Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:12, 9 February 2009 [1].

Saxbe fix

[edit]

I HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO WITHDRAW THIS NOMINATION FOR SOME TIME. PLEASE WITHDRAW THIS NOMINATION.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this article for featured article because as I have stated in prior nominations this is a rare example of United States Constitutional Law that became watercooler conversation. As such the page was highly trafficked and highly edited. Based on preliminary results at WP:DYKBEST it was the most viewed DYK hook during the month of November. Thus, I think there is a lot of interest in fully developing this article in the best form possible. If I can get this to pass it is about a ten-pointer at WP:TFAR on March 4, 2009 (the centenary of the first Saxbe fix). Push is starting to come to shove in terms of the centenary, but a lot of progress has been made on the article.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, archived only eight days ago with multiple concerns, incuding comprehensive, and there have been few changes to the article since. Please take a few weeks to address concerns, and be mindful of the backlog at FAC and that FAC is not peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most concerns were addressed in the late stages of the last FAC even though they were not struck or otherwise marked as resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that comprehensiveness was raised as an issue on Jan 21 of a FAC that ran from Jan 21 – 27. Since the 21st this has been made much more comprehensive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E.G., the second of two opposes for comprehensiveness came at 13:47, 21 January 2009. Since that time the article has been expanded. Here are the changes since this complaint. In that time the article has gone from 21,730KB to 41,953KB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think whole point is that FAC is really suffering right now, and Sandy has been pretty strict about the one-nom-at-a-time rule. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Sandy's Talk page I explained this. This is a March 4 centenary candidate at TFA if people think it is ready, which it may be.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that another oppose popped up on the other FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again. Moreover the article is clearly not ready. There is massive overlinking (“United States Senator from x”, linking to lists of senators from that state; there is no need for the link to the list given the following linked name of the actual senator), inconsistent capitalization and overcapitalization (“Senate Seat”), stilted prose (“attempts to attend to complications related to”, “that have been determined and that determine”), proofreading errors (“Secretary of the Commerce”, “Senator United States Senator from North Carolina”, “United States Senators from Iowa” in reference to one person, “emolument's clause”), unencyclopedic language (“fails to cut the mustard”), ambiguous use of pronoun, use of “current” which will become dated (and in Hillary Clinton’s case, already is), and inconsistent italics in case names. This nomination should be removed and given a line-by-line proofreading and copyedit before returning. Kablammo (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I am responding to the below by breaking the text because you formatted it continuously in a way that is impossible to respond to.)

TonyTheTiger, please see the WP:FAC instructions:

  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary.

Following these instructions will help keep FACs more readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again. Moreover the article is clearly not ready. There is

This nomination should be removed and given a line-by-line proofreading and copyedit before returning. Kablammo (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to revisit my oppose in light of recent changes. My oppose was not an exhaustive list of my concerns, but only examples of problems indicating that the nomination was premature. The problems in the nominated version tend to reduce confidence in other areas of the article. Before nominating, both the nominator and other principal contributors should be satisfied that it is a finished product. A premature nomination can do more harm than good to an article's prospects.
Given the number and frequency of recent edits including ongoing substantive change, and the unresolved discussion on the article's talk page concerning scope, it appears that the article is still a work in progress, and lacks the stability required for an FA. There is little point in reviewing a moving target. Kablammo (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand your opposition it is that the article fails stability largely because people are addressing the concerns noted here and working minor disagreements out on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This article is in need of thorough copyediting. A few examples:

I full endorse Kablammo's view above; this article neds to be thoroughly checked through before it's ready for FAC.

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kablammo, this is an area in which the FA director's delegate has authority, and she had the right to exercise said authority, and did so for what I deem proper reasons. God knows I don't always see eye to eye with Sandy, but she's got the right here. This nomination should be pulled or suspended.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any WP:WIAFA issues to note that might help me improve the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, beyond the dozen or so edits I've made to improve the article? I'll get back to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's a starter. Tony, the article says that the Knox fix was enacted on March 4, and that Knox took office on March 6. This is sourced to Times articles for February 12 and 16. This seems a problem, for obvious reasons. Also, when exactly did Roosevelt sign the bill? And shouldn't there a Public Law number? Just by way of comment, seems to me that whenever Roosevelt signed the bill is the centennial of the Knox version of the Saxbe fix, to touch on the TFA discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion of this point at Talk:Saxbe fix#When was the Knox fix enacted? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text has this fairly well resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one is resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another for you, Tony: The article contains this language: "Congress discussed reverting the fix after the appointed nominee had resigned and assumed the post so that Knox did not have to forgo any emoluments. They also discussed reverting the salaries of all United States Cabinet members." Both sentences are sourced to the Feb 10 1909 article in the NY Times. I see no mention of congressional discussions, though several congressmen apparently spoke to the reporter off the record. Big difference, the article makes it sound like there were congressional debates supported by this ref.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to make it Congressmen noted that they considered these things?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd inline cite to the NY Times and say that unnamed congressmen said such and such.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another: "Clinton received approval to use a Saxbe fix to appoint United States Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to the Supreme Court, but Mitchell withdrew his name from consideration for reasons unrelated to his eligibility." Does that mean a law was passed? That should be specified, because you can't lower the salary of serving justices under the Constitution (it's in Article III), so it could have applied only to Mitchell. Was the law then repealed so that Ginsberg or Breyer (whoever was appointed then) could draw a full salary?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think approval to use a fix means that your AG says go for it. I don't think it means it went to Congress. Clinton is recent enough that you law guys can probably track down exact details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if there was a formal written opinion by the AG. It is odd language though.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still more "But Hatch had, in the term which he was still serving, voted on a salary increase for the judiciary." So what? Voting on a salary increase for the judiciary is irrelevant to the Clause. It is having an increase passed during the current term of office.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like a precise legaleze speaker. I have only had one law course. I think he voted on an increase for the position to which he was being considered for nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. I'm a lawyer, I speak (hopefully) with precision, and I've been trained to write that way. So when I see a legal article on WP, I like to see precision. I'm probably more ready to see ambiguities than lay people, but that comes in handy copyediting. But again, the salary increase is what should be made clear. Right now, it isn't even clear there was a salary increase, nor whether it took place within the term of office Hatch was serving in 1987.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Once a fix is granted and the nominee is confirmed, it is considered unlikely that the person's appointment could be challenged in the courts. The most likely persons to have proper legal standing to challenge would be best able to do so after the fact." Apparent contradiction.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this mean that you can't have standing without already having been harmed. I don't see the contradiction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on a rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Mikva receive a fix? Should be specified. Clear from the lede he did not, but it should be in the article body.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they contested that he should have had to have a fix for the post and did not get legal standing to present the argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article at present doesn't say whether a fix was attempted, although you can derive it from the statement in the lede that no fix for a senator promoted to the judiciary has been attempted.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in love with the current opening sentence: 'The Saxbe fix or rollback is a possible solution to the restriction of the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, which prevents current and former members of the United States Congress from being appointed to positions created or for which the pay and/or benefits (collectively "emoluments") were increased, until the period for which they were elected has expired.' Solution implies problem. The Ineligibility Clause restriction is not a problem, it is rather an inconvenience for Senators who want to hold civil office. Suggest different language be used.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kept trying to change it and User:Simon Dodd kept reverting it. No one else seemed to care. Go for a change. I'll be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN Can someone close this immediately so that I can bring it back for one final fresh look in 10 days or so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning on bringing this back in 10 days, I don't see what the point is of withdrawing it. If the prose isn't ready now, are you planning to get a copyedit in the next 10 days? If not, the only thing you've accomplished is burdening the system unnecessarily by making the existing prose opposition re-state their objections. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opposes are not all based on the prose and if you look at the edit history you can see there are several people reviewing the text. However, look at the review that says "The FAC delegate removed it; it should not have been added again." The guy is not opposing based on content, but based on the article having been nominated at a time he did not want it to be nominated. Then when I asked him to review he said he was opposing because it was being copyedited. If he is objecting because it is being copyedited, then I need to withdraw it and renominate it later. I will not be copyediting it in the next 72 hours because of other responsibilities on WP. It needs a clean slate. Anyways I am the nominator and I would like to Withdraw.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have indicated that the article needs copyediting. Per WP:FAC instructions:

  • #Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ...

please assure that the article is independently copyedited and that current issues are resolved before renominating. FAC should not be veiwed as a revolving door for submitting articles for a "fresh looks" until/unless previous issues are resolved; the article can be renominated once an independent copyedit has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Saxbe_fix/archive3&oldid=1088821926"