Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive2
USA PATRIOT Act, Title II[edit]
OK, I've actually had a peer review AND a FAC before on this article (see Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive2. I have expanded considerably, and I'm a now documenting commentary of the Title (I am currently documenting what the EFF have to say about it - I gotta say, I'm not that impressed and actually wonder if they've read the darn thing... but I digress). I'm asking for a status check. Please note that at the time of writing it is about 63KB and growing, so I'm well aware that I'm going to have to start splitting sections soon (I really don't know how I'm going to do this...). What do people think? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- there are sub-sections that are stubs. I don't really think that analyzing every single section is needed... It just gets unencyclopedic (and gets closer to original research). In my view, encyclopedic is an overview (summary) highlighting most important/controversial parts, discussing impact/reactions and showing different views (supporters and opposers). So I suggest switching focus a bit from analyzing sections to social impact. Renata3 20:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem, however, is that if I don't describe some of the sections then important information will be missing. Which sections shouldn't be included? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do you really want me to read the whole thing??? :) But in any case, I did not suggest deleting anything, just maybe trimming down to the point. Just shift focus to discussing the impact from making a summary of the law. Right now if feels more like a technical summary for lawyers (this paragraph was included there and there, and this one was removed) or as if you tried to re-write the whole act in simple English (brave undertaking, I should say :D). And do that for every single one of them.... Aghr... I know it's easy, but is it really needed? Better discuss what impact it had. I bet most of the sections are really formal things no one cares about. There are of course a couple that created the whole fuss. And I believe those should stand out and get lost among other stuff. Does it help? Renata3 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- :P Actually, that's precisely what I tried to do. What I'm trying to do is explain the Act in plain English. The structure is as follows: lead section with what Act is and main points, then broad summary of most important parts, then commentary on the Act, then explanation of each section for those who want to know more. Some of the section summaries might be a little technical, in this case we may in fact need to make them simpler! IANAL, incidently.
- For Title II, however, there is almost no sections that are formal things that noone cares about. Almost every single one of them have been commented on, and even those with little commentary are still quite important. However, I understand what you mean by sections getting lost: I think that this is dealt with a two-fold approach: 1) the broad summary at the top explains these important sections, and 2) the commentary section also highlights the sections everyone comments on.
- What I'm trying to do is get comprehensive articles together about each of the titles. Once this is done, I aim to sort out the main article, which IMO is not terribly good. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then I ask if CliffsNotes are encyclopedic? My answer would be: not really. I don't know about yours. But whatever you do, try to organize it better. Somehow I get lost once I open the article. Renata3 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I believe that you are talking about two seperate genres. Cliffs Notes deals with fictional literature, this article deals with a legal document. Out of interest, what is the problem with the structure? You can get a broad grasp of the Act by just reading the lead section and section 1's summary. You don't have to read further if you don't want, however to explain what the Act actually says, IMO you need to have summaries of each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- It just occured to me that I misread you. Are you referring to the overall structure of the article, or the structure of the section that deals with the individual sections? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I believe that you are talking about two seperate genres. Cliffs Notes deals with fictional literature, this article deals with a legal document. Out of interest, what is the problem with the structure? You can get a broad grasp of the Act by just reading the lead section and section 1's summary. You don't have to read further if you don't want, however to explain what the Act actually says, IMO you need to have summaries of each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, then I ask if CliffsNotes are encyclopedic? My answer would be: not really. I don't know about yours. But whatever you do, try to organize it better. Somehow I get lost once I open the article. Renata3 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do you really want me to read the whole thing??? :) But in any case, I did not suggest deleting anything, just maybe trimming down to the point. Just shift focus to discussing the impact from making a summary of the law. Right now if feels more like a technical summary for lawyers (this paragraph was included there and there, and this one was removed) or as if you tried to re-write the whole act in simple English (brave undertaking, I should say :D). And do that for every single one of them.... Aghr... I know it's easy, but is it really needed? Better discuss what impact it had. I bet most of the sections are really formal things no one cares about. There are of course a couple that created the whole fuss. And I believe those should stand out and get lost among other stuff. Does it help? Renata3 22:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem, however, is that if I don't describe some of the sections then important information will be missing. Which sections shouldn't be included? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, cliffsnotes might be dealing with literature, but the principle is the same: re-tell the plot in simple language. Anyway, I was talking about the whole article structure. For some reason (I can't pintpoint anything specific, so weird) it is confusing. Maybe there should be more second level headings... Actually, I just saw your goal on USA PATRIOT Act that you want to summarize it... Ah, well, I can't stop you now, can I? So just remember (1) don't get too technical (you don't want to put every single rule and exception mentioned in the act, do you?) and (2) remember to include what it really means in the real world (its impact, why it is seen as good/bad by supporters/opposers). And just a disclaimer: I HATE politics ;) Renata3 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, I hate politics too! I'm not having a go at what you're saying, and I don't suspect you're saying it because of any political alleigances. I agree that we need to add the impact in the real world, I didn't really think of adding such a section but I can see a way of adding this. I am adding material on the various important commentators of the Act, though. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, cliffsnotes might be dealing with literature, but the principle is the same: re-tell the plot in simple language. Anyway, I was talking about the whole article structure. For some reason (I can't pintpoint anything specific, so weird) it is confusing. Maybe there should be more second level headings... Actually, I just saw your goal on USA PATRIOT Act that you want to summarize it... Ah, well, I can't stop you now, can I? So just remember (1) don't get too technical (you don't want to put every single rule and exception mentioned in the act, do you?) and (2) remember to include what it really means in the real world (its impact, why it is seen as good/bad by supporters/opposers). And just a disclaimer: I HATE politics ;) Renata3 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)