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