Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Constitution/archive1

United States Constitution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

It is

• a former featured article,
• in rather good condition,
• is very well-developed and uses many in-line citations,
• is listed as C-class by all of the several WikiProjects, though this was probably done by one editor,
• appears to pass the Wikipedia:B-class criteria without much difficulty (even on references),
• and could potentially be a WP:Good article very soon.

So please evaluate first for WP:B-class criteria and then WP:Good article criteria and note what could be improved, especially if there is something that I have noted here that you might think I have overlooked. All feedback is welcome!

Thanks, Adavis444 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off the article is obviously set on a firm foundation and structure. There has been a great deal of research and work done as evidence by the large number of in-line citations. The organization of the article is evident so I would be confident in pushing it to B-class. Any editor can do so unilaterally and usually there isn't much debate. As such I will review the article against the GA criteria and offer suggestions to help move the article to this level.

Lead

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of every point raised in the article. See WP:LEAD for thoughts on this. In my opinion the lead in this article is sparse and should be expanded. The reader should come away from the lead with a sekeletal framework of the article. The body then fills in the rest of the details. A four paragraph lead is fine for an article of this length and each paragraph is a good start for the major sections of the article. Please expand these paragraphs to add more summary on the main points.

History

• Avoid one sentence paragraphs wherever possible.
• Perhaps a word or two more on why the Articles of Confederation needed to be changed or scraped.
• People may take issue with the statement that the House represents the people while the Senate represents the states. Senators would claim they represent the people just as much as the Representatives.
• You want to avoid embedded lists within articles. See WP:LIST for thoughts on this. There are two lists outlining the opposing proposals for the constitution. I would break those lists down into prose.
• Was there much opposition to the ratification? What were some of the objections raised?
• More could be said about the Great Compromise. How were judges selected, were they life terms, how were they ratified, checks and balances like veto power etc.
• The first mention of the Bill of Rights is in a section on the influences on the Bill of Rights. I think an introduction into the drafting and adoptiong of the BofR would be in order before discussing influences on it.
• In reading this, it seems like more content could be added to meet the comprehensive criterium.

Articles of the Constitution

• Where does this quote come from, "is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people,"? Unless it is from the quote above it should be referenced. "We the People" does not need to be referenced since it is pulled directly from the quoted sentence above.
• There are links to the House and Senate here but the first mention of them is in the History section. Per WP:LINK the first mention should be linked, there is no need to link after the first mention in the body of the article is linked.
• Why is Article I Section 8 linked but not Article I Section 1?
• Why is there a Section analysis in bold in this sub-section?
• There are very few in-line citations in the review of the articles. Granted it is just a summary of what the articles say so I wouldn't expect a lot of sources but you should be aware that GA reviewers may have an issue with that. It would be good to reference this discussion of succession and the issue with Harrison and Tyler since that is not part of the constitution that you're summarizing.
• This sentence is a little awkard:

• Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the federal government and amongst the states. I would reword thus, "Article Four describes the relationship of the states with each other and with the federal government."

• Watch overlinking. You don't need to link terms like regulate. Words in common English usage don't need to be linked. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Judicial review

• I added a template to the end of this section. There should be in-line citations in this section since it is not a strict summary of the Constitution. It shouldn't be hard to find citations for judicial review.

Amendments

• Same can be said for this section. Very in-line citations. The fact that 10,000 amendments have been proposed is amazing and something I didn't know. It should be sourced. I put a template at the end of the first section only as a means to communicate that the entire section should be better referenced.
• As such, none of these are likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party.

• Probably want to keep speculation out of this article. Not really necessary and doesn't add to the content.

• Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists, although nothing prevents a future amendment from doing so.

• How can it be determined that most constitutional amendments change the body of the text and why is that ultimately important? By the way, the paragraph that is linked to "amendments to most constitutions" has a template that has been on there since April 2010. This weakens the argument further. Consider rewording.

• Why do you have full text access for amendments 11-27 but not for the bill of rights?
• Quote found in the Unratified amendments sub-section: Ratified by eleven states, the last being Kentucky in June 1792 during Kentucky's initial month of statehood....

• Duplicative statement. Consider removing.

References

• Ref 1 is to a subsidiary of Wikipedia. Usually try to avoid sourcing to agencies connected to WP as it reduces credibility.
• Ref 53 is a dead link
• Ref 54 needs a publisher and accessdate.

Overall thoughts

• I think the article is well on its way to GA status. I'll summarize my thoughts below.
• The History section needs to be expanded, I listed suggestions in my review.
• The referencing is lacking especially in the Judicial review and Amendments section. This will need to be addressed before it can be successful at GAC.
• Imbedded lists should be broken down into prose.
• Images look good, references are for the most part credible and formatted correctly.
• If FA is your ultimate goal then there is quite a bit to be done. But GA is within easy reach and I wish you the best as you work on the article.

This concludes my review. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch reviews. If you found the review helpful consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)