Talk:History of the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
1 |
Contents |
[edit] Purpose of Revisions
Please indicate the purpose of revisions as a simple removal of selected, viable text is insufficient without the purpose causing it.Allstargeneral 04:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced Statement
I'm removing the following unsourced statement,
- Contrary to popular belief, the division was not explicit between large states and small states. It was between states with claims of Western land and states without such claims.
because it has lacked a reference for over a year. I've also contacted the author of the statement, asking him to provide a reference. If anyone else has a reference for this, please add it.
For reference, this is the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=18018253 -- VGF11 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanx. I remember reading that and it definately flew a red flag for me. Good edit, IMAO. 68.39.174.238 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] English as official language
The sentence that mentions a discussion on making English the official language, which was recently tagged with "citation needed", seems rather close to an apparent myth described on this page. We may not want to leave that statement in the article too long if it can't be verified. Carl Lindberg 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. For reference, this is the line you're discussing, correct?
- A particular argument of note, during this time, was whether or not an official language for the United States should be declared.-- VGF11 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's the one. Carl Lindberg 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poor Choice of words
From "Views of the Constitution": Prior to the Civil War, abolitionists hated the Constitution because it allowed slavery.
Come on, this isn't very professional. KurtFF8 01:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Archive
Started since most discussion from 2006 and prior. GtstrickyTalk or C
[edit] GA review
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- It is stable.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
Per GA review guildelines number 2, points 1 and 3, this article does not satisfy the GA criteria. Bottom line: The article lacks citations and includes a tag for a copyedit at the top and needs a little more work. I am failing it for the reasons listed. Once these concerns have been addressed, however, it may be renominated at any time. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)