Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Supreme Court of the United States/archive1

Supreme Court of the United States

This is a really comprehensive article, detailing various perspectives of one of the fundamental parts of the United States government. It is NPOV and well-written, and also has many references and in-line citations. I believe that this article is ready to be a FA. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

• Object. The article could use a little reorganization, especially moving the history up ahead of fairly trivial stuff on the Bar requirements and citation style. Also, O'Conner's retriement should not get a paragraph in the history section when no other Justice's retirement is mentioned at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 9 04:07 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The O'Connor paragraph in the history section has already been removed. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

• Object. Not comprehensive, needs a good copyedit. And for Pete's sake, remove that O'Conner bit. Neutrality^talk July 9, 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! See above comment; the paragraph has already been removed. I'll see what I can do in terms of adding more/reorganization. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

• Object. A good article, but needs some copyediting. Mwalcoff 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. There are a couple problems. First of all, the history section seems to start with the Warren Court--there is no information on what kind of decisions the Court made previous to that (for example, the various disputes over economic regulations during the Gilded age, and so on). Secondly, the "Current Justices" section notes the existence of a "liberal wing", a "conservative wing", etc., but then fails to connect these terms to the discussion of constructionism and activism below. Best, Meelar (talk) 15:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Absolutely, utterly, undisputably inadequate. "Loose constructionism" is a neologism used by bloggers and lazy journalists, without real meaning; the rest of the "Judicial Philosophy" section is a superficial discussion of dictionary definitions. A disproportionate amount of text is concerned with transient, current issues and anticipatory discussion of the fight over SDOC's successor. The "History" section omits everything between John Marshall and Earl Warren, except for a discussion of changes in the number of court members and a passing reference to Plessy v. Ferguson. I'm sorry, but most of this reads like an excerpt from a bad junior high school textbook that was never copyedited. And there's a huge NPOV problem in describing the Warren Court as more active and "loose constructionist" while omitting any mention of the 1900-1930's courts that invented "liberty of contract" and took a chainsaw to economic regulations without ever grounding their opionions in constitutional text. Monicasdude 15:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'll see what I can do. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, so it might take a while. Thanks for your patience. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctantly oppose. There's some good stuff here, really there is, but I don't think its comprehensive. For example, the reference section doesn't cite any books. Charles Warren's is the standard for the early years of the court. There's also the Holmes Devise history. Rehnquist published a good book on the court as well. There are many studies of how the court works, e.g. Bob Woodward and Scott Anderson's The Brethern. And though I've not seen it, I'm sure Linda Greenhouse's book based on the Blackmun papers will be useful. The history section is unfortunately weak and perhaps these books can help. Oh, and the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, that's ever useful. A stylistic issue troubles: the table about the justices. It's awkward, it runs off screen, and it's hard to copy. The information would be better presented in a bulleted list of the justices. That would be much more user friendly. Again, I think there's a solid foundation, but there's still a bit more work to do. PedanticallySpeaking 16:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks once again for the input! I see this article needs some major reworking. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)