Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey State Constitution/archive2

New Jersey State Constitution

 * You may be looking for a different FAC: see sorting old FA archive issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This article has undergone 2 peer reviews and this will be its second FA candidacy. I've been working on it so long (My contributions to it amount in its log to about 89%.) When you either object or comment, please leave a description of what needs fixing because peer review has simply ignored this article. Self-nom. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FAC 1


 * Object, at least for now, for the following reasons:
 * 1. 30 of the 39 citations are articles of the Constitution - therefore, only 9 citations offer further analysis. This indicates that the legal analysis is inadequate. Something proved by the text itself. When I read uncited assertions like "These passages still do guarantee important rights to New Jerseyans, but they are not necessary to constantly enforce" I get more convinced that my assertion is correct. Who says that "they are not necessary to constantly enforce"? Is there a Court decision? A scholarly analysis? A mere narration of the content of the article is not enough. We need scholarly analysis and relevant court decisions. And, as we saw, even when some analysis is offered, verifiable sources are missing.
 * 2. "Defunct Versions" is tagged. Does this section really need expansion. If yes, then, until it is expanded, the article is not ready for FA status.
 * 3. The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 is linked both in "sources" and "external links". Why? In any case, I think that the "Sources" section is redundant. You have references? What is the role of "sources"? To link to the State Constitution? You can do that in external links or in your references, linking to each article of the Constitution.--Yannismarou 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sources" gone, I just started expanding the "Defunct versions" section. Agree that more citations are needed. AZ t 17:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; Must've missed the PR. I would like to see this article reach WP:FA status, but unfortunately it doesn't seem quite there yet. Why is the expandsection template still there? The WP:LEAD is also a bit weak; note that WP:LEAD states that notable criticisms should be summarized in the lead too. The prose isn't the best either, some examples (I read from the bottom up, and I'll try to do more copyediting later):
 * Amendments are submitted … The amendment is voted upon, inconsistent plurality. Plus, is voted upon by the houses … at least three-fifths of the house's votes again inconsistent
 * The first sections, Sections I through IV, were adopted with the rest of the constitution. Sections is redundant (and so is the first, since we know that I-IV will be first).
 * The Article orders the Legislature to pass all laws necessary for the activation the new constitution missing "of"
 * they are expired or superseded, altered, or repealed "or" is used twice?
 * The new legislature, the process of their election, and their term and rotation are created. legislature is incorrectly referred to with "their". Instead, the members of the legislature (not the legislature itself) are elected.
 * The previous sections create the process of supersession; the remaining sections are the amendments. For reasons unknown, this constitution has never been directly updated since its adoption. The amendments are enumerated in this Article. The Court of Errors and Appeals and Chancery courts are abolished,[36] transferring the cases before them and offices under them to other courts, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court. Hm.. this paragraph doesn't flow too well. The first sentence was discussed already in the paragraph beforehands. That paragraph also notes that this article lists out the amendments. Then, this paragraph goes into Courts?
 * The requirement of the Federal Supreme Court that the apportionment of all state legislatures be by population is stated. "of" doesn’t seem right to me; perhaps "by"? The passive voice can make it a bit difficult to read (a reader might accidentally read it as that the Federal Court (not this article) must state the apportionement of the …)
 * It was passed on election day, 1966, but took effect on January 17, 2006. Odd wiki-linking (link 2006 too!), plus a citation would be helpful for this – I can hardly believe it took 40 years to take effect.
 * As seen in during the time following Jim McGreevey's resignation, New Jersey was exposed as having a disorganized executive succession plan. Awkward, and "was exposed as" is unneeded due to "as seen in" (replace w/ something else).
 * The New Jersey State Treasury Website we know it’s the website… its under "External links".
 * For just 3 sections, that's not that good. Hopefully, by the end of this FAC, the article will be in a lot better condition. Try contacting WP:NJ for additional help in improving the article. AZ t 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Needs more independent sources. Most of citations is the constitution itself. The article is well-written, but the references are a problem. Also, I think that there needs to be less emphasis on the constitution's contents. The article looks like a summary of the constitution. I can't see much about the prepatory work involved about the constitution. As a jurist, I would be very interested to know how and why the constitution's provisions were adopted as such (in general). When was the current consitution ratitied, under what conditions? What has been the general trends since the first constitutions of Jersey (or charters) Criticism is not a good section either. As a general rule, "criticism" sections are weasely, and anything contained in these sections should be inserted in context to other relevant sections. Two months ago I completely rewrote a Constitution article, even though I haven't had the time to look into it again, I have experienced that Constitution articles have a very bad habit of shifting to a discourse of its contents, rather than its place in society/country etc. Baristarim 00:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - A followup on Az: I don't really understand how an amendment superseded in 1995 would still be in effect in 2006. At the end of the Elections and Suffrage section, the last sentence is difficult to read. It might help to replace "to represent" with a paraphrase "[represents]". The quote should be cited. Also "who is to not have held" -> "who must not have held"? Gimmetrow 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)