Aaron Burr was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2004, May 22, 2005, July 11, 2005, May 22, 2006, and February 19, 2015.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
@Ali Beary: It looks like you've only written 3% of this article, according to Xtools. Although you have made some constructive edits, they do not make up a substantial amount of the article, so you may need some more work before nominating it as your own GA. As such, I have removed the GA nomination as a drive-by nomination (see the nomination instructions). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)04:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article and confirm that it meets the good article criteria - the sources look good and reliable, it is well-written, neutral and verifiable. There are images throughout the article where appropriate. I loved how they even put a picture of Leslie Odom Jr. as Burr in Hamilton - I'd have never thought to put that in there. Congratulations, @Ali Beary! G o m m e h19:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GommehGaming101 @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: This review wasn't conducted properly; you need to check the sources to see if they see match the content in the article. The concerns about the drive-by nomination also haven't been resolved - in an edge case like this, you really do need to get talk page consensus for something like this before you nominate it, @Ali Beary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Beary is in the top 5 authors for this article, having made a significant number of edits toward it, and I did spot check the sources as required and saw nothing wrong with them. G o m m e h20:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima I agree that the review wasn't conducted properly (sadly...), but what do you mean by 'talk page consesus'? I'm in the top 3 of authors now, and my % of added content is growing by the day. The person who originally called it a drive-by nomination (@Vigilantcosmicpenguin) hasn't responded to me yet, so I don't know if he approves or does not approve of me nominating the article... (I hope this makes sense.) Ali Beary(talk!)13:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about the procedure for removing a GA nom, but I believe that, like Generalissima said, this is an edge case. On this article, you are the #3 author, but your edits mostly involve adding citations, reorganization, and removing content; you have not authored many of the statements in the article. So I think you still have some work to do before you can nominate this as a GA; as JackFromWisconsin said, there are some issues you might need to fix first. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)19:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin I'm the #2 author now and I have authored a lot more statements. This includes quotes, stuff he did as senate, info about his family life, and other subjects. Please check again and see if my work appears good enough for me to be allowed to be the GA nominator. :) Ali Beary(talk!)01:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it looks like you've done solid work verifying citations and stuff. You can certainly nominate it for GA. Thanks for your work on this article; regardless of whether your GA nomination passes, you've done a good amount of work about an important subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)03:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead needs some reworking. Saying he is remembered for a single event when he did many things to shape the US is problematic (including being vice president). On top of the way that this statement impacts the balance of the lead it is problematic to say remembered like this because WP:WTW and it begs by whom?Burr is remembered for his famous is also just bad writing if someone is remembered for events 200 years ago then the events are famous.
I think the lead balance is also disturbed by As a New York assemblyman in 1785, he supported a bill to end slavery, despite having owned slaves himself. The body only discusses this in a single sentence.
This highlights the lack of coverage on his first term in the New York assembly the only statement is about his unsuccessful bill and no discussion of what he did do or who he ran against.
@Czarking0! Glad to see you again! I'll get to work on these. Thank you.
For the last point you mentioned, it means what it appears to be. In 1797, Burr spoke out against Washington's foreigner policy. Do you believe it needs to be reworded? Ali Beary(talk!)17:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More on the foreigner policy is probably in Washington's actual farewell address and on his page. I can't find any sources that say what parts he opposed. The reliable source I found just states he opposed it. Nothing more.
I unfortunately can find practically no detail of his time in the New York assembly despite the unsuccessful bill... (except from a generally unreliable source.) Ali Beary(talk!)12:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like he was using his state assembly power to help make the Manhattan Company. Dirty Water April 1st 2020 in Financial History describes how Burr used the committee process to atypically pass the charter. This source also pushes back on Chernow's malaria claim with a claim that the epidemic was yellow fever. Czarking0 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a near-incident with Spanish forces at Natchitoches, Wilkinson decided he could best serve his conflicting interests by betraying Burr's plans to his Spanish spymasters and to President Jefferson. Jefferson issued an order for Burr's arrest, declaring him a traitor before any indictment. Burr read this in a newspaper in the Territory of Orleans on January 10, 1807. Jefferson's warrant put federal agents on his trail. Burr twice turned himself in to federal authorities, and both times judges found his actions legal and released him. It is unclear here what Wilkinson's conflicting interest was and what exactly he portrayed to others (on separate accounts?). I also presume that this is an important supreme court case for precedent and should be discussed exactly with a bluetext? Czarking0 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a small portion of extra info on the contemporary coverage, though I'm not sure I correctly pinged you. Furthermore, mind explaining what a "bluetext" is? I'm a bit unsure as to what you mean, @Czarking0. Ali Beary(talk!)13:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find what it meant by conflicting interests, so I changed it to "protect himself". I found that he was afraid to get caught up in the mix if his involvement was revealed, so he told on Burr in an attempt to not get in trouble for his actions. Ali Beary(talk!)14:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a little more focus on the contemporary coverage would not hurt. Here is some material to support
Burr conspiracy was played out, and in large measure constructed, in the public sphere. Beginning with the eight "Queries" published in the United States Gazette on 27 July 1805, and continuing through the incendiary essays on the Blount and Burr conspiracies in the Western World, Harman Blen nerhassett's 1806 essays in the Ohio Gazette, and the subsequent publication of Burr's numerous trials, newspapers offered the nation a two-year diet of claims and counter claims about the vice president's designs. As was typical of the period, these accounts passed freely from journal to jour nal, creating a wide pool of allegations. A report from a correspondent on Burr's "perplex[ing]" "scheme," for example, appearing in the Connecticut Journal early in 1807, was datelined "Washington City" and extracted from the Richmond Enquirer, a bastion of Burr speculation, by way of New York City (23 Jan. 1807). Readers in remote Cooperstown, New York, could absorb the "Rumor[s\" of Burr's activities from reports in the Alexandria Expositor and the Tennessee Observer (Otsego Herald, 20 Nov. 1806). All fed themselves on news from the Philadelphia Aurora, the Louisiana Gazette, and Jefferson's National Intelligencer. In an era when few events on the fron tier could hold national attention for long, Burr's activities remained cur rent for months on end. His very audacity fed and sustained the nation's appetite for speculation.[1]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
