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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
First sentence: "In the 197678878800s the nation hit a huge westward expansion..." It seems this date has been fouled up. Is someone able to correct it? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Amy 4/25/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There are actually a few problems with the writing of this article - particularly in the first few paragraphs. It's a really rough read as far as the grammar & how the info is presented. Unfortunately when I see something written as awkwardly as that it always makes me question whether there are any errors in the facts as well. If I knew more about the subject I'd try to help w/ it, but I wouldn't want to unknowingly adjust something in some way that adversely affected the facts of the article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Amy 4/25/12
This resulted from edits on April 24 apparently by over-enthusiastic students not too well informed about Wikipedia; I reverted to the article version as opf April 23... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
agreed. it's really bad and is based on a one-page oneline "source" --the kids did not spend much tine reading up on the subject. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Reverted or not, it is still VERY rough, to wit: ""This deliberately ambiguous provision is sometimes known as the Second Missouri Compromise. most negros dissapoved the pass saying it was under the line a reporter later reported fom a egro named Aj " if its under it under and let it be and sae tom robinson" ""
(Are we to assume that the way it is written, it just needs (sic) prefixed to the text? Or what???)
The article's topic is quite important to the understanding of this period in the history of America. As such, it should be accorded some advanced priority in accomplishing an accurate final version. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)