Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive2

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II
Self-nomination. I've already nominated this once at Featured article candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title II/archive1, but there were concerns about the fact that it expanded too far, but still had stub templates on it (sorry, my bad! I thought I'd have it done by the end of the FAC... sorry all). As it turns out, Title II is an immensley controversial part of the USA PATRIOT Act. I have just finished documenting significant commentary on the Title.

I'd like to make this a featured article. It's certainly comprehensive enough! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK folks, I'm out of ideas on how to reduce the article further. I've cut it almost in half from 150KB to 80KB... it's the Patriot Debates stuff that is affecting it. Anyone else know how to sort this out? I have to say, I've never been in a situation where I put an article up to FAC that was this big! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support! (after edit-conflict)- great article, never thought that such a subject could have such a lot of information! effeietsanders 13:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly Object - This page is 150 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. I'm sorry, it needs to be split into more than one page (perhaps "Controversies surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II", "Detailed contents of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II", etc.) and then rewritten to no more than 50kb per summary style. - Cuivienen 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly Object I have to agree with Cuivienen; this is like reading a text book, not an article. Rlevse 15:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cuivienen did not argue that it was like reading a text book, he was objecting to the length of the article. Your "reads like a textbook" argument could apply to quite a few FA articles, incidently. By all means, however, if you feel you can modify the wording a bit be my guest. Just remember that you need to keep it neutral. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Simply way too long. And nothing about the subject precludes having a standard size overview article and leaving more detail elsewhere. This is one title of one country's single act. Ok it's important, but a 30kb overview would do it much more justice. - Taxman Talk 19:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have created Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, however the article is still 115KB! Will try to split the USA PATRIOT Debates article... - Ta bu shi da yu 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well written. TomStar81 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object&mdash;I know you've seen Summary style before, but it's important. At the very least create Commentary on the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II and move the commentary section there.  Summarize it in this article with no more than a paragraph or two per section, hitting the high points.  The rest of it looks pretty concise.  The level two section "Sections" is 39kb, plus the summary section, plus the lead, plus say 10kb for the commentary, and you're looking at 60kb, max.  Extra points for getting it down to 50; I think it's possible. --Spangineer  (háblame)  22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I've started splitting it... the Patriot Debates section needs summarising, which I'm doing right now. This could take a bit... but rest assured I'm getting it done! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I have always bristled at people who object to articles on length, the length limit on Wikipedia is outdated and needs to be brought into line with the current technological possibilities of today's web browsers. RyanGerbil10 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will never object to an FAC due to the number of kilobytes of an article. However, I will object to articles that are too long.  There's a difference.  My objection has nothing to do with the technical limitations of web browsers.  It has everything to do with accessibility.  If I wanted to read a textbook on a topic, I would go to the library and get a textbook.  If I want an encyclopedia article, I'll come to wikipedia.  Information is worthless if it isn't accessible, and encyclopedias make it easy to access the most important information. Throwing a 150kb article at someone who wants an overview is horrible&mdash;some kid writing a 1 page essay on this section of the Patriot Act doesn't want a 40 page document to parse through. It'd take over an hour to read this.  Write an overview, put the details on another page, and everyone's happy. --Spangineer  (háblame)  17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, did you actually read the article? It was divided up like this: 1. lead section, very short but quite comprehensive, 2. Summary. Very readable, condensed form of the title. 3. Commentary. Necessary for NPOV, the Patriot Debates was too long, granted. 4. Detailed breakdown of each section. A reader need only read the lead and the first section to grasp the Act. For more detailed understanding, they can read on. To understand a particular section, they go to the section! Anyway, I've split the article: the detailed section is now in it's own article, with a main pointing to it. I've also attempted to split the Patriot Debates part into its own article, but am finding that tough going: the last few debates were quite detailed and lengthy (especially that of section 218), its hard to summarise any further! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it thoroughly, but looked over the structure and I had noted the things you point out. I agree that the commentary section is necessary, but I'm trying to think of ways to make it shorter.  I'll read through it when I get a chance, but have you thought of organizing it by section, instead of by commentator?  It might make it possible to condense further. --Spangineer  (háblame)  19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps this nomination should be withdrawn until the new (and apparently, massive) revision is finished. I note the removal of what was originally main content of the article (a section by section discussion of the Title), and a "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while " tag (placed inside the article) that I first noticed yesterday. Also, the extension of this Title expires in the next week; depending on the new situation after that, changes, possibly significant, will be required (particularly as the new version of the article is focussed more on the controversiality and general reaction). --Tsavage 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've split it as much as I can. If someone wants to step forward and assist, please be my guest! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The "American Bar Association" section is still far too long. Coverage of each section should be 2-3 sentences each with maybe two 5-sentence paragraphs for Section 218. Everything else should be moved into the child article. It's still not a summary though the most pedantic details are gone. That said, good job on cutting it down by 70kb. - Cuivienen 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll keep on trying... incidently, the article is 80KB, not 70... :( - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Ryan Delaney talk 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor object. Too picture light - please add some more. The following is not an object, but a comment: this is a current event - and I've seen articles been voted down because of that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For sure... I'd like to action, only what are appropriate images? Current event... OK. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * strongly oppose important topic, but fails in NPOV with emphasis on groups opposing patriot act. also sentence structures awkward and way too much incorrect grammar.Anlace 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's about half and half opponents and proponents! Please point to incorrect grammar: I will correct it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)