Wikipedia:Peer review/Federal Assault Weapons Ban/archive2

Federal Assault Weapons Ban
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's a contentious topic that hasn't been peer-reviewed in six years. It should probably be listed under several categories, but since it's about politics, I'm starting with social science. The 1994 ban expired in 2004, so it could probably go under history too or next (though there are existing state and municipal bans and ongoing talk about a new federal-level law).
 * Previous peer review

Suggestions for review: WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, WP:CONTROVERSY (or WP:CRITICISM?), WP:BETTER... or what you're good at!

Thanks, Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Um...article is already under review (or has been reviewed just two weeks ago) read: Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5 Thanks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The archived discussion you linked to was started on Oct. 1 as an ANI notice and turned into an informal review that lasted only two days (until Oct. 3 - three weeks ago). Of the 12 editors who participated, eight have been active on this article in recent months. Of the four others, I thought Calathan's comments scroll down to paragraph that begins, "I noticed this article." were especially good, but no-one acted on them. (I would've liked to but was stepping back for a while.) I was really looking forward to hearing more from Drmies, but maybe she got busy and had to drop her generous offer?
 * At any rate, the peer-review request started today is more formal and may, it is to be hoped, bring some fresh, outside commentary. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a specific suggestion (to make it a one-woman job, to be gauged afterward), and I think one person didn't like that idea and no one else took me up on it. There were plenty of editors weighing in, many of them seemingly very capable, so I didn't figure that the article would suffer from a lack of attention. I suggest that you ask the specific editors whose suggestions you thought useful (I only made one or two, I believe) to incorporate them and others into the article. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably just a misunderstanding, which is easy when communicating solely in writing. I was looking forward to seeing your edits, but I figured you'd gotten busy elsewhere. I did not want to pester you. I know at least one editor is reading the article now, but there isn't a limit on how many people can respond to a review request... is there? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from StarryGrandma
I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.

Like many articles on laws this one need more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law. The article omits mention of a very unusual provision in this ban, that the Attorney General was required to do research on the effects of the ban on crime, on a strictly specified start and end date, and issue a report to Congress.


 * Review


 * The lead paragraph needs to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not ban owning assault weapons in the United States. Not all readers will be familiar with US policies on gun control.


 * The article needs a short origins, history, or background section to put this law in context. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 has a short statement of background. This part of the law needs something like the one at the start of the brief summary of the first National Institute of Justice report. See the reference list below.


 * Criteria of an assault weapon


 * The first sentence is very straightforward but has 6 references. If those references are for the whole article they could be in a references section at the end. Otherwise the references should be next to the material for which they are the source.


 * What was the former US law referred to in the first paragraph? This section needs the reference to that law or some other source for this material.


 * The list of banned weapons would look better as a table than a bullet list. Try to minimize bullet lists in articles. The 1999 brief summary from the NIJ is a good reference for this.


 * Provisions of the law


 * Add a reference to the text of the law. See list of references below.


 * Go through the provisions in order, putting the ban on manufacturing and sale of newly manufactured weapons first. The "higher prices sentence" should be moved to a section on the effects of the ban and needs a reference.


 * Don't use the word flowchart in the first description of the ban. Readers might think the law included a diagram rather than just a list of characteristics. Flowchart has come into use recently in talking about weapons bans, but doesn't seem to have been used in 1994. Give an example of showing why the word flowchart can be used to as a description of determining what weapons are affected by the ban.


 * Include that the ban did not apply to the approximately 1.5 million assault weapons already in civilian hands.


 * The law required modification of serial numbers to include manufacture date.


 * Next describe the provision on large capacity ammunition feeding devices.


 * Next describe the provision for a study and report by the Attorney General.


 * Lastly put in the provision that the ban would expire in 10 years.


 * Compliance


 * The contents of this section don't reflect the title. This should go into the effects section.


 * Expiration and effect on crime


 * Rename this "Effect of the assault weapons ban" or "Impact of the ban". There was research into the effects before the expiration of the law.


 * Go through the reports and research in a chronological order like that of the section on efforts to renew the ban. I've listed the National Institutes of Justice reports and the response in the reference section at the end. The required report to Congress was made in 1997.


 * Be clear about the source of the reports. The first NIJ report was done in response to the requirement in the law. Both NIJ reports were funded by the Department of Justice to study the effects of the federal weapons ban.


 * The paragraph on Lott's books needs rewriting. Put his research into the section in chronological order. Be careful about saying his was the "first" at any point. It sounds promotional and would need a reference for this to include it. You would also need to add that by this time Congress had stopped the Centers for Disease Control from funding research on gun violence.

Text of the bill 103-322:

Summary of first NIJ research report:

Journal publication of first NIJ research report:

Journal criticized for publishing the report and rebuttal by authors:

Effect on gun availability and prices from NIJ funded research:

Second NIJ research report: (Note that this one never got published anywhere.)

StarryGrandma (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU, StarryGrandma! Excellent, thorough assessment. I will print it out and study it in detail, and begin to work on it with the other editors ASAP! I'll keep you updated. Thanks again, and ever at your service. Lightbreather (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * VERY THOROUGH! Thank you very much, StarryGrandma, it is clear that you put a great deal of effort into this. I am sure that your suggestions will go a long way toward improving the article. Good Stuff! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and what a large amount of excellent recommendations! North8000 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)