Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Bill of Rights/archive2

United States Bill of Rights
This article was nominated by someone else in February, and met basically none of the criteria. After voting against it, I made a few hundred edits and submitted it to WP:PR (where it received no comments after > 1 wk). I then solicited comments from contributors to the FA "First Amendment to the United States Constitution." I didn't get any. Nonetheless, I think it might be time, or close to it. Fire when ready... Kaisershatner 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object Former nomination here. Wow!  This has come a long way since the last time this had been nominated.  Let me do a more thorough reading and get back to you in a moment... Fieari 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've looked it over, and I'm objecting on the following points:
 * The lead section is both technically too long, containing four paragraphs, and also feels too long, as some of those paragraphs are themselves very wordy. See if you can't try to pare it down a little.  It should be an introduction to the topic, allowing the article itself to elaborate.
 * Revised and truncated. Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is information in the lead that is not explained further, or even mentioned, in the main body of the article. This includes mention of the English Bill of Rights, which was a previous point of objection to the older nomination.
 * Added "antecedents" section in "Drafting" section, with expanded discussion of the documents noted in the intro.Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like to see at least one inline citation per section, and preferably per paragraph. In particular, while the "Background" information is not exactly disputed, one citation for where one (say, a forigner who doesn't know our history) could verify or learn more, would be appreciated.  The "Drafting" section, before the subsections, could use a citation.
 * Will work on more refs, but I think the "see also/main" links in the "Background" section fulfill this need.
 * Wordyness: Some of the paragraphs I found a little hard to read because they were so dense. While simply adding whitespace wouldn't be grammatical (even if it would help readability), I believe the information could be reworded so as to be able to be split up into more paragrahs, simply for legibility.  This is not a sticking point for me, however, and I would not vote oppose on this point alone.  Almost the entire article suffers from this issue.
 * It all suffers because I wrote this, and that's my style - dense, long sentences. I was repeatedly unsuccessful at attracting collaborators/commenters on this article, so I appreciate your understanding.Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to fix this one. In my browser, Firefox, and 1024x768 resolution, in the "Madison's preemptive proposal" section, the first line of the quote is overlapped by the image to the right, so that the text is somehow beneath the image.  I'm not sure what causes this or how to fix it.  The line is ""For while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the" and the words "must feel for the" are overlapped.
 * No idea, but I think it's fixed. Call Jimbo?  :)  Kaisershatner 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, fixed for me. Fieari 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On my first read through, it wasn't clear to me that "Congressional Appointment" and "Congressional Compensation" were the two failed amendments, because I was skimming... something you can expect readers of an encyclopedia article to do. Could you make this clearer please?  Preferably by including mention of these amendments' names in the "Twelve Amendments proposed" lead section.
 * Done.Kaisershatner 16:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights"... could we have statistics on how many visitors it gets per ?
 * Looking good other than these points, I think. As I said... impressive work since the last time this showed up around here. Fieari 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - The issues I have not crossed out above still stand, but I believe they are not enough to object anymore, so I have changed my vote to support. Fieari 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional support the intro really needs to be slimmed. Computerjoe 's talk 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better. Support Computerjoe 's talk 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It might need commas before "dating" and after "1787" but otherwise I don't see the problem...?''Kaisershatner 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Anyway, I revised this again. Kaisershatner 17:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the second para ends with "threatened the Constitution's ratification" which is confusing re the rest of the sentence and looks like it was left over from somewhere else. I can't tell what it's trying to say.  I mostly agree with Fieari too. Rlevse 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to me now. Rlevse 13:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral Cut down thetop and my vote's yours! American Patriot 1776 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wonderful, pure and simple. American Patriot 1776 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The 2nd paragraph of the introduction could be almost completely removed. It can be pared down to a one- or two-sentence summary of the section that deals with that information further down in the article. Looks like that will solve objections from other editors as well. Otherwise, it looks good. Changing my vote to full support after revision of introduction. Kafziel 14:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Although a little more information on the display is nice. You could mention the display's heavy use in the film National Treasure, explain some of the security, there's GOT to be an easy PD/GFDL photo of it on display out there somewhere, etc. However, the important part is certainly FA quality now. Staxringold 17:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Added some more details about the display.  I would think the NARA photos are PD as US Govt. work but couldn't find that info at their site (yet).  I didn't see that film so can't be of too much use on that point. Kaisershatner 21:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * National Treasure was about the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I don't see why any mention of it whatsoever should be in this article; maybe on the National Archives article, maybe on the Declaration of Independence article (but probably not), but definitely not here. Kafziel 21:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks for all the feedback. About the introduction:  I cut it down, again.  Note that WP:LEAD suggests a three paragraph introduction for articles over 30,000 characters.  Without counting spaces and also w/o "See also" and everything after it, this article is 31,500 characters, but beyond that I think the introduction should include more than just "what is the Bill of Rights."  I think it should also cover "who wrote it, when, how, and why."  I'm advocating the three paragraph intro as it stands, for now, with all due respect, unless it is really a deal-breaker.  Kaisershatner 18:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great work --PopUpPirate 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article. --Myles Long 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - the original text should be in Wikisource - it should not be in the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? This article is about the Bill of Rights. You object because it has the Bill of Rights in the article? What could possibly be more relevant than that? Kafziel 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And would you add the text of War and Peace to War and Peace?  Wikipedia is not ... "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files ... such as original historical documents ... laws ... and other source material ... Complete copies of primary sources ... should go into Wikisource".  That is what Wikisource is for. This is an encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Bill of Rights is so short that it's ridiculous to put it in WikiSource and have to go look at it there. Coffeeboy 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. No point in putting it elsewhere. Fieari 19:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is already in Wikisource, starting with http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Amendment_I I and ending with http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Amendment_X  I can see no problems with small parts of it being quoted, but I don't think the article needs to have a whole section which just sets out the whole text of the subject of the article. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem, although it should probably be at the end of the article to avoid disrupting the flow of the text. Lots of constitutional articles have the full text of their subject in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to which ones, please. Are any of them featured? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, several, including all of the following. Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution all include the full text in one section. Article One of the United States Constitution spreads it out across each section of the article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The "full text" included in First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution is so short in each case as to be a trivial addition (compare this article, which is about the first 10 amendments).  There is much more original text in Article One of the United States Constitution, but at least it is disguised a little by being spread out.  However, I would still say that it is too much.  Similarly, I would say that the quotation of the full text in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia is unnecessary; as some of the comments at the end of the FAC say, firstly it is in Wikisource already (the right place, IMHO) and secondly where to draw the line?  (The series on the USA PATRIOT Act, such as USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, is a case in point - it is important legislation, but including the original text would be daft.  Should we add the original text to Magna Carta or Parliament Acts or Bill of Rights 1689?)  The "full text" in the Malaysian article takes up about 1.5 screens; the main body of the article is only about 7 screens (ignoring the references, which add another 1.5 screens), so around a quarter is taken up by the original text rather than prose about the original text.  -- ALoan (Talk) 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. This isn't my article, and I objected to its first FAC, but why is this such a sticking point for you? Nobody else has had any problem with including the text, and four other editors have actively voiced their opinion that it belongs here, . First of all, it's not simply a word-for-word inclusion of the text; each amendment is separated and briefly summarized. Secondly, the Bill of Rights is very short; it's beyond absurd to compare it with the PATRIOT act. The article isn't overly long, nothing is hurt by its inclusion here, you're not backed by precedent or by the manual of style, and you're going against consensus by maintaining this objection. You've been shown examples of this same thing in other articles, but you still won't let it go, preferring instead to find excuses (like "at least it is disguised a little" - I must have missed the "disguise" section in the MoS). If your opinion actually is "humble", as you claim, then why do you absolutely refuse to compromise with anyone? Kafziel 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Each editor gets to object as he or she wishes.  If the objection is actionable, it's actionable.  In this case, I think ALoan's point is valid.  In the case of the Malaysian article, I felt that an .en readership might well need the text.  For one thing, the article was about very subtle disagreements and interpretations of words, so the text needed to be iterated.  Secondly, it's an obscure thing.  Neither of those cases applies here, and neither should apply here.  Only because the Bill of Rights is exceptionally famous can there be an article like this, and any detailed analysis of the individual interpretations and political struggles over each phrase would be out of place in an all-ten article.  Finally, the objection is entirely actionable.  Since the Bill of Rights exists at Wikisource, the authors need merely to link to the Wikisource and then present a table of what each right covers (rather than original language).  Finally, it is now MoS, since we're going to mention that, that FA's use "summary style" and transclude where possible.  Linking to Wikisource is in keeping with this, and it is against our general article principles to allow duplication of material anyway.  Truly finally, trying to argue someone out of an objection is absurd at best, counter-productive generally, and, honestly, bad form at all times.  Geogre 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As a reader, I don't want to have to go to wikisource just to be able to read the (very short) document this article is about. The Bill of Rights is quite succinct; most of the amendments are one sentence each. Any attempt to further summarize them would simply mean replacing one sentence with a different sentence, which would then be criticized for inaccuracies. But without some kind of context, the article is meaningless. I would object if this didn't include that section. Kafziel 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As you wish. For my part, I can understand cutting down the 18th century wording where possible, and there is a difference between "The rights are: freedom of speech (1), freedom to carry weapons (2), freedom of a fair trial..." and "I: The right of the people to assemble, speak...."  If nothing else, one is lawyer-talk.  You feel that the primary material has to be present.  ALoan feels that it shouldn't.  Now the authors will either address the objection or not, and Raul will either promote the article or not.  No calling names, badgering, or assessing the nature of another person's objections.  If an objector is being a serious troll, I can understand, but when a person's objection is reasonable, I can't.  Geogre 11:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on now. You're a smart guy. You know "freedom to carry weapons" is childishly simplistic, and you wouldn't want to see that in an article any more than I would. I certainly wish things were that simple, but they aren't, and they shouldn't be portrayed as such in a featured article. You know as well as I do that the history buffs and legal folks would have a shit fit over language like that. The original wording is only ten senteces long. Ten sentences. Any article about a legal document can handle ten sentences of exceprts from that document. That's nothing.
 * If I came on too strong before, it was only because one of my pet peeves is people who throw around "in my humble opinion" when, in fact, they're not humble at all; they think they're right no matter what and plan to throw a tantrum until they get their way, no matter how many others disagree with them. Happens on here all the time. Just throw a little "IMHO" in there and you can be as unreasonable and uncompromising as you want.
 * How about the guy above who thought there should be more information about the movie "National Treasure" in this article? It was an actionable request. But National Treasure isn't even about the Constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights. Should he still get his way, just because it's actionable? No. Not even if he had said, "IMHO". Kafziel 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Criterion 2a. There's much that is worthy in this article, but it needs a thorough run-through to fix unwieldy sentences and odd expressions. Take, for example, the four sentences that lead into 'Background'.


 * "The Philadelphia Convention that convened in 1787 set out to correct weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation that had been apparent ..." "before the American Revolution had been successfully concluded"—to conclude a revolution is unidiomatic "a revenue amendment"—needs to be reworded "requirements of large majorities to enact major legislation"—I think I know what it means, but it needs to be clarified and reworded "The need for a stronger central government with a unified currency and the ability to conduct affairs of state such as foreign policy (and that could bind all the states under negotiated treaties and agreements rather than be undermined by a single state's refusal to comply with an international treaty) led to the stronger Federal government adopted by compromise at the Convention."—this snake needs to be chopped up/simplified" All of those amended.  Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "The newly designed Federal government"—designing a government?
 * In answer to your question, yes. See Philadelphia Convention.  They were...desigining a government.  Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "However, ardent debate between political factions known as the Federalists and anti-Federalists ensued over the balance between strengthening the nation's government and weakening the rights of the people who ten years earlier had explicitly rebelled against the perceived tyranny of George III of England."—another snake. I made your other suggested changes, but I like this sentence. Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole article needs scrutiny. Tony 06:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC) See either peer review archive for a history of the scrutiny, or please feel free to help edit the prose in a way that you find more appealing! Kaisershatner 15:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kaisershatner, you may have 'amended' my examples, but I haven't checked what you've done, and they may still be unsatisfactory; therefore, I've removed your striking out of my text here. With respect to your comment just above concerning peer review, I don't see the relevance. The fact that the article has already been scrutinised is irrelevant to whether it still needs scrutiny. Tony
 * Tony, thanks for your comments. Kaisershatner 13:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Object - concerned about the large quote in the section "Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise". Why are we doing this? I say, find seperate sources for this and the rephrase it into the main text of the section. Anything else is, to be frank, lazy. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This was already accepted as a featured article. Why is this still on the nomination page? Pointlessness 20:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)