Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Busking/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Busking
Object to the article's discussion of U.S. law relating to busking. The discussion is one-sided and misleading, making it sound as if virtually all regulation of busking is unconstitutional, which is not the case. Further, it's description of the legal parameters applicable to busking regulation is inaccurate, and appears to be an attempt to describe the legal standard applicable only to regulation in a "traditional public form" such as a street or sidewalk. Regulation of space in subways, parks, and other publicly-owned property may fall under the standards applicable to "limited public fora," or even "nonpublic fora." These standards are all different, and confer a greater or lesser degree of regulatory power depending on the characterization of the fora (i.e., as traditional, limited, or nonpublic). Finally, the list of relevant U.S. cases is woefully incomplete; e.g., the description of the St. Augustine FL case stops at the district court decision, and omits the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld the city's prohibition against busking in certain areas of downtown. This section of the article needs a fair amount of work in any event, but revision is certainly as a prerequisite to FA status.
- Object. Lead needs expanding, lists need converting into prose, needs copy-editing, sub-sections in "History" section need expanding or merging. Image layout is messy. Almost every footnote (4 - 19) are in the same place. Most of the article is unreferenced. Unnecessary bolding needs removing in "Pitfalls" section. "Practitioners" section is too short. Please see WP:LEAD, WP:FOOTNOTE, and Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. — Wackymacs 10:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Object. There are major problems here, as there is a strong original research tone that permeates throughout the article. For example, the two sections "Motivations" and "Pitfalls" are uncited, are written in a somewhat personable way. (It feels like someone just sat down and wrote those sections off the top of their heads). To build on Wackymac's comments, the long list of footnotes is misleading as most of the them belong to one section, and the rest are links to dictionary definitions. This pretty much means the whole article is not referenced. (Hope I'm not being too harsh, but this is certainly not FA material.) --P-Chan 15:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
