Talk:Senator Ted Cruz proposes amendment to U.S. Constitution setting Congressional term limits

Title

This is crazy long. I don't think we can avoid a long title entirely, but; how about US Senator Ted Cruz proposes US constitutional amendment limiting terms in both Congress houses? I can't make it shorter than that without mangling it. (Is the Constitution a proper noun?) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, with United States, yes, it's proper. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "US Senator Ted Crus proposes US Constitutional term limits on both Congressional houses"? --Pi zero (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Or "Senator Ted Cruz proposes US Congressional term limits"? Whether it is done by constitutional amendment or another method such as a Bill can be discussed in the article. Green Giant (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I like it. Also, we don't need to say "U.S." twice. It's unlikely the reader won't know what country we mean by mentioning it just once. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4456791 [Not ready]

Revision 4456791 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. (As often happens, not the only criterion the difficulty could be listed under.) Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Two problem passages immediately caught my eye. Saying "Both President Trump and some Democrats have expressed favorable interest in such an amendment in the past" has two major failings, both likely to lead the reader astray: it doesn't say what Democrats are involved, leaving the reader to imagine whether we're talking about sitting Senators or Representatives or what; and it omits any mention of how similar, or different, this amendment is from what they supported in the past, leaving the reader to imagine, by default, that the Democrats involved supported exactly what this amendment says (no idea whether that's so). Saying presidents didn't seek a third term out of respect for GW who served only two, also has two failings. The salient point about GW isn't that he served only two terms, but that he stepped down rather than seek a third. And Wikinews should never claim to know what people think; it'd be safe to say those who later didn't seek a third term followed the precedent (the first president's precedent? hm...), but not to say they didn't seek a third term out of respect for GW. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4456791 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. (As often happens, not the only criterion the difficulty could be listed under.) Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Two problem passages immediately caught my eye. Saying "Both President Trump and some Democrats have expressed favorable interest in such an amendment in the past" has two major failings, both likely to lead the reader astray: it doesn't say what Democrats are involved, leaving the reader to imagine whether we're talking about sitting Senators or Representatives or what; and it omits any mention of how similar, or different, this amendment is from what they supported in the past, leaving the reader to imagine, by default, that the Democrats involved supported exactly what this amendment says (no idea whether that's so). Saying presidents didn't seek a third term out of respect for GW who served only two, also has two failings. The salient point about GW isn't that he served only two terms, but that he stepped down rather than seek a third. And Wikinews should never claim to know what people think; it'd be safe to say those who later didn't seek a third term followed the precedent (the first president's precedent? hm...), but not to say they didn't seek a third term out of respect for GW. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Minor error

@Pi zero: as you’re reviewing, in Paragraph 6 it says "it would have to be ratified by at least two thirds of the country's 50 state legislatures." This is incorrect - it needs ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures per the ENWP list of amendments to the United States Constitution. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Heh. Happens I was busy catching and fixing it, then read this; but, not to discourage giving a heads-up like this; thanks! (It's actually in a source: 38 of 50; but to be sure I double-checked it, in the hardcopy US Constitution I keep handy.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This was my error. Nice catch. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4457039 [Passed]

Revision 4457039 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4457039 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.