, James Madison.jpg, File:James Madison, by Charles Willson Peale, 1783.png, File:James Madison by Gilbert Stuart.jpg, File:James Madison Portrait2.jpg, File:USS Constitution vs Guerriere.jpg, File:British Burning Washington.jpg, File:Battle of New Orleans Jean-Hyacinthe Laclotte.jpg, File:Tippecanoe.jpg, File:Gilbert Stuart, James Madison, c. 1821, NGA 56914.jpg, File:James madison-Age82-Edit1.jpg - old artworks - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Not my era of expertise. But works cited seem to be of high quality.

  • Graeber (2013) is not used; move to further reading
  • Hamilton (1941) Do not abbreviate the names of US states
  • Library of Congress. 2003. Location?
  • Manweller, Mathew (2005) Location?
  • Suggest moving "Montpelier: The People, The Place, The Idea" to the external links

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks:
    • fn 294: Source says "one admirer" but does not say "contemporary" Note: Where is this issue found in the article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Note: "contemporary" changed to "admirer". Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Historian Gordon Wood commends Madison for his steady leadership during the war and resolve to avoid expanding the president's power, noting one contemporary's observation that the war was conducted "without one trial for treason, or even one prosecution for libel".[294]" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn 79, 112, 138, 294, 314: okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Source review and Image review here, Hawkeye. Separately, nice comments about Leahy in the other assessment below. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues
    • Books in the Bibliography are still not in alphabetical order (Rijord should come after Reed)
    • Wood (2011) should be after Wood (2009)
    • Last dozen entries are in random order (other web sites etc are in publisher order)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, I've done these this evening and they look like they are consistent now and in order for the 3 items you've just listed. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very last entry still looks out of order to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last Cite books moved up to other Cite books above and moved from end of list. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • From "Early life and education", who was the classmate from "Along with another classmate, Madison undertook an intense program of study"? Note:The classmate was Aaron Burr. He was one year behind Madison at Princeton. Rival debating societies. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Height, eye color, and being "congenial in small gatherings" are superfluous details Note: Removed eye color and "congenial in small gatherings". I believe Madison was the smallest person to hold the Presidency. Is that too trivial? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Note:Information removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "never saw battle" → "never battled"
  • Shouldn't "republican" from "republican government would be effective against partisanship and factionalism" start with upper case?
  • It feels repetitive to have three consecutive sentences start with "He" like the first paragraph of "Ratification of the Constitution" currently does. Note: Changed "He" to "Madison" 2x.
  • Every sentence from the second paragraph of "Bill of Rights" (except for its last) starts with his surname. Try to change this up to avoid monotony.
  • Ambrose helping with Montpelier management prior to dying in 1793 only needs to be mentioned once (you currently do so within "Early life and education" as well as "Marriage and family").
  • The word "affair" within "Chesapeake–Leopard affair" shouldn't have italics
  • I feel you've misused "at present" for "believed that blacks and whites were unlikely to co-exist peacefully, at present" when this comes from a someone who died long before the 20th century. Note: removed "at present".

Overall, this definitely has improved since its first FAC :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following recent revisions, I'll support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gwillhickers

[edit]
  • Weak support at this time. — The slavery section, though generally comprehensive and neutral, could stand to use a couple of points of context, esp since slavery is an otherwise controversial issue, replete with many modern-day distortions that have emerged 100s of years after the fact. Also, the citation convention used in this article is an assortment of different citation formats, with many templates mixed right in with mark-up text.
    FA Criteria 2c requires: consistently formatted inline citations
    Since the greater majority of citations use the SFN format, the others, and there are nonetheless many, will have to be converted to the SFN format. if all FA criteria are to be met. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gwillhickers. What "couple of points of context" need to be added to the slavery section? It may take time to get the whole article to SFN. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've been added here Much citation work still needs to be done, which I'm currently working on. Overall prose looks fine, with no factual errors or POV issues that I can see. Good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no issues with the above context being readded to the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've logged in this morning to see if any Harvard cites were still in the article to be addressed and they appear to all be consistent now in sfn. Are all the citations now consistent. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I converted two references to sfn format. Added photo of Dolley Madison. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a fair number of <ref> or <ref name=cite'label> cites that still need conversion to SFN. Nothing that can't be dealt with in a day or so. Not as big of a deal as having statements with no citations, but it is a point of FA criteria that should and will be remedied directly. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: Thanks for catching a syntax errror. I've been using the SFN format to keep the citation convention consistent, per FA Criteria. I usually catch any errors as I review a given edit immediately after making it. Thanks for your concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations and sources in order
@ErnestKrause and Cmguy777: — I believe the citations are all in order now, adhering to one citation convention. When you get the chance, please double check. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They should now be in alphabetic order; it took me about a dozen adjustments and I'm thinking that it is now ok. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for tending to this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild; From your comment in the section below as addressed now. There are currently 3 supports for this nomination from Ceranthor, SNUGGUMS, and Gwillhickers, plus a source review pass by Hawkeye and an Images pass from Hawkeye as well. Should the further requests for enhancements be addressed here on this assessment page, or should they be moved to the Talk page of the article for further enhancements. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding the query correctly, my preference would be for any further quries and commants, and any responses to them, to appear on this page. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild; There are already 3 supports for the article, and the co-nominators are ready to move on to other peer review nominations when this one is able to move forward. Are more supports being requested here beyond the normal 3 supports, with a pass for images and sources already in place? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article quality overall is much improved, both in writing and content. Neutrality concerns in the Slavery section have been addressed. Are there anymore pressing article matters that need to be addressed? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "the normal 3 supports". Three general supports is the bare minimum necessary for a coordinator to consider closing a nomination. More than three general supports is always good and may or may not be considered necessary by a coordinator. I am temporarily somewhat busy in RL and so will ping the other coordinators - @FAC coordinators: - to see if they wish to consider the nomination for closure. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented on this article at an earlier stage so I think I have to consider myself recused on this one. However, I personally would not consider promoting an article on a similar subject without 4-5 supports. (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of town for work for the next several days, so I don't see myself being able to read through a whole complex discussion before Thursday or Friday. I will re-iterate that three supports is a bare minimum, not an obligation to promote, and that the coordinators can ask for more feedback at their discretion. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hawkeye7

[edit]

As a military historian, most of this is beyond my expertise, but I was concerned about the characterization of the proposed amendments to the constitution as "protecting individual liberties". Madison and Henry clashed over the arming of the militia. This was the organization that mounted nightly patrols looking for escaped slaves and put down slave rebellions before they could spread. It was a key part of the organization of a slave state like Virginia. Henry feared that the provision in the constitution that the federal government was responsible for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" also meant that it could disarm the militia, which would cause the end of slavery. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brand new book by Carl Bogus is intriguing, though its only been out for a few weeks with its publication date from 2023. I'm not sure its fully a part of the established literature and matches prevailing viewpoints, as interesting as Bogus's reading appears on first sight. For example, Second Amendment proponents often cite Madison's close relation to Jefferson and Jefferson's principle of Democracy needing to 'cleanse' itself of its encrustations from time to time, apparently with the use of firearms as needed. Also, Madison as a revolutionary had vivid pictures of Battle of Bunker Hill and the importance of firearms to the rebellion against England. I'm thinking that Bogus offers an interesting perspective, though its not the only one out there in academia. Do you think that Bogus belongs in this article or in the James Madison and slavery article? Possibly, Bogus ought to belong in the Second Amendment article as a close match to his subject matter? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ErnestKrause. This specific topic, if it belongs anywhere, would be better placed on the Second Amendment, or other Talk page, esp since the Madison article treats Madison's dealings with the Bill of Rights as a whole in one small section, and doesn't dissect each and every Amendment. Doing so, on a FA nomination page, more than suggests that FA promotion is hanging by this one highly questionable contention. Continued on the Second Amendment Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Constitutional concern. It is true slaves had no individual liberties. For that matter neither did women or Indians. It is too wide a subject for the Madison article. I think best to address the issue after FAC is completed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The motivations of Madison and the right to bear arms are interesting. There may have been many, including putting down slave rebellions, Indian wars, stop a military invasion. It may take time to sort this out. There are better places to discuss this at a future date than an FA review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the thought was to add some of this to the Madison article at some future date, then that would mean that the FAC was currently underprepared, ie did not cover criterion 1b. I would appreciate clarification on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anyone can prepare for someone introducing a radical idea that just appeared in a newly released book, one that is not consistent with the multitude of reliable sources on the Bill of Rights.

FA criteria 1b states: "It is comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." (emphasis added)

This one opinion, from one source, is not a major detail, let alone a "fact". This general biography should only deal with established facts as supported by the greater majority of reliable sources. Once again, the Bill of Rights section does not cover each and every Amendment, and mulling over the 2nd Amendment with this fuzzy idea would only invoke due weight issues involving one fringe opinion from one source. This discussion really needs to be hacked out in a different forum, and if and when it can be considered a "major detail", the idea should be mentioned in the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights article or elsewhere, as again, the Bill of Rights section doesn't mull over the finer aspects of each and every Amendment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is neither new, nor WP:FRINGE, but all I was suggesting was removing that characterisation of the proposed amendments. I don't think there is a need to go into more detail about them since they have their own articles, but that being the case, this article requires careful wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What specifically do you want removed? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. You want to remove the "protecting individual liberties" part. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that part can be reworded. Madison sought a moderate approach to the Bill of Rights. He did not want to weaken the Constitution, but he wanted people to have a bill of rights. This is Ketcham's (1990) James Madison book statement: "Madison sought to prevent broad construction of some powers of Congress from encroaching on the rights of the people." p. 290. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the sentence using the term "rights of the people" instead of "individual liberties". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been edited and reworded better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence has been rewritten by Cmguy for the request by Hawkeye and Gog the Mild; let me know if that looks ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was also modified by Randy Kyrn. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also added the word "broad" as in "broad actions of Congress" which is what Madison wanted to prevent, for example, Congress establishing a state religion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Ling

[edit]
  • I am not sure how many details we care about these days. Listing all the warnings for the Bibliography and References sections by hand would take like an hour, and it might be wasted time. So how about I do a count, and then someone can tell me which ones we care about?
    • P/PP error? 2 instances
  • I've already found these two; for the other ones, it might be nice if you could separate the ones that are essential to FA status, and those that are optional. For example, backup archive sources are optional. All the corrections need for FAC should be addressed at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"p." or "pp." should be correct in all cases. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) 13 instances. [Some of these may be in Further Reading]
Either all books should have identifiers - ISBNs, or OCLCs in their absence - or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing archive link 33 instances
Optional in each case. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; 4 instances
All books should have identifiers - ISBNs, or OCLCs in their absence - or none should. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (46 with; 7 without);
All books should have place of publication. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year= 2 instances
As above, all books should have an identifier. (In very rare cases, usually foreign language works) they will not be available. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? 3 instances
Needed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's all. Maybe I should write a little Python thingie to spit out details quickly. § Lingzhi (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ErnestKrause: I've been informed that identifiers (issn etc.) are not necessary for news articles or news publications. I also think you could safely ignore anything in the Further Reading section, though a super-tidy person might fix those too. I think other items are on a case-by-case basis. § Lingzhi (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ling, thanks for your comments. I'm likely to continue to look at things on a case by case basis as far as the future editing of this article. (All the isbn's for books should now be in the bibliography). Are there further edits which you would like to see in the article in order for this nomination to get your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allott, Philip (Winter 2003). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Engelman, Fred L. (December 1960). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
  • Guyatt, Nicholas (June 6, 2019). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)
  • Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John (1992). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (14 with; 1 without);
  • Ketcham, Ralph (2002). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Mendelsohn, Joyce (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Skidmore, Max J. (2004). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 2 without);
  • Smelser, Marshall (1968). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 3 without); Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; AND is this a book chapter?
  • Taylor, Elizabeth Dowling (2012). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (39 with; 4 without)
  • Wills, Garry (2002). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (41 with; 5 without);
Hi Ling, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ling; I'm thinking that it is all caught up now for the comments you've listed below. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books without published location: Isaacson, Walter (2004). Paterson, Thomas; Clifford, J. Garry; Maddock, Shane J. (January 1, 2014), Smelser, Marshall (1968).Taylor, Alan (2002).Stewart, David (2007).
  • MIssing ISBN: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation, Edwards, David L. (1983) [in further reading,so...] National Capital Planning Commission (2012).
  • This is the book used in this article: "Edwards, David L. (1984). Christian England. Volume 3: From the 18th Century to the First World War. London, England: Collins." It does appear with the ISBN in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Federalist Papers 1992, p. xxv. Harv error: link from CITEREFThe_Federalist_Papers1992 doesn't point to any citation. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Federalist Papers (1992) references linked to the source. There are three references in the article. What did you want done or changed in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ling. Cmguy777 is stating that he is getting a physical link for this source; are you indicating that your app is giving you an error message, or, that you have manually tried the link and that your server did not connect you to this source. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Take heart, nominators! There have already been 3 or 4 times where I Opposed a FAC, and the FAC coords promoted it! It's becoming like a running gag, except it ain't funny.. I suppose I ain't in MILHIST... But... the refs are in poor shape. Inconsistent.. harvnb, sfn... I mean, "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (42 with; 69 without)". And 36 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)", not all of which are ancient sources... And no Harv templates! Yeah, there's no requirement (which is ridiculous for articles this large!), but what that means in practice is, There's no way to know what has been included in the Bibliography, and what hasn't! If this gets promoted (which it will), I'll write a little Python program to double-check if everything in body text is in the refs, and everything in the refs is in body text. Enjoy your gold star. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling. I may be coming late to the party, but I am not seeing the issues you are flagging. Eg I am getting no missing publisher location labels. And while you are free to oppose on any grounds you want, if you do so on grounds which are not requirements for FAC then, surprise, the coordinators may feel that they have to overlook it. Currently the only arguably required lack I am seeing is missing page ranges for Ketchum (2002), and Robinson. @ErnestKrause and Cmguy777: Could you have a look at those last two? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ketcham 2002 is already with page number on footnote #25. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson is also already with page number on footnote #65. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: Both of these are in the Bibliography without page numbers, with the page numbers added in the specific citations upon each use in the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good and barring the two page ranges above and a last read through I am ready to promote. Page ranges: if you look at the Sources section of my current FAC, Battle of New Carthage you will see Champion (2015). Which is a chapter in a larger book or anthology. Just like the works you cite by Ketchum and Robinson. In the cite to Champion is "pp. 95–110". This is the page range within the book of the whole work or chapter contributed by Champion. Not the range of the pages I am citing. This is achieved by adding "| pages=95–110" to the template for Champion. Does that make sense? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I see what you are saying. In a book by an editor with multiple authors to put the pages of the individual author's work in the sourced book. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added for Ketcham (2002) and Robinson (1999) to article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This is the point where, alas, I eat crow. Here is my confession: there was whisky involved in my last post. To make myself look unbearably, inarguably and unspeakably stupid, it appears I was looking at the article for Alexander Hamilton. I strike my Oppose, and add my Support. I apologize to MILHIST and all current FAC coordinators. (Having said that, I was 100% sober & screwed in the past, but that was under a... to some degree... different set of FAC coords. On 2 or 3 occasions, I Opposed for actionable problems, and was ignored... And I was screwed repeatedly on [article name redacted]. I am in fact genuinely and legitimately bitter about those. However, I stand by my opposition to those; I was deeply screwed. The problem here is that this mistake (I apologize) casts a dubious light on prior incidents. Do not fall into the assumption that I was attention-deprived earlier, although it is easy to do so.) That is all. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 13:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
  • Comment on the FAC. Can I draw your attention to the instructions on the FAC talk page that says not to use graphics. This includes things such as {{fixed}} as it slows down the loading of the main FAC page. Just use text to mark something as being done please. The main FAC page says the graphics may be removed if they are used, so you may want to swap them out for text. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Cmguy used them about a dozen or a dozen and a half times at the start of this assessment, and is no longer using those templates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the fixed graphics. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]

Let me know when the above comments have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are referring to Ling, or, some other editor? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the comments by Ling – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh.Singh; Looks like its ready for your comments when you have some available time for this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 'Early life and education' section, both "Port Conway" and "prominent planter" links redirect to the same page.
  • There are 12 instances of 'However' in the article, and upon a closer inspection, there are a few ones we can get rid of. You might want to go through it one, just a suggestion.
  • We have a duplicate link to 'American Revolutionary War'. 'Treaty of Paris' has been linked twice in the same section.
  • 'Treaty of Paris' has been linked twice in the same section (American Revolution and Articles of Confederation).
  • " Madison was also a defender of federal veto rights and "pleaded at the Constitutional Convention that the federal government should possess a veto over state laws"." — There should be an inline mention of where this quotation comes from.
  • It indeed is, but what I really meant was if we can specify it the the prose itself, something like: "also a defender of federal veto rights and, according to author/historian ____", pleaded ...""
  • We generally need a non breaking space before the three ellipsis. See MOS:DOTDOTDOT
  • Do we really need 'See also: James Madison as Father of the Constitution' in the 'Bill of Rights' section, when that article has already been used as the "Main article" for a previous section.

Few more to come. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and Jay wrote the 85 essays that became known as The Federalist Papers in six months, with Madison writing 29 of them." — suggesting to rephrase it a bit, if that is possible.
  • the precise breakdown is 5 for Jay, 29 for Madison, and the rest for Hamilton. I'll adjust the wording which is summarized for Madison's 29 essays in the last sentence of that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the sentence. Added information, History.com source, and reference Madison authored 29 Federalist Papers in the third paragraph of the section, the last sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as leaders of the Democratic–Republican party" — correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't 'p' in 'party' be capitalized.
  • " he and Jefferson planned for Jefferson's campaign in the" — is there a way to avoid the repetition
  • "adjusted for inflation in 2021" — Do we have more recent approximation? Either way, suggesting to use {{Inflation}} instead.
  • Is there a reason for using the exact area in the image caption, but an approximated version in the article about the Louisiana Purchase?
  • I changed the square kilometers in the article to match the square kilometers in the photo caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the version used in the Infobox of the Louisiana Purchase article; that article also has a color coded version of the same map in the main body of the article which you might prefer. Ready to modify to either one if you have a preference. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Justice John Marshall" — we has already mentioned his full name earlier in the article
  • "administered the presidential oath of office to Madison while outgoing President Jefferson watched from a seat close by." — Isn't is common for the outgoing president to attend the successor's inauguration? Is if worth mentioning; just asking though.
  • Same with the inflated values of 2020.
  • Good work with the Slavery section

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ref 44 for p/pp error.
  • Check ref 78 for sfn

Fine work indeed. Happy to add my support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support on this. Gog the Mild, I'm happy to bring in Kavyansh edits today and tomorrow as needed; The comments from Ling above, however, are being auto-generated by a new app, and its unclear if this app has been approved for use at FAC. In the past automated apps for editing and article creation has been a mixed deal for Wikipedia. If you are approving the use of automated apps by Ling for this FAC, then could you ask him to provide the extended list of corrections he wants in a list which regular editors can service. Use of bots for editing and article creation is normally limited, and let me or Ling know what your decision is on these apparently automated edit requests. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wehwalt

[edit]

I don't have time to undertake a full review right now and this seems a very well-trodden FAC, but I was struck, regarding Madison's election to Congress in 1789, by "At Henry's behest, the Virginia legislature created congressional districts designed to deny Madison a seat." You might want to check, to the contrary, Hunter, Thomas Rogers (Fall 2011). "The first gerrymander? Patrick Henry, James Madison, James Monroe, and Virginia's 1788 congressional districting". Early American Studies. 9 (3): 781–820. JSTOR 23546676. Possibly the gerrymandering should not be stated as a definite fact in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can call it gerrymandering because the term was created in 1812 by Governor Elbridge Gerry who noticed one Senate district looked like a Salamander. The term did not exist in 1788, although the practice did. I have no issue with the link to Gerrymandering in the United States article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that Hunter concluded that Henry didn't try to gerrymander (to use that word) Madison out of a seat, that the district was compact, surrounded by natural borders such as the mountains, and wasn't overtly hostile to Madison, as it proved both in the congressional election and in the election for presidential electors, in which that district (with slightly different borders) was won by a Federalist each time. Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a form of the wording which you could suggest as an enhancement? The current version follows the Gary Wills account by citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you adapt the wording used in 1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election and mention both opinions. The third paragraph of "Selection of candidates" (one of my FAs from two or three years ago)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henry was a bitter opponent of Madison, so he "gerrymandered" Orange County with anti-federalists to defeat Madison. But Madison won because he wrote letters and was an excellent campaigner. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section paragraph could be written with clarification, possibly stressing Madison was a good campaigner, not even "gerrymandering" defeated him. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, your FA article does recognize that Henry was an Anti-Federalist who opposed Madison. Cmguy is stating that your source, Rodgers, appears to use the word 'gerrymandering' to apply to situations before the term was invented. Wills argues that Patrick did many things, including this one, to oppose Madison. Do you suggest modifying the gerrymandering sentence? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the paragraph section and added information and references. Hope that works. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources differ as to whether Henry "gerrymandered" the district with Anti-Federalists. Hunter says Henry did not, but it had to do with geography. It does not matter, the effect was the same. My National Archive said that Henry did. I went with that source. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's relevant when the word "gerrymandering" was first used if it is accurate to describe the situation. If this attitude were applied across the board we would have to rename the Armenian genocide article (despite overwhelming usage in RS) because the word "genocide" was only invented in 1943 or 1944. (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like Wehwalt has not updated the FA article at 1789 Virginia's 5th congressional district election to include the discussion of gerrymandering as a disputed topic for the Madison election. It seems useful to keep it in this Madison article as an example of one aspect of the contention between Henry and Madison regarding their Federalist positions. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure its Wehwalt who is the top editor of that page, and its usually up to the top editors of a Wikipedia page to decide if they want to put something on Talk there. Its really up to Wehwalt to decide whether to start Talk page there or not, its his option. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
  • This is looking close to done. However, in the bibliography some titles are in title case and some in sentence case. Could you put them all in title case - it doesn't matter how they appeared in the original - and ping me? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild: Thanks for those update edits which you did last night. All of the title cases where converted this morning to consistent format; there were about a dozen of them which are all listed in the edit history for the article. The article should be up to date now. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (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/James_Madison/archive2&oldid=1155393286"