Talk:New Jersey State Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

New Jersey State Constitution has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

New Jersey State Constitution (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	New Jersey Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Previous Peer Review

Contents 1 How to make the article pass GA next time 2 Specific provisions for Article II 3 Expansion 4 A call for help 5 GA failed 5.1 GA passed 6 Peer review comments

[edit] How to make the article pass GA next time

Note to all reviewers: the passage below is from the first nomination.

1. The state constitution isn't the highest law of the state. Even the most trivial of federal regulations trumps state law.
2. You need to include the constitution itself on the page, instead of just talking about it. Having a section of constitution is regular type, followed by discussion in italics would work.
3. The outline of the constitution needs to be at the top. Either figure out a way to set up your headers so the Contents box does the trick, or use a {{Notoc}} and create the outline you want.
4. You need to CITE YOUR SOURCES. For instance, you can't say "The first constitution was adopted in 1776 and, amongst other things granted unmarried women and blacks who met property requirements the right to vote" unless you point out how you know that. You need to link to a reliable source who is making that observation, or better yet, link to the 1776 constitution itself. I suspect the Avalon Project has a copy online; you can google it easily, and they're considered a Reliable Source.
5. I'm "easy" when it comes to citations. If you use <ref>[http://someurl Title of Page</ref>, it's jake with me. Some reviewers insist that you include the date that you accessed the article, and put the reference in some standard form. But I still want you to nail down every fact. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says that's essential for acceptable content; Good Articles are supposed to be better than just acceptable.
6. I don't see any NPOV problems.
7. I don't see any stability problems.
8. You only have one small image. You shouldn't have any problem coming up with some more. You can surely get a map from the Redistricting Commission, showing the districts, put it next to Article II. You can put publicity stills of current state officers, and put them next to the parts of the constitution that discuss them.
9. You need to get rid of the red wikilinks, but turning them black isn't the solution, because you don't have an excess of wikilinks. Instead, you need to create stub articles.
10. You need to flesh out the Criticisms and Differences sections.
11. The article's wording is clumsy. Example: "Unusually, various provisions usually kept in other sections or unified in one section in most state constitutions are spread throughout the New Jersey Constitution."

I'm glad you're interested in improving Wikipedia, and I hope these suggestions help. Feel free to renominate the article as soon as you've taken care of these issues! ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific provisions for Article II

• "No idiot or insane person shall enjoy the right of suffrage." Section I, 6

This is actually a provision in Article II of the NJ State Constitution, but I have to object as to its placement in the article. There are no other specific provisions for any of the other articles, and the provision itself seems to be in the article just because it sounds slightly weird relative to the other provisions. Should this be removed, or should more specific (and more relevant!) provisions be piled into the article? AndyZ 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I say expand. No reason to ignore this provision when it is discussed in context. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is in context, but it still seems odd that only this specific provision is mentioned, but that it is not one of the more important ones. AndyZ 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I added that it because it was A: A whole section (Or articel, whichever), B: sounded interesting, and C: My experience with working on constitutions comes from the Alabama State Constitution and so am used to quoting things like that. 68.39.174.238 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

The article is missing Articles V through XI, which is half of the constitution. I have added the sections of Article IV and started Article V (as well as other sections), but the page is still missing a huge amount of information and should be updated as soon as possible with information about the other articles. AndyZ 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to put your name in parenthesis when you're going to sign yourself. 68.39.174.238 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can't remember why I did that. Missing now are sections for Article VI, VIII, and XI. AndyZ 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A call for help

I've reconstructed so much of this article (check the history section). I really need assistance, however, from a copy-editor, to scan over the article to check for language style and the uniformity therein. The copy-editor must have a bigger vocabulary and better sense of grammar than I. If you know someone who could fill this position, or you think may be able to, please tell them to contact me. --Evan 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

1. Well written? Fail Pass (lead)

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Fail Pass (needs more sections)

4. Neutral point of view? OK

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Fail Pass

Additional comments :

• Image:GovJonCorzine.jpg, Image:Carchman.jpg need to state their fair use rationale. Fixed: They do now.
• No history section but the lead section is somewhat of a summary in itself attempting to write the history, this could be expanded and made into an article. Fixed:Seperate article made, lead re-worked to be similar to other state constitution leads.
• There is a need to expand the section Defunct Versions for it doesn't give the reasons for their failings quite clearly enough.
• Could this be less clear ? The article also deals with the details of how and when the Redistricting Commission will meet, the amount of time to go to various things, etc. ? Fixed: This, specifically, fixed. Article has been checked for awkwardness.
• Many words aren't wikilinks which renders the reader with having to look for words in the dictionary, maybe wikilinking them to wiktionary if they can't be found in WP.
• A negative enumeration of legislative powers is included. and who says that?
• Criticisms should be prose. Fixed: Made into prose.
• Outline section is irrelevant or should be incorporated in the text. Fixed:Tossed.
• Does the reference section mean that nothing else states the constitution articles? Does it mean that the articles weren't mentioned in 1947 when they were passed and weren't criticised?
• What led to the rewriting/modifying of the constitution?

I know that a lot of information has been added since the first nomination but it still doesn't meet the GA standards and should be improved upon the comments given. Good luck and if any question arises, please ask me or request insight into my review. Lincher 01:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything's fixed now. It is GA now. --Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 12:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Every requested modifications have been made and such have given a more encyclopedic look to the article. Thanks for the time that was put into re-working the article, It is really GA now. Lincher 12:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review comments

I have made several edits to the article, and have the following comments:

• Is the word "instantiate" used correctly? Webster translates this as "to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance, e.g., heroes instantiate ideals." The article uses the term in a manner similar to "establishes," "authorizes," or "allows." I'd suggest using a more appropriate word.
• Is it neccesary to boldface "Article X" the first time it is mentioned in a section? It doesn't really add anything to the article, and also seems redundant, given that in most cases, it is the first word of the section.
• Someone please copyedit the last paragraph of Article XI section and the Criticisms section.
• The notes section should be merged with the references section.

-- Patiwat 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)