Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States House of Representatives/archive1

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Omaryak, MisfitToys, Daysleeper47, Stealthound and Lord Emsworth. Thesmothete 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)  Additional messages at United States, Congress, and Politics. Sandy (Talk) 14:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a point-by-point rationale following the FA critera. For such a prominent article, it does not reflect current standards for FA status.


 * 1 	It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. ??


 * (a) "Well written" -- the prose is neither "compelling", nor "brilliant". Organization of the article is haphazard. Factual statements often occur without context.
 * (b) "Comprehensive" -- while major facts and details have good coverage, some significant aspects of the House are not covered at all, such as the system of bells, the significance and use of the Mace, and the visitors’ gallery, a more complete listing of Speakers and their significance, controversies about delegates voting in the Committee of the Whole House, the full significance of the Committee of the Whole in organizing the House, etc.
 * (c) "Factually accurate" – the vast majority of statements in the article are accurate. However, many claims are not verifiable against reliable sources, such as statements that the House is “more partisan” than the Senate, or that “fewer than 10% of all House seats are seriously contested in each election cycle” (more than 43 seats were seriously contested in 2006).  The article does not accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims throughout the article are rarely supported with specific evidence and external citations. Inline citations are almost non-existent.
 * (d) "Neutral" – for the most part, the article the article presents views fairly and without bias; however, the opening of the article is somewhat pejorative (the “lower” “more partisan” body of Congress), and there are additional statements throughout that could be phrased with greater neutrality.
 * (e) "Stable" – the article is stable.
 * 2 	 It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including: ??


 * (a) The lead section is not concise, does not summarize the entire topic, and does not prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections, except insofar as it contains substantial minor facts without organization as with the rest of the article.
 * (b) The article has a proper, if limited, system of hierarchical headings; and
 * (c) A limited table of contents (see section help).
 * 3 	It has very few images for such an important subject, particularly given the likely volume of material available without copyright from the US government.
 * 4 	It is of appropriate length, for the subject, but it does not stay focused on the main topic – it goes into extensive unnecessary detail about the history of the Constitution, Pombo’s legislation about the Northern Marianas, the Gilded Age, etc.

Thesmothete 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]]


 * I disagree with your characterizing the introduction as non-neutral. Neither "lower" or "more partisan" are pejorative - the former is a neutral fact (see Lower house) and the latter, if sourced properly, would be an important and relevant piece of information.  --Tim4christ17 talk 14:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Move this one down, I say.
 * "Because its members are elected from smaller (approximately 690,000 residents as of 2006) and more commonly homogenous districts than those from the Senate, the House is generally considered a more partisan chamber." The logic escapes me. And just why the founding fathers would characterise the Senate as being more "deliberative" escapes me too.
 * (Interjecting) In answer to the last point: mainly because of its smaller size, as well as the fact that its members served smaller terms and were not elected, shielding them from pressures to which the House members were exposed. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a stubby paragraph in the middle History, surrounded by big fat ones.
 * Why is there talk of a presidential veto before the relationship between Congress and President has been explained? Where is the 2/3 override of veto mentioned? Why does the lead not announce that Congress has the sole power to legislate? Isn't that basic?
 * Why is there no discussion of the relationship with the British model? Is it the case that the relationship between the British Parliament and the king at the time is reflected in the Congressional–Presidential power balance? (Whereas the Canadian and Australian Governors-General vs Parliaments reflect the British state of play in a later century ....?)

Very superficial. Tony 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria are prose, LEAD, and citations, among others. Joelito (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove—Zilch done since my comments above. This is an obvious demotion. Tony 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, no inline citations, poor quality for an FA. Ter e nce Ong 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)