Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Bill of Rights/archive1

United States Bill of Rights edit

Support: This is an article. For the japanese, some publicity of this article would educate them of thier own rights. For

== Headline text ==Bold text Americans, this article would show them basics of the judicial system, and overall American government. It fits all criteria for a featured article, and would be a good one. -zappa

Object This article is way too short for the subject, with a large part of it being quotes and the actual text of the amendments. No inline citations. There's only one reference, which is probably insufficient. Image:We The People.jpg needs a tag. Pagra shtak 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Definitely not comprehensive. Should have a brief discussion on more of the historical background of the time period. Nearly every American knows our history as far as independance and all that goes, but someone from, say, China might now. There are other facts that I don't myself know, but I'm sure someone could find out (and thus should definitely be in the article)... such as, why did only 10 amendments pass, and not the 11th or the 12th? Who were the people who originally objected to a bill of rights being included, why, and could you cite them? I had heard somewhere that there were specific states that were opposed to the bill at first and that's why they weren't just plain included in the original document, so that the constitution could be passed more quickly. I heard a rumor that the original rights might have banned slavery right in the first place? Is that true? The individual rights could also use more elaboration and discussion... other amendments get their own articles in and of themselves... why should the first ten be lumped together with barely a discussion as to content? I'm sure there's lots more to say. This is not a IMPORTANT part of American history, and an important part of modern politics and government as well! It deserves a lot more written about it than this! Fieari 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Incredibly small article with massive quotes and bad citation. Lists at the bottom rather than prose, and a few measly sources for such a humongous topic. Staxringold 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Needs a lot more information. For instance, Madison didn't just pull these rights out of thin air; the article should discuss their roots, such as the much earlier English Bill of Rights. Many freedoms that modern Americans assume are unique were already provided for there and elsewhere and were simply incorporated into our own Constitution. And how can an article on the bill of rights not spare a single sentence on discussing the various controversies over interpretation, i.e. the right to bear arms, free speech as it applies to flag burning, free press vs. sedition, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. There's an awful lot of information that should be here and, by adding what's missing, a better reference section will naturally be created. Kafziel 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Quite inadequate. The quotes are for the most part irrelevant. There is little discussing the history of its interpretation. Needs a lot more work. Hydriotaphia 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Too short. The structure is fine, needs big expansion tho. --PopUpPirate 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object Too short, and shoudl include a comtemporary translation from NPOV of the Amendments. Also the Federalists did NOT support the Bill of Rights, that was the anti-federalists. American Patriot 1776 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object as above. Compu terjoe 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object the intro mentions neither the dates of writing, proposal, adoption, nor anything related to the subject. It also lacks a citation for the claim that they were proposed because many people thought the constitution was an aristocratic scheme to remove the rights of the general public. Kaisershatner 15:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Perfect Arcticle, very informative, and Follows Criteria. Would Be a good Canidate due to the topic. --Z.Spy 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]