Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Bill of Rights/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 11:43, 27 April 2008.
United States Bill of Rights[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Notes have been left for User talk:Kaisershatner, User talk:CapitalR, User talk:Dullfig, User talk: Mateo SA, User talk: Neutrality, User talk:UBeR, User talk:Msikma, User talk:JW1805 and User talk:Y.
- Notifying WikiProject Law and WikiProject United States via template. 69.140.152.55 (talk)
This article contains an {{Unreferencedsection}} template, which has been present for over a year now. If no references can be provided to support the unreferenced material, then the unreferenced material should be deleted to prevent copyright violation, and the article reclassified from Featured Article to good article.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have evidence that the section is a duplication of someone else’s words, and if so, whose? Lack of reference, especially for a cliche like Madison’s dependence on Locke, is not copyvio; it is close to the WP:WHEN condition of subject-specific common knowledge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I do not know whether it does or does not duplicate somebody else’s words. But I am not the one who put that tag in the article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag does not assert or suggest copyvio. It merely notes the lack of references; copyvio is your idea. If you can produce evidence, we must act, FA or no; if not, why bring it up? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, part of the reason that Wikipedia requires references is to detect and prevent copyvio. Inline and page references make it easier to determine whether a particular article is copyvio or is not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, 69.140, thanks for the note. To be honest, I think those are my words, and therefore not a copyvio, but citations would be useful in case I don't accurately recall my edits from two years ago (have been looking through the diffs but there are lots and lots). If I get a minute, I will go back to work on this subject. I realize my vague memory may not be enough to make you feel safe about the prose, but to the best of my knowledge it wasn't stolen; google it and see if it turns up somewhere in case I'm wrong, or I will when I get to it. I would hate to see this defeatured, so count me in for revisions.Kaisershatner (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please extend the initial FAR phase for a few weeks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, part of the reason that Wikipedia requires references is to detect and prevent copyvio. Inline and page references make it easier to determine whether a particular article is copyvio or is not. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag does not assert or suggest copyvio. It merely notes the lack of references; copyvio is your idea. If you can produce evidence, we must act, FA or no; if not, why bring it up? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I do not know whether it does or does not duplicate somebody else’s words. But I am not the one who put that tag in the article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all the statements are factually correct, it should not be hard to provide reliable sources to reference from. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Uber. The article was initially done very well, so it has all the necessary components and just isn't quite up to the referencing we expect nowadays for such topics. This is such an important article that we should definitely rally the troops and get it back to sparkling. As motivation for constitution nerds, here's the greatest story ever written about something in the Bill of Rights: Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year --JayHenry (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a standard source on Locke and the Revolution. This should now be moot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Uber. The article was initially done very well, so it has all the necessary components and just isn't quite up to the referencing we expect nowadays for such topics. This is such an important article that we should definitely rally the troops and get it back to sparkling. As motivation for constitution nerds, here's the greatest story ever written about something in the Bill of Rights: Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year --JayHenry (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist lacks citations and there is all sorts of formatting all over the place. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain Sole referencing concern long since dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain - The only problem I see is consistent ref formats, which can be fixed fairly easily. Happyme22 (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of work needed before this article can be kept. The lead doesn't conform to WP:LEAD and there are problems with section headings. Citations aren't correctly or consistently formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). There are four different kinds of WP:DASHes in the article, including a confusing misuse of a hyphen where a dash is probably intended (indicating a careful copyedit is needed, I was trying to figure out what a made-one is): Fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights were made-one for the Federal Government and one for each of the thirteen states. External links dominate the TOC. Dates are not consistently formatted/linked in the article (See WP:MOSDATE). More substantially, there is uncited hard data (See Ratification process). Not ready to keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—oh lordy, this is a problem article. Everywhere I look there are issues. Just a few examples:
- "The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory." I didn't notice that the Bill of Rights offered much protection to the rights of African-Americans—not last time I looked at US history. The statement is, in effect, massively POV.
- The government should not have the power of suspending or executing laws, "without consent of the representatives of the people,".[19]—Punctuation indigestion. And there are "logical punctuation" breaches elsewhere. More seriously, this statement looks as though it's in WP's voice, until you squint and see that the previous para leads into it in a certain way.
- Spaced em dash: MOS breach.
- English Bill of Rights: make punctuation consistent.
- Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights: I can't make out who, where, what here in this choppy, peculiar section.
- Overall, not well-enough written: 1a. Tony (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Substantial issues remain. Along with the problems noted, the lead is too large, the body over-relies on lists and quotes, and the ToC is overwhelming considering this isn't a large article. Not much happening. Removing. Marskell (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.