Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congress of the United States

Congress of the United States
Self-nomination. Emsworth 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

--Gpyoung talk 00:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support It could do more to trace the power and instiutional development of Congress by engaging in the recent American political development literature on the subject (e.g., Fenno, Fiorina, Sinclair et al.-- authors at top of just about any course syllabus on the politics of Congress), but this is not essential, since the article is still awaiting a branch like History of the Congress of the United States. 172 | Talk 18:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but as per 172, this could use some expansion of, e.g., the role of Congress in relation to the presidency, or the day-to-day operations of Congress (role of staff, constituent service, etc.) But overall, well-written and informative--it's what I'd expect to see in a good Brittanica article. Meelar (talk) 20:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. This article is in desparate need for more pictures. Only 3 pictures in a 31kb article is definitely inadequate. Deryck C. 09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added another picture, and I personally think that 4 or even 3 is sufficient. What more should be shown? Meelar (talk) 14:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Good solid work.  I'm pleased to see a bibliography from solid sources.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral – great work, but I'd really like to see inline references. It doesn't help me much to have a bunch of references listed when I want to verify a specific claim of the article&mdash;I'd have to look through all of them until I found what I was looking for.  I realize it would be time-consuming to add them after the fact, but it would greatly improve the quality and verifiability of the article. --Spangineer  (háblame)  23:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support-This article has come a long way in the last few weeks. I have added to the history section to mkae it more in-depth, especially about how the idea for COngress in the form that it currently is came to exist, and other people have made great strides in inproving the rest of the article (ie. Adding Prose). I now feel confident that it fully covers the basics of Congress, and the article covering the house and senate are also featured article which cover more in-depth the functions of each house.
 * Support, but as 172 mentioned, could be branched off into "sub-articles". Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)