# Talk:United States Code Congressional and Administrative News

I have read the GA guidelines carefully and decided this counts as a good article. I agree that this article is not likely to get much longer and I'm a believer that length isn't a sign of quality. I can make no suggestions to put this article into a higher class except, if it is possible, try to find various references rather than relying on the same ones over and again Douglike 23:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


### Who publishes it?
I added the fact that the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News is a West Group publication.  This fact is, in my opinion, important enough that its absence would make the article deficient. 38.100.34.2 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If USCCAN is published by West Group, then by definition, it is not a government publication.  I am therefore removing the category "Publications of the United States Government". --Eastlaw (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Sections banner from the article because I don't believe the article is long enough to warrant sections. The article is only 241 words(excluding image caption) and the help page section on Section size policies(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#Section_size_policies) indicates that individual sections can be anywhere between 80 and 500 words. Since the article is only two paragraphs and does not need a section break to enhance clarity, readability, or ease of finding information in the article, I seen no reason whatsoever to divide the article into sections. It is a short article that is not likely to ever get any longer(as recognized in the GA review), so division into sections is unwarranted. -Dekkanar (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me figure what lead an editor to put a GAR request template on this page, so I have removed it. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of the GA criteria is layout, which means that the article needs to have sections and a lead. Will leave a note here to see if anyone watching the page and familiar with the article can resolve this. AIRcorn (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States Code Congressional and Administrative News/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article is really, really short and doesn't have sections, and I find it very hard to believe it's up to our modern standards, having passed in 2007. The particular criteria it seems to fail are 1b, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" (there are no sections) and 3, "Broad in its coverage", I find it hard to believe 242 words are all that can be written. I will, however, embark on a quest to see if there's anything missing. Until then, Eddie891  Talk Work  23:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I've begun to look several times, but try as I might I cannot find anything this article is missing. Aircorn, thoughts? Eddie891  Talk Work  21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It fails the 1st criteria because it doesn't have a lead (or is all lead depending on how you look at it). That is pretty easy to fix though. If you can't find anything missing then it will pass the broadness criteria. I made some edits to the layout. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I thought it looked familiar [1]. Seven years, not sure what that says about me or the process. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll close this as 'kept' for now, but haven't extensively looked into the subject. It seems to be hovering around the fringes of the GA level, but doing no harm. Cheers, Eddie891  Talk Work  23:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)