Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II

Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II
Was split from USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, due to the new referncing system it pretty much referenced itself :-) I do think it is probably good enough for FAC, considering the scope of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although a couple of pictures would be nice all of the other things needed for FA status are present. TomStar81 04:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, note number 7 has no content. --Oldak Quill 09:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although, like TomStar81, would prefer the article with a couple of pictures? --Oldak Quill 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found some pictures at, but not sure if there is anything specific y'all are looking for. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only one I could see. Have uploaded it, with a large quote :-) Ta bu shi da yu 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: Why not use a US agency logo (ie NSA, CIA, DOD, etc) in sections where that agency would have benifitted from Title II? TomStar81 03:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary though? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This looks good; my only concern is the abundance of very short level two sections. Is there any way to combine those? Maybe put several sections together? --Spangineer  (háblame)  21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Which sections? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, 204, 205, 208, 219, 220, 222 and 225 are the most egregious examples, but 207, 209, and 214 are pretty short too. I'm not sure how to approach this... I'm hesitant to suggest that the article be taken out of numerical order by section, but maybe addressing the sections by relative importance would be better&mdash;focus on the primary ones that people talk about first, and then combine the less well known ones at the end.  It'd still be easy to navigate because the most important sections would still carry the section numbers in the level two section title, but then the less important sections of the Title would get a paragraph each in one or two catch-all level two sections at the end.  What do you think? --Spangineer  (háblame)  02:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea... only... if someone was to directly reference the section in an article, how would they do this? Still open to the idea, just want to get your take on this issue first. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean in another wikipedia article? I would assume that since the extremely short sections are so short, they would not be referenced very often (not much is said about them, so there would be few reasons to reference them).  If they were referenced, the reference could be made to the catchall section itself, or in the case of 207, 209 and 214, perhaps a level 3 subsection could be used for those. --Spangineer  (háblame)  02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every section is mentioned. I'll see what I can do though... I'm not sure if there is a logical grouping to the smaller sections though :( Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just trying to work out how best to do this! Ta bu shi da yu 13:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one to judge. On the plus side, I find it does provide a good breakdown its subject and the writing is careful and precise. On the down side, I find it visually unappealling (~10 horribly short sections and 15 pages of straight text) and difficult to read (choppy, usually uninformative sentences, flow killed by many one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections). There is room for improvement: the first sentence is currently redundant (see here and here) and the detailed breakdown could come with real world examples. I'm definately on the 'object' side of 'neutral' but I cannot pull the trigger because I cannot see a solution to the big problems. So, I will leave it other voters and hope they know what they are doing. --maclean 25 10:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (this may not be helpful, but at least I read it)