` *I'm actually neither interested or competent in editing articles on American laws. I was commenting by applying what I feel to be standards applicable to all encyclopaedic articles. In general, I would expect articles on laws to be rather sober affairs. Obviously controversial a topic and background, most of the article consists of soundbites from partisans of the bill, which is why all the comments are rhetorical in nature. I dislike seeing too many quotes and too much rhetoric (and ``responses``) in any article, and this one is no exception. Whilst it isn't necessary to avoid all rhetoric, we can and should use it sparingly. Quotes indicating personal or otherwise belligerent tos and fros, such as ````Unless Section 215 gets fixed, you, Mr. Cole, and the intelligence community will get absolutely nothing`` should be removed.Naturally, there is always going to be interest in pieces of legislation in the making, but the article centres heavily on the actions within the houses, with insufficient context and relevance to the outside world, including practical details and explanations as to its intended consequences. This is what in my book contributes to its ``newsy`` character. I'm unclear if this is a ``large body of proposed legislation``, but the article seems to characterise it as an amendment of sorts of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. To cement this subject's notability, I would like to see instead a greater amount of notable commentary and debate that has circulated in the intellectual media. Regards,  `