Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Separation of powers under the United States Constitution/archive1
Self-nomination. (Note: The above title has been shown in a condensed form so that this page's TOC is not too wide.) -- Emsworth 19:50, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Another gem. I've added two sections to the end that somebody might want to look over. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent article - Taxman 20:55, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Object for now. The section on presidential powers mentions Nixon and the first Roosevelt, but for some reason it overlooks FDR, who I had understood to be the most powerful president of the 20th century. Isomorphic 02:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that FDR did not hold an extreme view of Presidential powers (like TR) or expand the constitutional power of the Presidency (like Nixon). I think that FDR expanded political power, while Nixon and TR attempted to expand the constitutional power of the presidency. (The nineteenth century Presidents are also noted, but for their struggles with Congress.) In any event, I will look into the matter and add any information that I might find about FDR. -- Emsworth 03:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
- See my comments on the article's talk page. Isomorphic 02:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This objection is the only one holding this article back - has it been resolved? →Raul654 06:05, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- See my comments on the article's talk page. Isomorphic 02:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that FDR did not hold an extreme view of Presidential powers (like TR) or expand the constitutional power of the Presidency (like Nixon). I think that FDR expanded political power, while Nixon and TR attempted to expand the constitutional power of the presidency. (The nineteenth century Presidents are also noted, but for their struggles with Congress.) In any event, I will look into the matter and add any information that I might find about FDR. -- Emsworth 03:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Object. Two of the pictures have no source listed. One is a painting, and probably in the public domain.Jeronimo 07:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)- The US Government does not own copyright, so I believe that the Senate picture is in the public domain. The two paintings are so old that they would be in the public domain by now. -- Emsworth 13:00, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
- If so, please indicate that the Senate picture was indeed taken by the US Government. This is not at all clear. Also, the Lord Chancellor picture is not dated, and no other information is provided. Therefore, it may very well be copyrighted.
- The LC picture is 19th century, in the public domain. Markalexander100 09:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If the PD status of the Clinton impeachment trial is not verified, perhaps we could use Image:3a05488v.jpg, which is verified to be public domain. anthony (see warning)
- If so, please indicate that the Senate picture was indeed taken by the US Government. This is not at all clear. Also, the Lord Chancellor picture is not dated, and no other information is provided. Therefore, it may very well be copyrighted.
- The US Government does not own copyright, so I believe that the Senate picture is in the public domain. The two paintings are so old that they would be in the public domain by now. -- Emsworth 13:00, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. I think this is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it.
My reason for objecting is that there's little discussion of criticism of the "US separation of powers" structure. The only thing I could find was: "John Kingdon ... cites its [Seperation of powers] complexity as one of the reasons for lower citizen participation.".-- Matt 16:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Object to image information shortage.A lovely article. I think we should be very careful about the images we use, however; we are rather rudely grabbing all manner of images without noting just what they are of, and when and where they (or the originals they are images of) were created. A good place to start seems to be with our small collection of peer-reviewed articles... Please forgive me for pressing for this double degree of brilliance, but I should hope that every image in a featured article has an informative description about its contents and provenance. "Lord Chancellor painting" does not meet this standard (painted by? when? is that a title or a description?); the image of the Clinton impeachment proceedings is slightly less unacceptable (it should approximate the date and note what news service or government site it came from) and the Anders Zorn image can skate by, but should properly note the detaails of the original painting (which I just added). +sj+ 05:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)- The Senate image has been replaced on Mr DiPierro's suggestion; the two paintings also have the relevant details noted. -- Emsworth 02:31, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
