Wikipedia:Featured article review/Article One of the United States Constitution/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:42, 30 September 2007.

---

Article One of the United States Constitution

Review commentary

Left note at User talk:Lord Emsworth, Wikiproject Spoken Word, and Wikiproject U.S. Congress.

This article needs in-line citations of references, currently has very few. Judgesurreal777 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hachy machy! ONE external jump within the text, ZERO foonotes, ONE reference (that is not actually cited), and FOUR external links. That's... well, that's bad. I can't imagine this is a salvagable FA without more improvement than could possibly done, even if a few hard-core editors were given a month (or more) to do it. -- Kicking222 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c, no progress since FAR began. Jay32183 19:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Per above.--Yannismarou 11:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The failure to recognize citation through attribution (in this case to Article One itself and the Supreme Court cases cited) is appalling. Nothing says that in-line citation must be a footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still unjustifiably wasting Wikipedia's time I see PMAnderson, which actually is the only appalling thing here. Like I've said time and time again, if you have a problem with the criteria then go to WP:FA? and stop making a petty nuisance here. LuciferMorgan 09:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am applying the criteria, as written and as intended. Prose attribution is a form of inline citation, which fulfills every purpose of verifiability. Please do not render FA a laughingstock, as GA is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2c says to use consistent formatting using either Harvard citations or footnotes when giving attribution to sources. Jay32183 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of a grand sweep in the lead, we get boring details about clauses amending other clauses before after section preclude imposed by article five blah blah.
• Indeed, references are essential for such statements as "The principle that Congress cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government (e.g. to the Executive) is known as the nondelegation doctrine." That's not in the consitution.
• Who is the intended audience? Is this meant to be read in conjuction with a reading of the US Constitution? What exactly does it add? Why not just read the Constitution, which is pretty short and easy?
• Doesn't explain basic things like "the Executive", which a schoolkid or foreigner—probably many American adults, too—need to be told is the Presidency.
• "The House is often referred to as the "lower house" of Congress—the phrase reflects similar terminology employed when referring to the two Houses of the British Parliament, the "upper" House of Lords and the "lower" House of Commons—but the powers of the House of Representatives are roughly equivalent to that of the Senate." What a jumble. And I disagree that the powers are roughly equivalent. The "but" is a problem.
• Reference list totally inadequate; so is the list of external links.

Put it out of its misery now. Tony (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.