User:Matthew.meyers5/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Roger Sherman

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I completed a year-long research project on Roger Sherman at the constitutional convention. This gives me some level of expertise on his life, particularly his time at the Constitutional Convention. He is an under appreciated historical figure, often portrayed as nothing more than a puritan, but he was very politically adept and one of the greatest compromisers in American history. My preliminary impression is that the article is generally comprehensive, but there are a few missing citations and there are some elements that could be more well written.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The Lead Section is generally very strong. The lead sentence identifies a few key distinctive characteristics of Roger Sherman, ideal for a biographical entry. The following sentence identifies his strongest legacy: his signing of the four American founding papers. The rest of the lead section is essentially a brief biography. While this section is good, it should probably encompass more of the main sections of the article. For example, the marriages and family section and the legacy section are both unrepresented in the lead section. The section as a whole strikes the right balance between being concise and detailed. While I do suggest adding information from the legacy section and the marriages and family section, the editor should be careful not to create any glut with this addition.

Content

The content of this article is unevenly distributed over the article. The sections on his legal career and his time at the Constitutional Convention are both thorough, but the other sections are quite lacking. The section on quotes and his legacy in particular are very weak. There is no particular reason why the one quotation listed is the only one. It does not seem to be particularly significant and it is awkward as a stand-alone section. Stronger quotes may come from his time as a delegate to the constitutional convention, for example. He wrote several essays in defense of The Constitution which may be fodder for more significant quotations. As the architect of the great compromise, he is bound to have several good quotations explaining or defending it. I know of one that might be of use where he explains in the late 1770s that things should be put to the people and to the states, essentially foreshadowing his position on the great compromise. In the case that an editor is not able to find a selection of more meaningful quotes, I recommend that the section be deleted altogether. The section on legacy is also awkwardly short. There are certainly more elements to his legacy than just one town named after him. Aside from other namesakes (if they do exist), the section could give a brief explanation of the lasting effects of the great compromise or any other political stance of his. I would also recommend deleting this section and moving the information to another section if someone is not able to add to it.

The only missing knowledge that I am aware of is that there is nothing on his brief time in politics following the constitutional convention. More glaringly, it is missing anything describing his time drafting the Declaration of Independence, signing the Articles of Confederation, or as a member of the Continental Congress. The most comprehensive portion of the article is on his time at the constitutional convention, although some details about the adoption of the Great Compromise are glossed over. Overall, I would most strongly recommend changing the legacy and quotations section of the article. I would also recommend devoting more time to his drafting of the Declaration of Independence and to his contribution to the adoption, not just the ideation, of the great compromise.

Tone

Overall, the tone of the article is fair and balanced; however, I will emphasize a few specific sections that I believe could be rewritten in a more neutral way:

"He is not well known for his actions at the Convention because he was a 'terse, ineloquent speaker' who never kept a personal record of his experience, unlike other prominent figures at the convention such as James Madison" — It is biased to say that he is not well known for his actions at the Convention. There is sizable scholarship about his contributions and many historians consider him at or near the top tier of contributors to the convention. It is reasonable to say that he was considered an ineloquent speaker by many of his contemporaries, but an editor should not construe this as him being not well known for his actions at the Convention. This sentence also directly contradicts the previous sentence that calls him one of the most influential members of the convention.

"His opponent Madison made motions or seconds 177 times." — I would not use the word opponent to describe Madison. While they certainly disagreed on many issues, the word opponent implies that they were consistently adversarial. Rephrasing this as "Madison, in comparison, made motions or seconds 177 times."

"Sherman was from a particularly isolationist state" — This is a bit subjective. The rest of the paragraph is factual, but would be better prefaced by saying something along the lines of "At the convention, Connecticut was primarily concerned with protecting its commercial interests."

Sources and References

This article is missing many sources. Outside of the section on the Constitutional Convention, most sections are missing most sources. Of the sources that are present, they seem to be taken from good scholarly books and articles; however, there are a few primary source citations that should be replaced with reliable secondary sources where possible.

Organizational and Writing Quality

The article's organization could be improved by more clearly delineating the sections on his early life and his legal career. The two sections seem to meld together. I would recommend splitting the career section into a section on his career path and a section on his political contributions. Anything from either the early life section or the career section that talks about his practice of law or any of the other jobs (ie treasurer of Yale) he held would go here. Meanwhile, anything referring to his contributions to the public sector (except for the constitutional convention which has its own section) would go in a political career section. This would provide room to discuss his contributions to the Declaration of Independence and his career in federal politics under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. This reorganization could also make these sections, which are quite choppy right now, more smooth. A similar edit to make the Constitutional Convention section more cohesive would also be beneficial.

Images and Media

The chosen images are good and well-captioned, but they could be staggered between the right side of the page and the left side of the page to make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Talk Page Discussions

The article has been rated C-class and is in a series on the Constitution, Connecticut, the US Congress, United States History, and United States Government and Politics Biography.

The talk section is primarily concerned with correcting errors and unsourced claims. It has addressed the issue with the quotations section that I have addressed earlier in my review.

Overall Impressions

This article is passable, but could be greatly improved by increasing the fluency of the writing and the organization of the article. The short sections should be improved or deleted and the overall organizational structure should be overhauled with more care. The article is not entirely underdeveloped, but it could be expanded in key areas, particularly anything besides the section on the constitutional convention.