Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Electoral College/archive1

United States Electoral College

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary

This article appears to have undergone some changes, or perhaps was made a featured article when standards differed.

Current issues:

Introduction is too short.
Article is poorly structured and needs substantial readability work.
Patchy in its coverage. For example, mentions the Maine method, how long it's been used, and that it's also used by Nebraska, but does not mention what the Maine method is.
There appears to be a brewing NPOV dispute.

--Barberio 23:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize the patchy in its coverage point (your third point). If I were to read this article with an interest in being elected as an elector, I would not be able to figure out the process. I think substantially more space should be devoted to discussing today's selection process, what qualifications are set for electors, how they are chosen, how they meet to cast their votes, etc., and substantially less to a series of pro and con articles. Indeed, a short, concise summary of pros and cons with good references should take less than 10% of the article.

As to other issues, I had no problem finding the discussion of what the Maine method is, and I think the NPOV issues being discussed on the talk page are subsidiary to the need to cut deeply in those sections in any case.

--Sam 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the Maine Method, the article does discuss the Maine Method, but never actualy defines what the Maine Method is. Reducing the reader to having to guess what the Maine Method is from how it is discussed. --Barberio 12:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except on the pro and con arguments, this article makes the reader work pretty hard throughout. I agree with Tony below that this should go to FARC. For a new successful FA, I would expect a heavy refactoring with a considerable change in emphasis. In particular, I'd want to see the whole pro and con discussion turned into a pithy summary; in present form, the pro and con section is virtually an article itself. Sam 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should go to FARC: the prose is substandard. Examples:
- "The United States Electoral College is the electoral college"—Not a promising opening, and I see "electoral college" for a third time in the subsequent clause. Other repetitions too.
- "[the College] ... votes every four years with electors from each state"—No it doesn't.
- "Election of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States is indirect." This might have been better at the top, since it's a key concept necessary to understand the topic. But first, get rid of the repetition and add "the" (twice, please).
- A few commas throughout would make it easier to read.
- Stubby paragraphs.

It's pretty bad throughout. Tony 08:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted this: "By far, most of the electoral votes that would be a part of this compact, so far, were pledged to the Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, and much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissastisfaction with the 2000 election. But the plan could backfire: for example, if it had been in effect in 2004, when John Kerry lost both the "national popular vote" and the Electoral College vote, and Kerry had managed to win the Electoral College vote by winning Ohio, and nothing else changed, then this plan would have handed the victory to Bush, who won the "popular vote" handily."

There is simply no evidence presented that "much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissatisfaction with the 2000 election." (News coverage has shown that the legislation has bipartisan cosponsors in many states.) Also, if the goal of the interstate compact is to make the winner of the national popular vote the president, the plan would not have "backfired" if Bush had been elected under it in the Ohio scenario described. It would have done precisely what was intended -- make the national popular vote winner the president.

FARC commentary

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD section (3a), readability (2a), comprehensiveness (2b), and NPOV (2d). Marskell 12:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. A few paragraphs have been rewritten [[1]] since the article was listed for major review. This is a small proportion of the total text, and reveals gems such as: "Each state has as many electors as it has Members of Congress and Senators." Hmmm, how would 45 million Senators and Members representing California fit into just two chambers? I see what "electors" means now, but my overarching point remains. The rewritten and untouched prose is significantly below the required standard. Tony 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Lack of comperhensiveness is significant. There is no discussion of how an individual elector is selected, how the rules for selecting electors are implemented every four years, or what the role of the political parties is in selecting electors. If someone wants to adopt this article and restore it, I would suggest a few sources:

[2] (National Archives, which oversees the process nationally)
[3] (a plain english language overview)
The web sites for the political parties in each state (not on the national level); and
the statutes for each state to see what the selection rules on a state-by-state basis.

There may be a good secondary source that has done some of these things as well. Sam 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No improvement in the above deficiencies over the review period, and negligible edit activity. Overwhelming TOC, stubby short sections (3); prose problems, (2a); and not comprehensive (2b). Sandy 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]