Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Equal Protection Clause

This is a self-nomination. I believe it is complete, accurate and well-written. More importantly, though, I think it an enormously important subject. Of course, I am more than willing to change whatever reasonably needs to be changed. Hydriotaphia 05:11, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• I'm sure people will want a 'references' section. I only have nits so far, such as I don't think I should have to read photo captions to learn about Bingham--doesn't have to be lengthy, but his role should probably be introduced, and fleshed out a bit in the actual article (i.e. captions should explain what is depicted, and its relevance, if not self-evident, but shouldn't be expected to add to the article itself). And he doesn't seem to have an article--highly recommend creating one and linking to it. Does seem to have very nicely relevant photos (esp. time-wise), and walks the reader through the relevant cases (both major and minor), and how they built on cases before, and affected cases after, quite smoothly. Oh, "rump" goes to a disamb page--if rump state (or rump Parliament, which seems a bigger stretch) can't be worked to cover this usage, you might want to create a new article (tho, how to avoid it being a dic def, I'm not sure :/ ). These are all probably 'nice to haves', not grounds to oppose. Nice job by the way--just checked the history--pretty good expansion for less than one week's worth of work. Niteowlneils 06:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with your objections. Please tell me if there's something else that you see as a problem. Thanks for your comments. Hydriotaphia 19:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I changed the "See also" header to "References", as that seems to be more accurate (and See also is usually used to refer to other Wikipedia articles). Definitely support (I really should have said that the first time--as I said my comments weren't intended as objections). Niteowlneils 02:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Changing the section title is entirely innapropriate if the works listed were not actually used to confirm or add the material in the article. References are important for a reason and not just to be able to check the box and say you have them. Now if they were properly used, I apologize, but nothing in the above conversation reflects that. - Taxman 05:27, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't say I had all of those sources actually in front of me as I was writing the article, but I have read 10/12 of the sources mentioned, with the 2 others—the Kotz and the Morris books—having been praised highly by others of the sources. I can't speak for Niteowlneils, but I'm guessing he just figured "references" meant references for the readers. That, at least, was what I had supposed, just because if they were meant to be sources, they would be called "sources." It may be, though, that "references" are a sort of term of art on Wikipedia, and "references" means what in other contexts would be called "sources." Taxman, could you direct me to whatever resource can clear this up for all of us? Thanks—and thanks for your comments. If we get this references/sources thing all squared away, do you think you could support this article? Best regards, Hydriotaphia 05:38, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • There needs to be a clear differentiation between those resources that have been used to confirm or supply material in the article (Usually done in a 'References' section, ideally with inline citations; but also done as footnotes to cite specific facts to sources), and those that have not (they can be put in a 'Further reading' or similar). There is no hard and fast consensus as to the names of those, partly because different people perceive them differently and even different academic disciplines use them differently. But what I have given you is what the featured article criteria use. See the top of the page for that link. In any case the important thing is that the differentiation I have noted is clear. - Taxman 06:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I hope I've taken care of your (totally valid) concerns with the footnotes I've added. Tell me what you think. Hydriotaphia 07:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
        • Sorry to be difficult, but it still seems unclear if the sources listed were actually consulted. Each note just says "See Example book". We are still in the exact same situation where that seems to refer me to a source for more information without telling me explicitly the fact in this article is taken from that source. For ex, the material and source in note #1 "For details on the rationale for, and ratification of, the Fourteenth Amendment, see..." does not seem to directly support either the sentence the note superscript is attached to - "These laws severely restricted...", or the whole paragraph for that matter. A more typical footnote simply lists the author's last name and other proper source information if the bit was actually taken from that source. - Taxman 23:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, all of them were consulted! In legal citations, some of whose form I've chosen to use here, the direction "see" means that the book, article, etc. cited clearly supports the footnoted proposition(s). When I footnoted a sentence, the footnote supports the facts in the paragraph, and often the whole section, footnoted; I did it this way to avoid visual clutter (and lots and lots of ibids.!). But I encourage you to change the wording of the footnotes so that, to your mind, they more clearly show that the sources have been consulted. Thanks again for your comments. Best, Hydriotaphia 18:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
            • Nope, thats fine. I simply didn't know "see" has that significance. Great work then. However what about note 1 not really matching up with the sentence/paragraph it is by? Or am I just off base on that? - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Looks well researched, covers everything I can think about the topic. Though I am curious as to the relation between the clause and affirmative action and that debate. Something could stand to be said about that. - Taxman 00:14, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Darn it, Taxman, I hoped no one would notice that there was nothing about affirmative action. :) You're quite right, the article isn't quite complete without something on Af Act. I'm sort of busy right now, but in the next few days I'll try to add something on that important subject. Best. Hydriotaphia 01:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I've added a section on affirmative action, with footnotes. I believe the article is now complete. Hydriotaphia 22:15, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I hope someone will critique the affirmative action section that I've added. I must admit that I strongly favor affirmative action, and hence I fear that the section may not be NPOV. Hydriotaphia 00:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I believe I have assuaged my own concerns in this matter. But I am certainly open to suggestions (and edits, of course!). Hydriotaphia 09:09, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've decided that superscript footnotes are really inappropriate in Wikipedia-land, because they mess with line spacing and hence obscure paragraph structure. So what I'm going to do is keep the footnotes, but make them into regular script. I hope this doesn't anger anyone. Hydriotaphia 19:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. --SPUI 02:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Qualified support. Needs articles, at least stubs, about the cases cited, and the collegiate admissions process. I don't have time, at least this week, to write any of the former and am unqualified to write the latter. Aside from that, looks like a featured article to me. Rlquall 02:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, Rlquall, thank you for your qualified support. May I ask, though, what you mean by your reference to the collegiate admisions process? Do you want more links to articles about the process, or more on how the Clause affects that process? (See also the message I left on your talk page.) Best, Hydriotaphia 09:06, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Article looks reasonably complete, although as with any featured article on an important subject, some future tweaking can be expected. Edeans 03:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong support. Well done. COGDEN 03:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. This should definitely be a featured article in my view. It's well written, well-researched, important and interesting. The only small point I'd add is that, personally, I like to see inline references (I like lots of ibids and op cits), but I know other editors don't like them, and they do break up the text. I can see there's been a discussion about references already, so I won't add to it. I strongly support this nomination. Slim 02:10, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)