Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States presidential elections in Alaska/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

United States presidential elections in Alaska

Featured list candidates/United States presidential elections in Alaska/archive1

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Alaska participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Hawaii) currently a FLC, with multiple supports, I nominate this too. Thanks! (46 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RadioKAOS

I'm coming to this discussion through WikiProject Alaska. Most FLs under that project came about because someone viewed the 50 states as venues to push the same MOS and the same sources so they could collect a whole bunch of hats, disregarding any context unique to that state. Your nomination statement leads me to believe that's the case here.

The biggest problem I see is the list's exclusive focus on the popular vote. In presidential elections, the actual election occurs via the Electoral College and there's zero mention of that process. For example, how many electors does Alaska have (it's always been three), where and when do the electors meet and any details about those meetings worth mentioning, etc. In just about every election, the electors have included notable people. Is there any value in mentioning some of these people?

The article text begins with "Alaska is a state in the Western United States, on the northwest extremity of the country's west coast.". It might be wise to replace "the country's west coast" with "the North American continent". Not only does the current statement sound redundant, there's also the matter of Canada falling in between Alaska and the contiguous 48 states, leaving it open to misinterpretation by some.

The table disregards the total votes cast. Any reason why? Additionally, prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results. That means the percentages are approximate but not exact, whereas later percentages are exact. I see no evidence that this has been noted, either here or in any of the individual election articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So here's some context related to Alaska, though I don't know how easy this would be to source. Looking at the table, Jimmy Carter's reelection bid gained the smallest percentage of any nominee of the two dominant parties. This is not surprising to me. Between 1977 and 1979, people were regularly burning Carter and Cecil Andrus in effigy on the streets of downtown Fairbanks. Carter was deeply unpopular because of the political battle in D.C. over what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RadioKAOS – Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address all them. The number of electors Alaska has is indeed mentioned in the table. Moreover, the election does depends on the electoral vote, but that doesn't mean that popular vote doesn't count. For a strong Republican state like Alaska, where co-incidentally there never has been an faithless elector, the winner of popular vote has always carried the three electoral votes. Honestly, including details like "where and when do the electors meet" seems unnecessary to me; mostly because it is the same for every election. I made the change about including "the North American continent". As to the next point about the table disregards the total votes cast, it is because if I were to include the total votes, I also need to include all the candidates, so that it sums up correctly. That would make the table wide enough not to fit on the screen. The total voted are indeed included, but inside the {{percentage}} template. Next point about including write in votes, the official published result doesn't include the write in votes (60; 64; 68), so I haven't. Do you have any reliable source claiming that "prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results", possibly providing the data, which would help me in citing it. Moreover, in a two party state like America, where third party candidates rarely receive more than 5% of the vote, it seems reluctant to me to include write in votes. The percentage points in every cell in approximate, rounded off to 2 places of decimal by the {{percentage}} template. The formatting and structure of there types of lists have been discussed in previous FLC's, and have been successfully implemented in three current featured lists. (Arkansas; Utah; Washington, D.C.) I try to make every list withing this series consistent, but surely include some or other thing with context unique to that state. For example, the Washington, D.C. list has write-in candidate votes noted because they have been recorded in the official results, and sometimes the total write-in votes also exceed the number of votes received by the candidate on the third place. I'll see what I can include from your Carter's unpopularity suggestion, but would prefer to hear what you think of this reply. Any further comments on the subject are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RadioKAOS – Any follow-ups? I have already replied to your comments, and still feel that the lists focus on the popular vote should not be an issue. I don't think that there is any guideline or a FL criteria preventing any user from using the same style and sources throughout a series of lists, given that the sources are reliable and the style meets the criteria. Any further comments are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

"defeating Democratic Party's candidate" => "defeating the Democratic Party's candidate"
"the largest ever margin of victory in the state's history" => "the largest margin of victory in the state's history"
"In the 1992 president election" => "In the 1992 presidential election"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @ChrisTheDude – Done all – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92

I still think the first sentence is weird since it's basically just the first sentence of Alaska. It's better to jump right into the topic for the introductory sentence. Like List of governors of Alaska doesn't need to remind us where the state is located either.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the Republican Party's candidate Ronald Reagan" could be simplified to "the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan" or even just "the Republican Ronald Reagan".
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"by a margin of 36.78%" could just be "by 36.78%" since you use "margin" in the clause right after that; just extraneous since "by" implies a margin.
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"highest percentage of vote share" -> "highest vote share", which wouldn't be anything other than a percentage
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Gallup Poll has ranked Alaska in the top ten most Republican states" is not supported by the source, which begins with a list that doesn't include Alaska; the list at the bottom says 11th place. That's also a single data point from six years ago; it was only the 22nd most Republican in 2020...
- Changes and added new sources. Even if it isn't most Republican, it surely is a "safe Republican" state. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Table seems fine.

By the way, WP:AWB/WP:JWB is great if you ever need to make changes affecting every list. Happy to help with that if needed. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 – Addressed all the points. Thanks! Not sure how AWB should be used/will it help here where the data in every table is different. Appreciate your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 – Any followups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support All good. The data's different, but as you update the formatting styles, there's a lot you can do across articles with just a few clicks rather than manually one article at a time, like removing background shading, retitling columns, and other organizational changes. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96

Try cutting down writing of the phrase "In the xxxx presidental election,"
- Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think all the % symbols in the lede can be replaced with the word "percent"
- I think its fine as long as it is consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 46 is missing the page number(s)
- Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Good job on redoing the list MWright96 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96 – Addressed all the issues. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Grapple X

Resolved comments from 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*For purposes of these lists, other candidates are defined as those who were in third place in Alaska. (I'm looking at end notes too). I'm not sure the plural is warranted here, this is a singular list, not lists; suggest For purposes of this list...

- "These list" here imply that the selection criteria is same for every list in this topic (United States presidential elections in <state>). But I see nothing bad in changing it to "of this list", so consider this done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there editors listed for the titled under "works cited"? I wouldn't expect this kind of statistical report to have an author per se but there is often an editor credited.
- No. They are just compiled data, compiled by the publisher. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's best practice to italicise organisation names (Gallup, CNN); these would be best placed in the publisher= field.
- Done for Gallup, not sure whether CNN of The Washington Post needs it, as they seem to fit under the work= field. Some news organisations also have different publishers, so, I guess its fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Post is a publication and would be italicised, but CNN shouldn't be--a programme or publication which they have published would be, for example CNN Newsroom, but not the organisation. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck not done but can carry one out if needed.
- Its upto you. At FAC, we usually have spot-checks for first time nominations. At FLC, I guess it isn't a necessary requirement. If you decide to do so, all the news and web sources are linked, and the second book is available here at Open Library. Not sure if you can access the first book online ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't carry one out as it's not your first time but if a co-ordinator wants one, I'll do it no problem, just leave me a ping. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, too, I wouldn't mind seeing mention in prose of the number of electors the state has--it's in the table but we're fairly light on prose and so it shouldn't be hard to fit a short sentence in to note that the state has (or if you can source it as such, has always had) three votes in the electrical college.
- Yeah, added. I don't think that source is necessary, as it is self explanatory from the table (and it is cited in the table). Alaska would continue to have 3 electoral votes, until at-least 2028 presidential election. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grapple X – Thanks for taking a look! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note for the coordinators

Is there something else I need to do for this nomination? I've attempted to resolve all the actionable comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass

The only image (File:Alaska in United States.svg) is an original work with the copyright released by the creator. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --Pres N 13:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.