Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

 * Nominator(s): HectorMoffet (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Current GA that has undergone extensive improvements since passing GA. HectorMoffet (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Cirt
Image review completed. All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. All images have appropriate licensing there. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image checks out on image page.
 * File:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg = picture from Commons, appropriately licensed.
 * File:Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden by Nathaniel Dance, (later Sir Nathaniel Dance-Holland, Bt).jpg = image from Commons, checks out okay.
 * File:James Otis.jpg = picture at Commons, image checks out alright.
 * File:James Madison.jpg = image at Commons, file page checks out okay.
 * File:US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - 1976 official portrait.jpg = image at Commons, image checks out okay.

Sources review by Cirt
Sources review spotchecks: So yes, the spot checks confirm the info, but I found one instance leading me to believe the entire article needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb for potential close paraphrasing of sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Reference note (1) confirms the quote from the United States Bill of Rights.
 * 2) Reference note (14) confirms info from the Constitution of Massachusetts.
 * 3) Reference note (27) helpfully provides the reader with a check to the U.S. Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.
 * 4) Reference note (43) gives information regarding the case Smith v. Maryland via the Oyez Project.
 * 5) Reference note (58) confirms material to the Arkansas News Bureau.
 * Spot checks done.
 * Note: However, I would strongly caution to go over the entire article with regard to potential problem spots of close paraphrasing, example of a version before I copy edited it is this problem. Compare prior version of sentence that was in article, with this version from the first sentence of the article by the Arkansas News Bureau.
 * Comment I was asked to look in on this article. Please notify me once it's passed the spot check, so I know I'm reviewing something that has a chance of passing.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay,, per , this above issue is now resolved ! :) Please see her comment. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more clear from above: Spot check passed. Sources review done. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Note the nominator says he is "demoralised and retired" on his userpage.—indopug (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator has since been blocked indef. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Block is still in effect and I see no-one offering to assume the responsibility for this nom -- nor would I expect that necessarily -- so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.