Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saxbe fix

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Saxbe fix edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a last shot at a March 4 or March 6 centennary WP:TFA. Since the last time this article was here I have augmented the text with a lot of detail. The entire text except for the Background section, which I beefed up yesterday, has been copyedited by Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs), Simon Dodd (talk · contribs), and Ruslik0 (talk · contribs). Several others have visited the page to make minor edits in the text. It is deeper and reads much more smoothly than before. We have cleansed the article of most blog content. It is ready, I believe. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As Tony noted, I've helped out a bit on this article. I did oppose the last time out, on the grounds that it was not comprehensive. I think Tony's taken care of that now. Before, it read somewhat like a list, and I had concerns it was possible he might have missed some. Tony's done a lot of research into it now, and I think it is as good a survey of the Saxbe fix as has ever been done. I think it meets all FA criteria, and I hope it gets through in time to take its place on the main page on the centennial of the first Saxbe fix.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've also done work on this. I opposed it on go-around #2 because I didn't think it was comprehensive and the sourcing was weak in places. I didn't comment during go-around #3 because it was still in motion. The article has improved a lot in all these areas, and I think it's now likely the best general audience treatment of the topic around. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (I believe this was mentioned in prior FACs; also, see sample edits on MOS issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the dabs. I'll leave the MoS issues to Tony or someone else, I've never quite understood some of this article's cite formatting conventions. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article is comprehensive (especially for this obscure part of the constitutional law) , well sourced, and well written. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious image issues as follows:

These should be resolved before promoting them as part of Wikipedia's best works. Jappalang (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues resolved, all images used in this article are verifiably in public domain or under appropriate CC license. Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I was skimming the Legality section, checking a few sources here and there to verify claims.
    • I came across "Some proponents of this view, such as Pete Williams,". Surprised to see that a high-profile legal journalist would actively support one view, I clicked on the cited source to find no such thing. Williams is summarizing the views of legal scholars. Rather disconcerting to see the article twist this so that he becomes a "proponent".
      • How about "such as those described by Pete Williams"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an odd way of framing it. Williams isn't describing proponents (which is what the current wording suggests) but quoting the proponents. I just don't see why Williams needs to be mentioned at all. It's a blog post of a reporter, not the legal views of a scholar. BuddingJournalist 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you rather have Williams totally expunged from the article? He is a former Deputy Secratary and Pentagon spokesperson. He has some knowledge of how things work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure what you want so I removed his name and left the comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as a solution to the clause, it should be noted that Congress " Recast please.
    • "Some scholars think that the phrase..." Some scholars? Source is a Volokh post that is just his "very tentative thinking". Nothing about other scholars. If there are more scholars, then the source should be changed to reflect this.
      • Much of the debate is about the two ways of viewing the Clause. Many say one way is right, and and many say another is right. Volokh says both ways are reasonable. The fact that there is scholarly debate means that there is some ambiguity in the wording doesn't it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My issue was with the source used rather than the wording (at the time, I didn't think the source matched what was being said in the article). But I just re-read the source, and I have changed my mind on this. BuddingJournalist 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional." You'd at the very least at need to ascribe this view to someone. Seeing as how this is cited to Volokh, is this really what Volokh is saying? Seems to me, he's actually saying that "If [it's "on net"], then the question is how you resolve the ambiguity...I don't know what the answer is given all that, but those are the things that I'd think about." BuddingJournalist 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is ascribed to Volokh Professor Volokh suggested [in the e-mail requesting this response -EV] that the clause might be read so that the emoluments of an office “have been increased” only if the salary at the time of appointment is higher than the salary at the beginning of the appointee’s congressional term. See the opinion of John O'Connor. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't see this in the article. I'm saying that "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional" needs to be ascribed to someone ("According to so-and-so, in the latter case..."), and that that sentence doesn't match the source given (at least, not the way I read it, but feel free to correct me). BuddingJournalist 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that Saxbe fix is exactly the elimination of the net increase, the adoption of the "on net" interpretation means that Clinton is eligible (Saxbe fix is constitutional). This plain reading of what Volokh says (he does not use the magic word "constitutional", though). Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems with the link for the Bentsen fix. Does anyone know how to get a permalink out of THOMAS for that link. I hope the Clinton and Salazar fixes are permalinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References comment -- Reference errors found with WP:REFTOOLS

  • O'Connor, p. 94 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
    • This is using a named ref. for the multiple occurrences. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either you fixed it or the script is acting up.--TRUCO 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed it. This and the other problem were related because the ref <ref name=TEC94>O'Connor, p. 94</ref> appeared twice.
  • TEC94 | Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward end of 2nd paragraph "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship and court challenges to such appointments have failed." -- Subject of sentence is muddled; first half it's appointments of judges, second half it apparently is all Saxbe Fix appointments. Perhaps it should be "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship. All court challenges to Saxbe Fix-enabled appointments have failed." I'm reluctant to make this change myself because I don't know whether "all challenges" is accurate. CouldOughta (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 'court challenges failed' refers only to those appointed to the federal bench. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence to: "Members of Congress have been appointed to federal judgeships without any fix being enacted; court challenges to such appointments have failed." Is that any better? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood. The original sentence was correct but the new wording is better.CouldOughta (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have been through this article several times, looking for ambiguities, inconsistencies, and anything else I could find to criticize. It is on a complex and relatively obscure but fascinating legal issue, and the article is clearly written and well referenced. Not something I would have ever known about in such detail without this careful presentation. I am impressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article takes a complex and obscure topic and explains it articulately, providing a rich context of both historic and contemporary relevance. It clearly explains meaning with thorough sourcing, and it provides unbiased explication of multiple points of view. This is exactly what people come to Wikipedia looking for, and the contributors should be awfully proud of it. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Saxbe_fix&oldid=1138470865"