Talk:Report of 1800

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Report of 1800 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2007, and in the Did you know? column on May 29, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 29, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 John Mercer 2 Category, Links 3 Bravo 4 Question 5 GutzmanK edit

[edit] John Mercer

might the John Mercer mentioned in this article be John Francis Mercer? Hmains 02:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so...that article says he moved to Maryland well before this time period. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category, Links

I would like to link this to Category:Legal literature, also add Blue links to all the years mentioned in the article. OK? If I don't get a response in a week, I will do so. Bearian 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bluelinking years is generally discouraged by the manual of style unless the links provide important context, but the category seems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo

I went to copyedit this article, and I found little to do. This is by far the best-typed, most clearly written, most encyclopedic article I've seen here so far. Congratulations on the FA. --Milkbreath 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And all done without any flamewars on the talk page. Impressive indeed! --SirEditALot 00:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. Look at other Featured Articles' talk pages. Brutannica 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How are articles chosen to be featured on the Wikipedia Front Page? 60.230.32.113 08:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I choose them. Raul654 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

...from the pool of Featured Articles approved by the community (if I may finish the thought) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GutzmanK edit

GutzmanK wrote:

The text in Note 26 is incorrect: the majority in the Virginia House of Delegates agreed in the debate over the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 to delete the words "null, void, and of no force or effect" from the Resolutions' description of the unconstitutional Sedition Act precisely because "null, void, and of no force or effect" was -- as future Virginia Governor James Barbour explained -- already implicit in "unconstitutional." Thus, the Resolutions said simply that the Sedition Act was "unconstitutional," "unconstitutional, null, void, and of no force or effect." Therefore, the text in Note 26 here should be deleted.

Is there anything to this? Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment in the note comes from the source listed, either as a footnote there or in the introduction, but perhaps there is disagreement on the issue that I am not aware of. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)