Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bricker Amendment/archive1

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

Bricker Amendment

Notified: PedanticallySpeaking, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject United States Government, talk page 2021-03-11

Review section

I am nominating this featured article (2006 promotion) for review because its sources are not adequate under 1c. The main issue is an overdependence on primary sources. Primary sources are not "high-quality", and WP:PRIMARY restricts their usage to clear and incontrovertible statements of fact. That's not happening here. Much of the "legal background" section consists only of citations to court cases and statutes, meaning that statements of analysis (e.g. The precedent most often cited by critics of "treaty law" was Missouri v. Holland) are effectively uncited. This happens throughout the article: citations to laws, treaties, legal disputes, and contemporaneous writings are all too common. In addition, there are about half a dozen citation needed tags. While I'd ordinarily be inclined to just fix it myself, I fear the pervasive use of primary sources could only be remedied by a substantial reworking of the article. Since the article hasn't been edited once since I gave notice, I don't think that there's a community of editors prepared to do that. (This is my first FAR, so kindly excuse any procedural errors on my part.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

• While I see zero reason for the overwhelming bigotry against primary sources that are in FA discussions ("Primary sources are not "high-quality"" is a loaded statement. I know the internet has allowed a lot of self-written blogs that's made us have to determine what's what, but just because a source is primary doesn't mean it's unreliable or not high-quality. In fact, in some cases I would fail an article for comprehensiveness if it didn't include certain details from primary sources), but there is analysis not in those primary sources, I agree secondary sources are required for those. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've stricken the "not high-quality" line - it was an overgeneralization. I don't object to the use of primary sources if it is compliant with WP:PRIMARY. In this case, as you note, the use of primary sources goes far beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and so all sorts of sourcing and OR issues arise. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - the article hasn't been edited a single time since this FAR was initiated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - missing citations and possible OR issues with use of primary sources. Hog Farm _Talk 05:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - No edits since notice was placed on talk page in early March. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delist - sourcing and OR concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delist issues have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Delist for the reasons explained in my original FAR nomination, none of which have been dealt with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.