Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1

Bricker Amendment[edit]

Completely rewritten version of this article. Was previously on peer review here and had a featured article candidacy here. Has been designated a Wikipedia:Good article. Thoroughly researched with notes, illustrated, thorough article on a proposed constitutional amendment. PedanticallySpeaking 16:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine, nothing wrong with the plenty of good references. --M e rovingian {T C @} 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Merovingian. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me - but maybe not that easy for non-Americans to understand the basic concepts. Deb 20:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deb. It is one of those very American topics, I understand, very peculiar to our constitutional system. Many Americans would have trouble understanding, say, the role of your Lord Chancellor. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is thoroughly referenced and overall quite well done. Though it may be a little difficult to understand for for those not well-versed in US politics, this is a typical condition of such specialized articles; a little background reading usually fixes that for anybody who is interested enough to follow through. – Clockwork Soul 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Clockwork. I tried to include a good bit of background on American isolationism because without that, it is hard to understand the very strong feelings generated by the issue. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked at that list. I'm not certain why some items are on it, however. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Merovingian about the references; the important thing is that the inline citations don't overwhelm and distract from the text. I really like this article; it's very comprehensive, well-researched and well-written, and while I found some parts a little unclear, I don't think there are ways to "simplify" and elaborate on them without making the text bloated and choppy. I noticed a few typos in the direct quotes, but I didn't want to change them in case they had been deliberately carried over from the source material. Also, there are a few red links in close proximity to one another in the "G.O.P. infighting" section, though I wouldn't mind if they stayed there. The sentences starting with "But" are a little awkward, but I'm not sure whether this is grammatically incorrect. Use of passive voice could be removed in some areas to reduce the number of words and give sentences a better flow, e.g. "no action was taken by the full Senate" to "the full Senate took no action"; again, I should stress that I'm not an expert when it comes to grammar. Anyway, great job! I hadn't even heard of this topic until recently; now I've learnt a lot about it. Extraordinary Machine 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to do a complete proofreading of this, it was just I had been working on it so long I needed to put it out there for comment. Please, point out errors in quotes. I'm by no means a perfect copyist and very well could have gotten them wrong. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Here are the ones I found:

"...international organizations. They are ginding out treaties like so many eager beavers..."
"...bargained away in attempts to show our good neigborliness and to indicate to the rest of the world..."
"...international legislature to formulate socialistic laws which is hopes, by the vehicle of treaty ratification..."
"whom he had three times backed form the presidential nomination"
"I do not want a president of the U.s. to conclude an exectuve agreement which will make it unlawful for me to kill a cat..."
""Bricker had become alientated from the mainstream of his own party..."

Hope that helps. Extraordinary Machine 13:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Extraordinary. Those errors have been fixed. PedanticallySpeaking 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments on the talk page, but suppose they might as well be here... more of the same :)
==Clarification==

"The best-known version of the Bricker Amendment, considered by the Senate in 1953–1954, declared that no treaty could be made by the United States that conflicted with the Constitution, was self-executing without the passage of separate enabling legislation through Congress, or which granted Congress legislative powers beyond those specified in the Constitution."

I am working on what 'self-executing' is supposed to mean; I am guesing that "no treaty could be made ... that ... was self-executing" means that no treaty could be made without enabling legislation. Is this redundant or am I mistaken? --Matthew 03:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, self-executing means that if the Senate ratifies a treaty it is the internal law of the United States and another law passed by both houses and signed by the president is not necessary. PedanticallySpeaking 16:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Spelling in quotes==

Someone else mentioned spelling errors in quotes... guess they need 'sic' or corrected to what they really were. Watch for "slure" ... should maybe be slur?

First one: Patrick J. Buchanan writes "the term is a dismissive slure on a tradition of U.S. independence in foreign policy and nonintervention in foreign wars"

In the next sentence or so, it happens to be spelled Bucanan. I think it is Buchanan, but can imagine it being Bucanan. --Matthew 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are typos. The word should have been "slur" and the name "Buchanan". PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==War plans==
I am not particularly familiar with war plans, but Rainbow 5 and War plan orange seem to be different in the rather short United_States_Color-coded_War_Plans article. I deleted Rainbow 5 from the sentence; if that leaves it incorrect, you can fix it. --Matthew 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow 5 was the whole constellation of pre-World War II plans, color-coded for nations. I put it back in to be clear what's being talked about. PedanticallySpeaking 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==United Nations==
I am guessing that the abbreviations UN and U.N. are both acceptable. They are both used at least once. Which would you prefer we use? --Matthew 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and added periods so it is "U.N." since both letters are said aloud unlike in an acronym such as NASA. PedanticallySpeaking 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Sentence needs moved/changed to improve flow==
I am trying to figure out what to do with "Nevertheless, Americans for Democratic Action had given him a "zero" rating in 1949." It doesn't seem to fit where it is; perhaps I don't understand exactly why it is included. I do see that it implies that they said he was as conservative (as far as disagreement with their policies goes) as anyone. It just seems to break the two sentences on either side of it. --Matthew 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered those sentences. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very detailed and through. Much better than prior version. I'd vote for FA, but my only caution is that at 80K, some may say it's too long. Rlevse 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this as a featured article candidate today. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]