Talk:Republicanism, U.S.: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis ({{subpages9}}) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (rmv old checklist) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages9}} | {{subpages9}} | ||
== authorship == | == authorship == | ||
Revision as of 08:46, 12 September 2007
authorship
this version is entirely by CZ editor Richard Jensen, who wrote the Wiki article under "Rjensen". Richard Jensen 15:13, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Outstanding
I am not certain what the process for this is, but this essay is a real jewel and clearly the tightly crafted product of a single author, even without the note above. It is hard for me to see how any additional contributions by others could improve it, and therefore I would like to nominate it as an authored piece (perhaps tied in someway into the more generic, multi-authored Republicanism entry.)
After making a few copy-editing changes and a couple of questions, I intend to nominate this article for approval as an authored piece.
- One question for the author is - in the historiography section, is it possible to state briefly the positions of the Cambridge School and the St. Louis School?
- My only other question is whether it would be possible for the author to write a brief concluding paragraph? Things just sort of stop currently, and while the discordant Bush-Kerry exchange is suitably and appropriately neutral, its location so near the end and the trivial partisan bickering it reminds us of sort of ends this wonderful piece on a sour note.
Roger Lohmann 21:26, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- hey thanks! I'll work of the two very good suggestions. Richard Jensen 21:57, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
I agree this article is one of a kind. Makes me want to home school my kids ;-) I'd just let them read Richards work! --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:44, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- Roger, you are meaning as a signed article, as a subpaged article, right? Assuming yes, of which article would it be subpage? You said Republicanism, but perhaps United States Government?
- Richard, for what its worth, I agree this is indeed a very interesting essay in that vein.
- —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:46, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
- it's designed as an encyclopedia article, and would not work as well as a signed article--it's not structured as an essay. Richard Jensen 22:58, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
Agree it is not an essay of the 'Signed article' that I envision. It is definitely an overview type article that can be linked to and expounded on just because of it's broad range, so in that vein it is more of a 'first exposure' or 'main article'. --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:27, 12 September 2007 (CDT)