Wikipedia:Peer review/Assault weapons ban (USA)/archive1

Assault weapons ban (USA)
Nominated for Collaboration of the week but not a stub. Comments from there follow:


 * I am nominating this for AotW in the hopes that we can get it ready in time for the (likely) expiration of the Assault Weapon Ban on September 13th. It would be great to have it as FA for that day. It's sort of o.k., now, but it isn't great.  Jimbo Wales 00:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't fit normal guidelines, but clearly needs alot of work, and with His Lairdship Jimbo's support seems like a shoe-in. Here's hoping the assault weapons ban goes out w a bang, Sam [Spade] 00:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh dear: I fear this is in the same category as Alan Keyes (removed the other day) in that Peer Review it is more approraite place for it. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've started some work on the article. It turns out it had the wrong definition for the ban this whole time! AWB banned on weapons with TWO or more characteristics, not one like the article said, which is a big difference. Wodan 17:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd have to agree with ALoan - per the guidlines of this page, this should go to peer review. - Taxman 19:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is not a candidate for COTW, its already too substantial. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  19:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of "we're all equal" this nomination should be deleted from here and moved to peer review. This article is in no way a stub. Davodd 18:19, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

This article covers the same legislation as Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. At this point I'm not sure whether to list it on Duplicate articles or take a crack at merging it myself; comments are welcome. Austin Hair 01:25, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well the navigation box and the article text implies that the assault weapons ban is a part of the act you reference. That should mean they are different and likely should not be merged. The two articles do mention different dates which I'm not sure which is correct.  It does also have horrid POV problems, with many many comments against the ban, some with no attribution at all. - Taxman 03:35, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)