Talk:Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this, but tomorrow and Monday are travel days for me. I may not get to this until next week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

~~In the second paragraph the words lead and leading are used in the same sentence.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fixed. Still led and leading.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How would you liked that changed? SMP0328. (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please use two totally different words (change one of the two).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Neither "led", "lead", or "leading" is now used. SMP0328. (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Link to the terms direct election, United States Congress, and governor.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both points now fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this further at the conclusion of the review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original composition

~~I would change "Representatives existed in a two-year election cycle" to "Representatives existed in a two-year direct election cycle".~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SMP0328. (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"State legislatures also retained the theoretical right to "instruct" their Senators". This begs discussion of the frequency of this occurrence with specific examples.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For whatever it's worth, this strikes me as a level of completeness that would be more appropriately required in a FA review than GA. It would certainly be nice to have this included, but let's keep in mind the GA criteria here: "[the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (as opposed to the FA criteria, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context") -Pete (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tony, you are asking for a great deal of detail. This article is about the Seventeenth Amendment; it is not necessary to give details about how often State Legislatures instructed Senators. GA status should be granted if this article addresses the main aspects of the Seventeenth Amendment. It is not necessary for the article to give great detail regarding the events that preceded the amendment's adoption. SMP0328. (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"this helped defeat the problem of the Federal government being subject to "special interests."" - I don't follow this logic.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic runs that, with one part of the federal government responsible to the states and one to the people, it would be incredibly difficult for a fringe issue or faction to dominate the agenda of both houses. An issue can dominate both houses now even if it is purely populist and not within the realm of reason, because both houses are directly dependent on the population for their appointment. At the time, one house would be sitting there going "nuh-uh, I don't answer to you. Take a hike." Ironholds (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since that is what the sources say, I will mark it off. I sort of think it was just a matter of them answering directly or indirectly to the people before.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

"in over a century of elections, only 10 were contested with allegations of impropriety" - What was the frequency of electoral tampering controversies in the House direct elections?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why you're asking for this. The article reports on the observations of scholars here, with appropriate citation. It sounds like you are requesting WP:OR on comparing impropriety of Senate elections to House elections, for an essay-like commentary. I don't think that's appropriate for any Wikipedia article, much less a GA one. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calls for reform

~~"Calls for a constitutional amendment regarding Senate elections started with Henry R. Storrs proposing an amendment to provide for popular election" needs a year.~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done [1] TJRC (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is John Stockton a prominent person with a WP bio?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes; wikilink to John P. Stockton added. [2] TJRC (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the State legislature would (theoretically) take the electorate's wishes into account" - How often did the states ignore the electorate?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this misses the point. The issue is not how often the legislatures followed the election results; the point is that the proponents for direct election pointed to this as a good start, and wanted to extend it. I think you're asking for too much for GA status here. I've reworded the phrase to make the point more clear. [3] TJRC (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the section above, #Rewrite, for further comments on this section. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passage

~~How many states were there in 1912? 46?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Clarified that with the addition of Arizona and New Mexico there were 48 States; included a source. SMP0328. (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 4 not voting must mean 4 states not voting (8 senators). Please clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That means 4 Senators did not vote, just as later in that sentence "10 not voting" means 10 Representatives did not vote. SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are 92 votes accounted for by my math and you are claiming there were 48 states. Did the new states not have Senators yet? If so please clarify this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There were 46 at the start of 1912, but there were 48 by its end. SMP0328. (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The article clearly states that they were in the process of joining. Process of = not yet joined = not represented in the legislature. Seems fairly clear to me. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe AZ became the 48th on February 14, 1912, which was before the votes that you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What's relevant is the vote total, which is provided in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. From the discussion above, it seems like we're not certain how many of the 4 were merely "not voting" vs. "not seated." Since the source is offline, I can't check for myself; but I would strongly caution against any kind of original research here in the name of trying to present a complete picture. Whatever the source says should be sufficient; no need to resort to arithmetic, even what looks like really basic arithmetic, as reporting wrong information is worse than reporting incomplete information. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed this section "Adoption", because it is about the Congress and the States voting in favor of the amendment. Passage, in this context, refers only to the Congress's voting to send a proposed amendment to the States for ratification. If three-fourths of the States ratify the proposed amendment, it is adopted and so becomes part of the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effect

It is a little unclear to me how much variation there is in the rules on this matter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~What are the timeframes for a governor appointment?~~

~~Does the legislature or congress have to ratify the appointment?~~

~~What is the timeframe for the by election?~~
How much variation is there in these rules from state to state? (I live in Illinois, but grew up in New York. I don't recall if the appointments of Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand followed different procedures).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to all of these - does the 17th amendment itself say anything about any of those points? No. So, chances are, it's not going to be covered in any of the sources. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not trying to clarify things.
  
  "Seventeenth Amendment provides that State legislatures can grant governors the right to make temporary appointments, which last until a special election is provided to fill the seat; this power can also be delegated to the governor" - what is the difference between giving them the right and delegating the power?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely none, I simply wanted to avoid using the word "right" twice in the same sentence. Ironholds (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is the point of the two sentences that suggest a contrast when there is no difference between them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you point to the two sentences you're referring to? Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize, it is one sentence with independent clauses conjoined by a semicolon. The one in my 04:56, 1 November 2011 comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm having the same trouble as Tony in tracking this prose. I don't understand why the sentence doesn't just end where the semicolon is. Ironholds, is there something of substance we're missing here? Or can you just truncate the sentence? -Pete (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation

You start one sentence with the phrase "Only one substantial case" and the next with the phrase "In both cases". I don't think the word case has the same meaning in these consecutive sentences, which is confusing. I think you should rephrase the second sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up the wording in that subsection. Now the word "case" is not used. SMP0328. (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do all states require that an appointment be from the same party as the senator being replaced?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. There is no requirement in the 17th Amendment, and I cannot find any articles covering state statutes as a whole. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have trouble with this. Can you name any states with similar laws?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No? As said, I cannot find any articles covering state statutes, and I am not an expert in the internal electoral provisions of any state. Ironholds (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there a list of senators who have been appointed under this clause?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - On Wikipedia or elsewhere? In the first case, I'm not aware of one, but there is a search function. In the second, I am not an expert... Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am just trying to understand this clause, how often it is used and what the issue is regarding the point you made in the text regarding the legality of requiring appointment from the same party.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't an issue so much as a "the courts confirmed that X was not acceptable" - in the same way that the current DOMA unconstitutionality is not an issue with the fourteenth amendment, but should be mentioned as an example of its interpretation. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy for reform

~~Is the amount of reform/repeal advocacy unusual compared to other amendments?~~--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Are there any sources that state as much? Nope. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many states have formally supported repeal?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have put this on hold before. I do so now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironholds, what is going on with the Issues section and the Calls for reform section above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contacted both Ironholds (talk · contribs) and SMP0328. (talk · contribs) and await response within a few days or I will consider failing this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am very busy. Please put whatever you want to say to me on my user talk page and/or here. I will respond when I can. SMP0328. (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problems are the unresolved concerns in the Issues section and the Calls for reform section above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

Would this be able to be closed soon? it's been open a while, and while there has been back-and-forth, things seem to be slowing down on the writing end, so maybe it should be closed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the author 48 hours notice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the changes made by TJRC, what remains to be done? SMP0328. (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am passing this as a high quality article that might have a few issues for improvement, but that is well within the quality range outlined by WP:WIAGA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]