Wikipedia:Featured article review/First Amendment to the United States Constitution/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 19:13, 7 January 2007.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Review commentary

Messages left at Lord Emsworth, United States, Law, Politics, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. Sandy (Talk) 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient, short, unsourced, bad lead, etc. Punctured Bicycle 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is far short of FA standards. Let's look at just the writing. At the opening, we're treated to:
- "Textually, it prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that ..." Textually? The subsequent list is framed as a single sentence, yet each item starts with an upper-case letter.
- "The First Amendment only explicitly disallows any of the rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress ..." Hard to understand the meaning, and there are redundancies.
- "Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that ..." Remove the first word. Can it be a little more exact chronologically?

The rest is poorly written too. Tony 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this article for awhile now, and I have to agree with your assessment. I would add, though, that while the article incorporates summary style for some subsections, the "freedom of speech" subsection is not abbreviated at all, and the "main article" (Freedom of speech in the United States) is pretty bad, thus the entire subsection needs to be moved to the "main article" and summarized in the First Amendment article. However, I tried to get talk page consensus on the issue months ago to no avail. I'm not sure why this one subsection seems to be exempt from the summary style that is used in the rest of the article, but that shouldn't happen in featured articles. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs inline cites. LuciferMorgan 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, no improvement. Sandy (Talk) 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), LEAD (2a). Marskell 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove for now. Lack of inline citations, stubby sections and prose problems people more qualified than me have underscored.--Yannismarou 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per all of the above. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, no inline citations, fails to meet current FA standards. Ter e nc e Ong 08:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. Tony 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.