Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bricker Amendment1

Bricker Amendment
Self nom. My article on a proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. Contains references. Has been stable for a considerable time. No, there aren't photos, but how do you illustrate a legal proposal? PedanticallySpeaking 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Somewhat on the short side, but that might be due to the subject matter ;-) Some inline citations would be nice; as far as pictures go, a photo of Bricker, and perhaps some of the other major figures mentioned, would work.  Can you get some that aren't fair-use? &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a photo from the Bioguide site. I don't want to add photographs of anyone else, because they inevitably are objected to by other Wikipedians.  As for footnotes, I would note that this is not required and I have had several articles receive feature status without them, e.g. Dawson's Creek and Julia Stiles.  PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think "community standards" have changed since March and May. IJS :) jengod 20:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, FA criteria has changed since May. Read the latest version--you need references and inline citations "where appropriate". Rlevse 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * James Aubrey made featured status in November without footnotes. As you state, the guidelines make them optional.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tenative object. Definitely needs inline citations. See featured article Saffron for an example of ones well-used (there's a commented out "how-to" in the notes section). Also, bioguide has a pic of Bricker than you can use since it's a U.S. govt publication: . Otherwise, nicely done. jengod 19:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See reply to Kirill above. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's worth noting that a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law has a copy of this article in the course materials for a Fall 2005 class in international human rights law.. Congratulations PS! jengod 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jengod. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Peer review of this article is here; also, some power-googling unearths some conservative blogs with requests to "bring back the Bricker Amendment." Maybe just a paragraph or so acknowledging that? It's not the crux of the article, but it might be interesting. jengod 19:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. The peer review suggested something about globalization, but I was never sure how to work that material into this article.  PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * weak oppose. The introduction should be comprehensive.  (I just edited it so never mind).  However, there ought to be considerably more citations.  The section on opposition from "liberal groups" concerns me a bit - are all of those groups "liberal?"  According to whom, and why?  More importantly, can we present what they actually said/did in opposition and what their grounds were to opposition?  Kaisershatner 19:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not have the books I used to write this before me. I will see if I can specifics on those groups's opposition.  Please give me a few days on this; the library will be closed for several days for the holiday.  PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as pics go, Bricker was Governor of Ohio - there ought to be a public domain photo or two of him, official state portraits, etc. That might make a nice addition.  I'd be more than willing to help fix it up.  Kaisershatner 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A photo has been added of Bricker. PedanticallySpeaking 20:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object for the moment. I've copy-edited the lead and the first few sections. Please attend to the following matters throughout:
 * Some of the sentences are on the long side.
 * Some of the information in the lead is repeated verbatim in the next section; can this be avoided, perhaps through rewording, so that, for example, the two court cases don't need to be fully specified for a second time?
 * See my substantive change to the third para: doesn't an amendment need the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures as well?
 * It's overlinked. In particular, please delink the trivial chronological items (but retain links for dates that contain the day and month). For WP's policy on this, see Make only links relevant to the context; for other discussions, see Manual of Style (links), Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29.
 * Plainer language throughout would be welcome; it's slightly legalistic.
 * Somehow, the wider picture is lacking; can you contextualise this topic in relation to the broader suspicion of the US towards international treaties, including the recent refusal to sign the World Court agreement (if that's the name of it)?
 * Can't you find an image of Bricker? Tony 01:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The last objection was resolved a day before it was made. The expansion of the lead, which repeats material below, was done by others.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There's been some good work done on this. I'd like to study the changes and add some material of my own.  Hopefully, it'll be back as a FAC soon but for now, I'm withdrawing it as it clearly isn't going to pass.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)