Talk:Saxbe fix/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

the article suffers a bad form of recentism brooding in excessive detail over the Obama/Clinton case, which should be covered in detail elsewhere (Obama's transition article). Compare with Ineligibility Clause#Political and legal history.
- I think I have rearranged the article to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don't see why Obama needs a singleton subsection; either add sections (and expand a little) previous significant uses, or drop the Obama heading. Also, why is the "Other" subsubsection is needed? You could have an intro to the Obama section (whether ts has a heading or not) giving that summary info. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is it now split by century?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in this wiki article the legality of Saxbe fix is challenged (on theoretical basis) only in the same source that contests Clinton's appointment, which a fairly POV, especially since no counterbalancing opinion is given in the legality section. I'm sure some scholars did find it legal in nearly 100 years...
- The fact that people have been able to hold office after executing the fix is clear evidence that it is widely considered legal. The counterveiling thought that it might be illegal seems to be all that is necessary. Why do I need to say some consider it legal, when it has been used effectively after much debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the wiki article fails to give the arguments for/against the legality of the fix. I checked Ineligibility Clause, and it doesn't do it either.
- Now that it is rearranged with a legality section is this still an issue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quick note: Repeating "Some legal scholars ..." in the 1st sentence of two adjacent paragraphs is poor style. I'm still reviewing that section's contents. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have revised the text to address this and to clarify the interpretation of the secondary source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, if all you're going to do is move paragraphs around, I'll quickfail this GAN. The legality section now discuses the Clinton case, when it should be about the the legality of lack thereof on constitutional grounds. I'm sure you can find someone else to pass it, but it won't be me.
    - Ordinarily, I am much more liberal with my editorial involvment for holds. However, this article has six editors other than myself who have made at least five edits in its brief existence. With the widespread involvement, I am not so quick to make a vast overhaul.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to more fine grained aspects if/when the above are addressed. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea having a subsection per century! Okay it's getting in shape. Some more nitpicking:

History section has a poor heading title since Instances are, ahem, history. That paragraph is useful for giving context (although it's a bit repetitive given the lede). I suggest (1) renaming it to Ineligibility Clause, and (2) also move there some stuff from the lede, e.g. the quote, which is bit distracting there (positioned in the lede it might even suggest that the quote is the fix) Xasodfuih (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first three paragraphs in the Legality section flow, but the last one is too Clinton specific. I suggest integrating it in the 21st Century section where Clinton's appointment is discussed. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it back up to the Clinton section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to explain for the lay reader what "emoluments" means (a parenthetical note should suffice). The MSNBC article does explain it, so it's not far fetched to assume that some don't know what it means. I think there's a rule for GA to explain jargon, although in this case it's just word that's less common today. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my last point, I gave it another read after your last set of changes, and I'm passing this GA :-) Xasodfuih (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]