48:
37:
This is the second peer review for the article. I was just dissapointed with how little look-over it actually got. Please make your comments; fresh eyes welcome. Any general status comments wanted!
21:
84:
62:
First it makes no sense, then why can't the footnote be at the end of the sentence? Why is an abbreviation used "eg"? Also some unsourced statements come off as
58:
section be expanded? Secondly I would like to see some information on how it was adopted. Also it needs a copyedit because some parts dont make sense, example:
96:
72:
43:
31:
17:
60:"Paragraphs traditionally in Article I, eg, the banning of ex post facto laws is in Article IV "Legislative."
80:
39:
63:
92:
67:
88:
66:, example: "New Jersey's constitution is often a target of criticism."
8:
7:
28:
1:
97:01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
73:00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
44:22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
32:New Jersey State Constitution
22:New Jersey State Constitution
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
113:
83:peer review suggestions
49:Previous Peer Review
70:
42:
104:
68:
56:Defunct Versions
38:
112:
111:
107:
106:
105:
103:
102:
101:
95:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
110:
108:
100:
99:
91:
76:
75:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
109:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
65:
61:
57:
53:
52:
51:
50:
46:
45:
41:
33:
30:
23:
19:
59:
55:
47:
36:
79:Please see
87:. Thanks,
69:- Tutmosis
81:automated
64:analysis
54:Can the
20: |
16:<
85:here
40:Evan
89:AZ
93:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.