Talk:United States Bill of Rights/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just claiming this before I begin. Complicated articles are not ones you want another reviewer to claim half-way through. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adam! I should warn you this may be slightly rawer than the other two, as I haven't had as many collaborators--your input will be very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is taking a little bit. I've been running around like mad to get a few things done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No rush at all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought I'd give you a reminder ping about this one--I don't mind waiting, just wanted to make sure it hadn't fallen through the cracks. Thanks again for agreeing to review this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know about it, I've just not been sleeping well, and thus not been as up for weighty law issues. I'll try to get it done today, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear it-- I know too well what a pain that is. Take your time, and feel better! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, having written a GAN of my own in the time it took to get to this, I think it's clear I need to get my arse in gear. Let's begin

The Anti-Federalists:
 * "The Anti-Federalist Papers" is mentioned, but not explained. A brief description would help clarify what's being discussed.
 * For that matter, should we presume the reader knows what "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" mean? I mean, I know what they are, but I also actually spent a fair bit of time reading up on American History as a kid. Others might not. Probably the easiest way to explain it is in the context of explaining why the Articles of Confederation ended up being made so weak that they had to be replaced. Use your judgement on this one, though.
 * Oh. I see the term is defined... four paragraphs in. Not ideal.
 * Again, not quite enough context for "Federalist No. 46". Defining terms would help.
 * ✅ All the above, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise
 * "...erupting into a fistfight between a Federalist delegate and Elbridge Gerry..." - It would be better to say "beteween Federalist delegate Name McSurname and Elbridge Gerry".
 * "Articles Congress" should probably be defined. It's somewhat clear from context, but, given that the next section immediately begins by talking about Congress proper, a little bit more delineation would help.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The First Congress
 * As said above, it would be a good idea to clearly delineate the Congress here mentioned from the Articles Congress mentioned immediately beforehand.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Application
 * As with - was it Thirteenth or Fourteenth - it would be useful to briefly complete the story of how the American Indian tribal governments were brought into Constitutional law.
 * I'm not sure that history is as relevant here as it was for the Fourteenth (which dealt with citizenship issues). There is a sentence that "In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments." -- that's the best I've found so far. My understanding is that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applied some provisions similar to the Bill of Rights to tribal governments, but by direct act of Congress instead of by extending Constitutional protections; it may be a little off-topic to include here. You may know more about this law than I do, though (I know almost nothing)--any suggestions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech;" Optional: name or link the decisions. The latter is a little easter-eggy, but might be alright under IAR.
 * The problem is that most of these have at least 3-5 major decisions, so there's no one decision to link to. I think I'd rather just direct the reader to that article if that's okay with you--it's simply too detailed to sum up here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3048900191.html, "U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History", isn't as obviously a good source as the rest of the sources. Should it be replaced?
 * I replaced the statement that relies on it solely; the other it's a back-up reference, so I left it if that's all right. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That should be everything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree with your comments at first glance. I'm busy with this and that today but should be able to get to this tomorrow morning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! In all honesty, for such a complicated article, this, if anything, had far fewer issues than I expected. So, you know, great job! Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate it. I think I've addressed all the above points but happy to do more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like everything, then. ✅
 * For the record, well, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd prefer not to tell you to go to FA by myself, but this is clearly ready to begin a pre-FA peer review, at the least. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks as always for your time and thoughtful suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)