Talk:Title I of the Patriot Act

Assessment againt GA criteria (2006)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * Wouldn't exactly say compelling, but it is clear enough. Couple of awkward points:
 * "and are equally as entitled to full civil rights" would read better as "and are as entitled to full civil rights".
 * "Expansion of National Electronic Crime Task Force initiative" Section presumably refers to section 105 and should state as such, as do the other paragraphs.
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * Fine. The structure is, I guess, based on the Title itself but again, is logical.
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
 * Generally fine, but:
 * New-Yorker links to a disambiguation page - please direct it to the appropriate page
 * FBI should be spelled out at the first appearance
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
 * I think you need a little background in the article on what the title actually is - what does it mean? What is an Act, a title, a bill. Only extremently briefly of course, but the article jumps straight into what the contents are. I assume that it is something like 'The Title is part of an Act, which amends the constitution (?) of the United States, thus changing aspects of the Law and other aspects of how the State operates'. That's rubbish wording, but you see what I mean? Action needed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * Only one reference provided, to a minor point. I guess most of the material in the article comes from the act itself, so a blanket statement to that effect would cover it, I suppose. Action needed
 * (b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
 * The reference that is provided is not especially clearly cited - what is this link, what am I connecting to? Look at one of the citation standards for the appropriate format. Action needed
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * Only one source provided, which seems fine for reliability. I guess the links under 'External Links' are also intended as sources, if so they should be listed under references instead. As such they seem fine, although should the original text of the act be taken from the appropriate US Government website for maximum robustness? Action needed
 * (d) it contains no elements of original research.
 * ''Generally fine, but:
 * First para of section 102 ends by saying that Salman Hamdani is believed to have been killed, where the act only says that he is missing. Sadly I'm sure the article is correct in its statement, but this must either have been derived from another source or be original research. Please cite the source, or stick to what the act says. Action needed

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.
 * Not sure if this is the right place to cover this, but this article seems to be no more that a brief summary of the Act. For 'broad coverage' I would expect to see something on the expected implications and actual effects of the act in here somewhere, media reaction, that kind of thing. From a cited source, of course! ;-) Action needed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
 * Seems neutral, fine. Although as noted above, there is nothing on points of view, so this is perhaps not surprising!

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
 * No major changes in the last couple of weeks. Fine.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
 * I guess you could include images of 9/11 or of the FBI building or other topics related to the subject, but I'm not sure it would improve the article very much. Fine.

Decision: On that basis, I'm failing it - primarily for lack of properly cited references and of broad coverage of the topic. The other stuff is minor, but should be seen to. I think this is a really good start on an important topic, though, so please don't be disheartened - I hope you can address these issues relatively easily. 4u1e


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

– To what extent should last year's successful proposed move be used for these articles? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title I → Patriot Act, Title I
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title II → Patriot Act, Title II
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title III → Patriot Act, Title III
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A → Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B → Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle B
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV → Patriot Act, Title IV
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title V → Patriot Act, Title V
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI → Patriot Act, Title VI
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII → Patriot Act, Title VII
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title VIII → Patriot Act, Title VIII
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title IX → Patriot Act, Title IX
 * USA PATRIOT Act, Title X → Patriot Act, Title X
 * Section summary of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II → Section summary of the Patriot Act, Title II
 * Support (misspellings corrected) There's no compelling reason to deviate from the title of the parent article. There doesn't seem to be any title conflict that would introduce ambiguity either. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.