Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Senate/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 08:20, 29 November 2007.
United States Senate[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia, User:Lord Emsworth, and User:Jersyko
Article promoted in 2005 and is no longer up to standard. Only eight citations for a long article and three of them are to news websites. Violation of 1c. Nice long list of books in the bibliography, but none of them are cited. --RelHistBuff 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removeper nom. History secton mentions "Framers of the Constitution" but doesn't specify who these people are and it also treats them as having a unanimous opinion on a bicameral Congress (which may or may not be true). The term President pro tempore isn't defined until after it has been used a few times. Legislative functions section contains an uncited quote. T Rex | talk 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good impulse, but this is the review part of the Featured Article Review, we are trying to fix it, we aren't yet voting on whether it should be removed. Judgesurreal777 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a rehash of the claims made against United States Congress in its FAR and ultimate removal. The featured article criteria do not mandate inline citation. FAR 2c states that inline citations should be used "where appropriate." Where the article can be improved, it should be, but to recommend removing an articles featured status based on the lack of inline citations is not good policy. Only those facts in dispute or require clarification should need direct citation. IMO, adding inline citations for every statement or sentence in the article would detract from the article.
As far as shortcomings and lack of detail, this is meant to be an overview article. There are links to History of the United States Senate (which gets at the Connecticut Compromise and other workings of the constitutional convention and other related articles to provide more detail where appropriate.Dcmacnut 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The US Senate procedures are known to be arcane. So this section should be well-cited as a lot of hearsay could easily creep in. The Woodrow Wilson quote is missing a cite. As I said above, a big list of sources are provided and none of them seem to be used. If this article were to be submitted to FAC now, it would obviously not pass. --RelHistBuff 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 18:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove: As above. Nothing has been done. --RelHistBuff 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c, no progress. Jay32183 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 2c - not enough inline citations and lack of standard citation formatting.--Sir Anon 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My arguments and the fact that FAC does not require in-line citations 100% of the time keep falling on deaf ears. The article will probably still be removed, but I don't want to leave the impression that there is no support for keeping it.Dcmacnut 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong retain "Where appropriate" is, however, defined by WP:WHEN, to which the phrase quoted links. Much of this is subject specific common knowledge, or the summary of more detailed articles, which are grounds for exceptions. Much of it is also clearly and expressly cited by the text itself. (For one of many examples, "Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for senators" would not be improved by repeating the reference in a footnote.) Examples of statements that are both "challenged or likely to be challenged" and for which no source is clearly indicated would have been both actionable and helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject specific common knowledge refers to things that lay people familiar with the topic recognize as true. That is not the case with the majority of this article. Jay32183 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the U.S. Senate would understand the majority of this article. The extensive citations listed at the bottom provide sufficient sourcing for the article for anyone who wishes to learn more about the topic. The majority of the article is concise and lacks the "surprising" or "contentious" factor that would require in-line citations.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't whether they would be able to understand the article, it is whether they would already know the information. You shouldn't be thinking of reasons not to use citations. Citations are a good thing. Please read why we should cite sources, which your arguments indicate you have never read. If readers are reading something for the first time, they need to be able to find out where that information came from. Jay32183 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying citations are a bad thing, but WP:CS is a guideline and says there can be exceptions. As I indicated, the article has citations, they just aren't in-line. Just as there is a problem with no citations, there is a equally, and in my mind, bigger problem with too many citations. Every sentence in an article does not need a citation, and an overview article like United States Senate which provides links to more detailed wiki articles does not need to be as extensively cited (with inline citations) as some may prefer, since the sources at the bottom are adequate for further research and the more detailed articles with more archane history should be cited in more detail. Too many inline citations detracts from the readability of the article. Moreover, some of the best sources to cite aren't available on-line. Why is an in-line citation so essential, when a reader who "needs to be able to find out where that information came from" can look at the bibliography? Last I checked the sources listed in the article indicate which sections or paragraphs to which they relate.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the sources are available online or not is irrelelvant to the need for citations. With regards to readability I don't see your point with regards to this article - it is undercited not over-cited, and is definitely not cluttered with citations, nor would it be if it had a dozen more. I've seen FAs with over 100 citations that were not cluttered, this one has 14. The assorted sources at the bottom are not adequate, please see as examples the places where SandyGeorgia has inserted citation requests. If I want to find out where the information came from, I cannot practically do this - you cannot rasonably expect the reader to sift through all those references at the bottom.--Sir Anon (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying citations are a bad thing, but WP:CS is a guideline and says there can be exceptions. As I indicated, the article has citations, they just aren't in-line. Just as there is a problem with no citations, there is a equally, and in my mind, bigger problem with too many citations. Every sentence in an article does not need a citation, and an overview article like United States Senate which provides links to more detailed wiki articles does not need to be as extensively cited (with inline citations) as some may prefer, since the sources at the bottom are adequate for further research and the more detailed articles with more archane history should be cited in more detail. Too many inline citations detracts from the readability of the article. Moreover, some of the best sources to cite aren't available on-line. Why is an in-line citation so essential, when a reader who "needs to be able to find out where that information came from" can look at the bibliography? Last I checked the sources listed in the article indicate which sections or paragraphs to which they relate.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read it, some time since; it has not acquired anything requiring us to use footnotes where we do not need them. It does not say, and should not, "No footnotes bad; more footnotes good." A list of instances, or a scattering of warranted {{cn}} tags, would be a contribution to the encyclopedia. I have seen no information in this article that I had any doubt where it came from; but I await enlightenment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't whether they would be able to understand the article, it is whether they would already know the information. You shouldn't be thinking of reasons not to use citations. Citations are a good thing. Please read why we should cite sources, which your arguments indicate you have never read. If readers are reading something for the first time, they need to be able to find out where that information came from. Jay32183 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the U.S. Senate would understand the majority of this article. The extensive citations listed at the bottom provide sufficient sourcing for the article for anyone who wishes to learn more about the topic. The majority of the article is concise and lacks the "surprising" or "contentious" factor that would require in-line citations.Dcmacnut (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you subscribe to WP:WHEN, direct quotes, hard data, and opinion need to be cited. They are not in this article. I just cited hard data in the lead, no less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject specific common knowledge refers to things that lay people familiar with the topic recognize as true. That is not the case with the majority of this article. Jay32183 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. I cleaned up what MOS issues I could, and cited what I could,[1] but there are citation needs, and the article appears abandoned. Ah, Pmanderson, since you see nothing you doubt, perhaps you can locate the info in the tags I added, because I couldn't. Please do cite the article. Also, what Dcmacnut refers to as "extensive citations listed at the bottom" looks like a farm that needs pruning. It's hard to believe this article requires all those sources, and they are more than our readers should have to sort through to locate Woodrow Wilson's quote, which is nowhere in a reliable source on the net. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wilson quote is from Congressional Government, the work by Wilson cited in the notes. (p. 156, editio citata.). It took me less time to find it than to type this note. I recommend that the competence displayed in this criticism be taken into account when deciding the fate of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the list of sources looks like a quite reasonable set of books out of which to write this article. I do not happen to have them in front of me, and am having to find more difficult sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should really tone down the personal attacks, PMA, and since you can find the sources so easily, by all means, do cite the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PMA, please don't add ref tags which refer to non-reliable sources. This article needs to be sourced, not by referring to other articles. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't confuse convenience links with references; the work cited was the American Dictionary of National Biography, a reliable source, the last I looked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that information (American Dictionary of National Biography) helps; citing Wiki articles doesn't. PMA has now cited some of the article, so others might want to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No wikipedia article was ever cited. I would appreciate retraction of this repeated falsehood. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding that information (American Dictionary of National Biography) helps; citing Wiki articles doesn't. PMA has now cited some of the article, so others might want to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't confuse convenience links with references; the work cited was the American Dictionary of National Biography, a reliable source, the last I looked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PMA, please don't add ref tags which refer to non-reliable sources. This article needs to be sourced, not by referring to other articles. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should really tone down the personal attacks, PMA, and since you can find the sources so easily, by all means, do cite the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this sentence as needing gender neutralization; PMA removed my inline comment. Can someone (Tony) please fix this? In United States Senate#Committees:
- Now, committee chairmen are in theory elected, but in practice, seniority is very rarely bypassed. The chairman's powers are extensive; he controls the committee's agenda, and may prevent the committee from approving a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are not usually as forcible in exerting their influence than the autocratic chairment of the past.
- I also tagged the last sentence as needing a citation, but PMA removed that tag as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, Sandy, don't read so carelessly. I provided sources for the entire paragraph of which this is part, (except the detail on Vice Chairmen, which is unlikely to challenged by an honest editor). The relevant page for committee chairmen is p. 44. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also tagged the last sentence as needing a citation, but PMA removed that tag as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove unless properly referenced (1c). I bristle when I see unsupported sweeping statements such as this, relying for its logical causality on the middle clause "the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms". I'm unconvinced of the connections, and as a visitor to WP, I'd want authoritative references for them.
The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegial and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House.
There's a clear distinction between (1) statements that are derived from, say, the Consitution, and facts that are unlikely to be contested (two senators per state), and (2) what could be opinion or historical conjecture. For example, when I see "intended" and "desire", I want ot be reassured that this is not the result of a WPian's putting words in the minds/mouths of historical figures.
The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress out of a desire to have two houses to be accountable to each other. One house was intended to be a "people's house" that would be sensitive to public opinion. The other house was intended
It's most unsatisfactory in this respect. The prose could be cleaned up a little: why do we have "most significantly" twice in the last sentence of the lead? I haven't read the rest: let me know when it's been properly edited and referenced, if that happens in time to save it. Tony (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is in fact a cliche, "subject-specific common knowledge," to use our cliche. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment concerning Sandy's query above: I've reworded the passage, but would like just a little more detail about the extraordinary situation where a chairman can prevent the passing of legislation or the approval of a presidential nominee. Surely this is an indirect consequence. Can someone explain how this power is exercised?
The chairman's powers are extensive, and include the control of the committee's agenda and the prevention of committee approval of a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are not usually as forcible in exerting their influence as the autocratic chairmen of the past.
And again, I don't believe the claim about "modern" chairmen (what is modern, anyway? Post-war? Provide references, please, or this will remain a shabby attempt at historical authority). Tony (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While the source presently cited is not specific, the period referred to began between 1960, when Lyndon Johnson left the Senate, and the reforms of 1974, after Watergate. The chairman's power consisted of his power to speak for his party member, and in practice decide what they (a majority of the committee) would vote, and to speak for the committee as a whole. It was never impossible to buck the committee chairmen; but it made it very difficult for the Senator who did so to obtain anything for his State. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you wind that into the text? It seems important to unpack for our readers what is otherwise an impenetrable process. Is there not a good reference for Senate practice? There is such a text for Australian Senate practice (Odgers, I think). Tony (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do; but I didn't write the article, and it's not my field. One problem is that much of this is no longer Senate practice; another is that I'm going on vacation this week. This is doubtless one of the things Emsworth derived from all the lives of committee chairmen listed in the references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you wind that into the text? It seems important to unpack for our readers what is otherwise an impenetrable process. Is there not a good reference for Senate practice? There is such a text for Australian Senate practice (Odgers, I think). Tony (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all the work everyone on both sides have made on the article, and I understand the views of those calling for greater citation. I have abstained from making sweeping changes to the article since as a former Senate employee, I am too close to the subject. I simply "know" what is true and what is not true regarding the Senate, but am not in a good enough position to find supporting sources (lack of a decent library in my area and lack of sufficient on-line sources). A lot of the statements that people are questioning, to me, are merely a given or a reasonable inference for someone with my Senate background. Were I do undertake significant edits, they could inadvertantly be interpreted as POV. My only goal in this endeavor is to ensure a critical look at the article as a whole. In general, I still think it is a quality article deserving of Featured Status, in spite of its perceived shortcomings in the way of citations.Dcmacnut (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, which modern committee chairmen compare to Johnson or Robinson or Long? I was forced to edit that caveat out because the source I was consulting did not explicitly support it, but it would be easier to check with a name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If PMA is going away, Dcmacnut, you are the ideal person to add citations. It can't be hard to distance yourself from the topic and empathise with the poor readers who know little about it. Citations are a must for many assertions and assumptions made in this article. I'm beginning to think that it should be delisted and then renominated after fixed. It's a good article in many ways, so shouldn't have too much trouble with citations. Tony (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.