 | Report of 1800 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Mercer
editmight 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)
Category, Links
editI 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)
Bravo
editI 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)
Question
editHow 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)
GutzmanK edit
editGutzmanK 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)
This featured article does not meet the featured article criteria. There is a lot of uncited text, multiple references are just unsourced notes, and Madison's primary source papers are used very heavily as sources. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)