Wikipedia:Featured article review/Speaker of the United States House of Representatives/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 09:50, 5 August 2007.

Review commentary

 * Left note at Wikiproject US Congress and User:Emsworth

This article needs citations, and a general copyedit to come up to current FA standards. Judgesurreal777 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please notify the relevant Wikiprojects per instructions - being someone whose been on FAR for quite some time Judge, you should be aware of this by now. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Judgesurreal777 23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. A lot of the Emsworth articles need an FAR. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This should go to FARC. The first para shows why:

"The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is the presiding officer—or speaker—of the United States House of Representatives. The position is elected in much the same way prime ministers are elected under a parliamentary systems."
 * Don't like the sharp em dashes, or "or".
 * Don't like the repetition—the phrase takes up 85% of the sentence.
 * Don't like the analogy with prime ministers—the party system is very different in Congress.
 * "a parliamentary systemS"? Very poor.
 * Too short to be a para.
 * Positions aren't elected; people are.

Yuck. Tony 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 19:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ceoil has done some work here, but the article is still largely uncited. Remove unless Ceoil plans to work on it and wants more time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it difficult to track down sources for this, and its not an area I'm knowledgeable in. I'd ask that it is left open for another week so I can scope it, and I'll report back then. Ceoil 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I spent some time reading the sources during the week, but some facts contradicted the claims made in the article. I don't have enough interest to disentangle, and in its current state I would say Remove. Ceoil 16:28, 4 August 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.