Wikipedia:Featured article review/Separation of powers under the United States Constitution/archive1


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

The article was removed 18:52, 31 October 2007.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject United States, WikiProject Law, and User:Lord Emsworth

This article was already featured on the main page, so anyways I don't think it is FA status as the guidelines have become stricter especially no inline citations. --1ws1 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone do the notifications please :) --1ws1 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did it for you, but really you, as nominator, should have done it. The nominator is expected to be involved in the FAR. My comments: WP:LEAD is not respected. Lots of other WP:MOS violations, one-sentence paragraphs, use of bold. But most importantly, the topic is very relevant and there is nothing written here about the current constitutional arguments going back-and-forth during the reign of the current US president. --RelHistBuff 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that much of this is sourced; named Supreme Court decisions are sources for American constitutional history. Most of the rest appears to be simple statements of consensus facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist - Stable, but uncited. Wouldn't pass today, and probably shouldn't without a major cleanup of the sources. Choppy spacing and just plain odd syntax in the Checks and Balances section. Content-wise, that same section has reasonably well written sections about the legislature and courts system, both of which predominately focus on their checks against the power of other branches of government, but the executive section is extremely lacking and seems to go a touch off-topic. The two redlinks both point to pages you can reasonably expect to exist in the near future - continuing expansion of SCOTUS coverage will hit 'em eventually. Nonetheless, seems odd to have any redlinks in a FA. MrZaius  talk  15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 19:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove - as above. No work has been done during the FAR. Even the quotes are not cited, violating WP:CITE. --RelHistBuff 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Retain as above. All the quotes I see are expressly cited in text; the use of quotation marks for phrases, like "checks and balances" in the first paragraph, could be usefully replaced by Wikilinks or italics, but the present usage is perfectly natural English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Support for Removal
 * Based mostly on 1) utter lack of comprehensiveness especially given the significance of the subject matter, 2) pitifully low quantity of sources, 3) and an extensive lack of diversity of sources. Writing should also be improve, among other troubles.
 * FA - Finest Articles Learnedo 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove. Before we get to the content, there are MOS breaches, such as hyphens as interruptors (read MOS on em dashes), and illogical punctuation, which should be after the closing quotation marks. Trivial links, such as "18th century". But why get even this far: needs referencing urgently. Tony  (talk)  14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.