Talk:Secure Federal File Sharing Act

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Thought on use of references; article improvement

Hello, I have noticed that most of the paragraphs in this article have multiple references. On Wikipedia, unlike in Academia, we prefer if the references are for every line/sentence. For some more examples, you can see Wikipedia:Footnotes.Sadads (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Help:Footnotes, Sadads (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one sentence that has four references. Do you need all four references for this paragraph? That seems excessive. Can you cut it down to the best two? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two of the references that weren't necessary; I initially included them as specific evidence of the "sensitive leaks", but they can be found by following several of the other references mentioned as well. I also tried to split the references up between the sentences more, let me know what you two think. Lance of Longinus (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, although I haven't read most of these sources myself, so I am assuming that you have moved them so that the particular cite supports the text immediately before it. I just gave the article a read and embedded some hidden questions for you all - you can see them by clicking on the edit tab and looking for text that looks like this: . I also made some edits based on what I thought you were trying to say. If I misunderstood, please revise and explain further or clarify. You need to expand the Process section to explain what has happened so far in the Senate and Senate committee. Are there any updates? What has the Senate done since March? Did the report described in the next section affect their deliberations? Is the EFF the only third party that has commented on the bill? Good work, all. The article is coming along. Best regards, User:Ssilvers, 24 November 2010

Updated the Senate progress so far. There is very little information on the companion bill available beyond thomas.loc.gov. I updated the responses I could find to the report, but there was again very little beyond reciting the statistics and not much third party insight I could find either. Will keep updating as I find more, and thanks for the revisions and help Ssilvers and Sadads. Lance of Longinus (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the information about what the Hughes Hubbard lawyer blog speculates. It's not really encyclopedic, and it's too general - often, something that affects one sector may establish a "best practice" for the business community in general, but it hasn't happened yet, and the speculation seems terribly premature. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice how repetitive parts of the article seem in terms of a few specific facts (ie, when it was introduced, and some other facts that are in the article at least twice) Is this an issue? -- Klcai (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you be more specific? Everything that is in the intro section MUST be repeated in the text below, because the intro is basically a summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD. Or did you mean something else? Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense & explains it. Thanks! Klcai (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on clarity

While reading the article again, a point on clarity came up:

In "Purpose and description" you mention "within the past year" which doesn't mean a whole lot for someone that reads the article a year from now.

Otherwise, thought, the article is written rather well. Overall, I am a little surprised that there were not more opinions on it by either Representatives or Senators, but the strong pass it got in both houses makes that a little less surprising. You might want to see if there are any more useful opinions, Sadads (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]