I'm going!

1. Harej (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. JimHarperDC (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Econterms (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

1. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. 280.status.net/douglasawh (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (I would be extremely late as I have an interview at 3PM, but *maybe*)[reply]

Not going

1. Same time as the Capital Pride Parade. :( Fran Rogers (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. I so wish I could participate since I attended last time, but yeah, Capital Pride takes precedence :( mijotoba (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Because of the short notice, I can't do it. - BRG (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sounds really cool, wish I could attend, but DC is so far and my weekend schedule is so stacked with other crap... -- Y not? 14:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. SarahStierch (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not invite me to future events

To stop receiving notifications, remove your name from this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

... but are still interested in this project, would you consider doing me a favor and reviewing an article or two? Pick an article or two from this page List of bills in the 113th United States Congress and then let me know on my talk page or on the article's talk page what you thought. Could you understand what the bill was about? What other things would you have liked to have known about it? Were there any technical errors (spelling, wikicode, whatever) that stuck out and need to be fixed? I write a lot of articles about legislation, but I don't have a good sense from readers about what works and what doesn't. Comments would be helpful. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We discussed how to put legislative documents on WikiSource.
• We worked on (created anew?) an infobox template for articles about legislation introduced in the US Congress which has not yet become law or never became law.
• We discussed some how to frame the outline of legislative articles
• Fixed some templates and infoboxes on legislation, including Hurricane Sandy relief bill, whose enactment is now visible in the infobox.

Reviews and commentary

We were asked our opinions on newly added articles so I'll spout some of mine:

• The new articles about bills looked very good.
• The List of bills in the 113th United States Congress is an excellent frame and looks good. Full speed ahead!
• In articles about bills, I'd put "Provisions/Elements of the bill" earlier/above "Procedural history", but at least some of them have it the other way. (examples: 1, 2) There's general public interest in what a bill would DO, not who introduced it or when or the procedural detail. (in my opinion)
• Articles about bills now give the number of the Congress in which the bill was introduced in the intro paragraph. I'd switch to just giving the approximate date it was introduced. That's brief and easy to interpret. The “113th Congress" context can be clear in the "procedure" section.
• It was noted that the articles about congress-persons often do not mention the bills they have introduced and I agreed that it would be good to add this. I added such a reference in the article on Lois Capps and will watch to see if anyone cares to edit that. (Several articles about congress-people seem to emphasize highly the details of their elections not the substance of their votes and proposed legislation . . . I would go the other way.) -- Econterms (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]