Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bricker Amendment

Bricker Amendment
Completely rewritten version of this article on a proposed U.S. constitutional amendment. Was previously on peer review here and here. It had a prior featured article candidacy here. Has been designated a Good article. Thoroughly researched with notes and illustrations. PedanticallySpeaking 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has 47 KB of prose as of 4 August 2006. (This note was added by User:Maveric149.  This ID added by PedanticallySpeaking 20:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC).)


 * SupportRlevse
 * Support. Written to a high standard, and helpful to non-US residents. Deb 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Most excellent article to come to nomination in a while. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor object : what exactly are the works listed in the "Bibliography" section? Are they references for the article, in which case the section should be renamed, and should include all references?  Or are they merely further reading, in which case they should be called that, and moved out from under the "References" header?  Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The section is called a "select bibliography" and there I have the note "this list contains only works with significant content related to the Bricker Amendment." Many works cited in the notes have only background material on isolationism and American history but are not about the Bricker Amendment.  I thought it best not to list every single work cited&mdash;and believe me if I did that, I would get an objection to that practice&mdash;but instead offer a list of "where to start" for those who want more on the subject.  PedanticallySpeaking 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I think it's quite confusing, but that might just be personal preference. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support --Merovingian - Talk 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object As a non-American I have read the lead text twice, and found several stumbling blocks, including: What's the ABA (an unexplained abbreviation)? And this sentence doesn't read easy to me: The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–54, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution. And added to this very tough read, I find that the article is 80 kbyte large (that is more than double the recommended good size) on a VERY difficult topic. Perhaps less in-depth information may be just as good? And lastly, I find several non-compliance issues with standard wikipedia guidelines such as how to write dates and how (not) to wikilink years. I left details of these on the talk page. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
 * User:Kaisershatner has kindly gone through and given the article a copy-edit and reworked parts of it, a service for which I am grateful. Does that mitigate any of your concerns?  PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have fixed the ABA issue (I noticed this also). - Ta bu shi da yu 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Object —2a. The "tough read" that my colleague refers to above is in the overly long sentences, IMV. In fact, this nest of snakes provides excellent material for the exercises in controlling sentence length that I'm preparing. Take the opener:
 * "The Bricker Amendment is the name applied to a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the United States Senate in the 1950s which would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the United States." Why not split it, and while we're at it, trim a bit of fat: "The Bricker Amendment was a series of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution considered by the Senate in the 1950s; they would have placed restrictions on the scope and ratification of treaties and executive agreements entered into by the U.S."

Can you go through the whole article to split the long ones? There's a lot of them. Make it easy for our readers. Tony 03:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead has been redone courtesy of Kaisershatner. Is that an improvement? PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Nicely-referenced.  The long sentences are very hard on the reader, but there are some other prose problems as well, example:  Likewise, executive agreements were found to be subject to the Constitution in Seery v. United States. There the government argued that an executive agreement allowed it to confiscate property in Austria owned by an American citizen without compensation.  Sandy 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kaisershatner has gone through and edited this. Does that help?  PedanticallySpeaking 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Better! Struck my objection above.  Sandy 14:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Comprehensive, well-cited.  I did a full copyedit, the sentences are still long but I think I caught most of the typos.  Some minor comments: did Stephen Johnson Field not capitalize "Constitution", can the mention of protectionist tariffs/Hawley Smoot be deleted on the grounds that economic isolationism is a wholly different subject fit for its own article and need not reflect the political isolationism referenced in this article, in one of the older versions wasn't there something about the adoption of the UN Genocide Charter coming with provisional language specifically noting the primacy of the Constitution?  But nice job- if anything, it could be cut down, but to me it's just pushing the boundary of overkill on the early US history without quite crossing it.Kaisershatner 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll withdraw my object, but next time, please consider making the sentences shorter on average—in any register. It's not entirely free of problems (e.g., spot the redundant word in "Once hostilities were concluded"; there's a wrong upper-case letter in a title—I'm sure there are more). (This comment added by User:Tony1.  This ID offered by PedanticallySpeaking 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Support. --Matthew K 23:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the length of the article is appropriate given the subject matter, and as a non-U.S. reader I found the "Historical background" very informative. Well researched and referenced, and nice arrangement of the inline citations. Great work. Extraordinary Machine 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the most genuinely impressive articles I've read in quite some time. Rebecca 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Very well written and interesting article. Just what I'd want to be greeted with on the front page.GiollaUidir 16:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - excellent article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)