Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009/archive1

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011 [1].

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 edit

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who will be victorious in a battle royal between Jim Tedisco, the highest-ranking Republican in New York, and Scott Murphy, a political unknown? Will the last-minute blessing of a scorned Libertarian chairman prove a saving grace for Murphy in a race so close that the initial tally had each man at exactly 77,225 votes?! Read through this recently-reviewed, heavily-sourced and copyedited GA to find out!
Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, after that pitch...I just looked at the infobox and found the result. Infoboxes destroy the magic of Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source spot-checks – The article and reference 3 share some common wording. Article: "the district had leaned conservative and was considered a safe Republican seat". Source: "The district is conservative and was considered a safe Republican seat...". It seems too close for comfort. This doesn't appear to be a trend in the article; I also looked at some other sources and found nothing else of concern. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png should ideally be free of trademarks, but if it isn't it should be tagged accordingly Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the National Atlas owns elusive rights to its congressional maps, so it would be in the public domain as a government work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These maps are used universally when referring to a US congressional district. If you change one, that's precedent to change the rest, and that's a lot of unneeded work (especially since no infringement limitations are being broken since this is a US-Gov-PD work). upstateNYer 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Images are free [2] Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The image is trademarked, and it does needlessly restrict the freeness of the article as discussed in Wikipedia:SOSUMI and our ability to provide free content, all be it in a less restrictive manner than copyright. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suspect you'll be going through Commons to have every item created by the National Atlas deleted, then? Good luck with that. upstateNYer 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is only concerned with the candidate article and whether it matches up with WP:FA Criteria, although if someone was prepared to clean up those other images, it would would be a welcome side effect of this process Fasach Nua (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket opposition to all non-free images on the basis of some unofficial, ideological essay violates the spirit and letter of the WP:FAIRUSE guildeline. It's unproductive and completely misrepresents the pillar regarding non-free materials. And it's pointless in this case, because the copyright terms you linked to earlier clearly says that only the names "National Atlas of the United States" and "The National Atlas of the United States of America" are trademarked by the DOI. All images are in the public domain. I don't know how more free that can be.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify then: I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I should have made that clear. In addition to that, what is planned on being done about it if you believe it to be a problem? I agree with Gyrobo completely on this issue; your (Fasach Nua) suggestion is a solution looking for a problem. upstateNYer 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Made some edits in the past few minutes, but otherwise I think this passes. However, Ref #13 is dead (CQ Politics seems to have died, I replaced one refs that died, but don't have time to replace this one). Also, the photo of Tedisco and Steele really can't be used as fair use. Either ask the GOP to release the image on Flickr, or it has to go. Otherwise, I support this article. upstateNYer 21:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: no alt text. upstateNYer 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dead link. I think the image does qualify as fair use, though. It's a copyrighted promotional image that is unrepeatable and illustrates the people in question.
--Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that the URL I initially found was an archived, mobile version. I found the full article on Roll Call's site, despite their apparently malfunctioning search.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing a fairly detailed review over the next few days, time permitting. It strikes me, however, that there is a need for a short background section, first giving a brief discussion of the 20th district, and second giving the political background that presently appears in the lede, but is not repeated in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I've moved the paragraph about the the political climate to its own section, along with the information about the vacancy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. In my view, a lede should be 3-4 paragraphs, and so you might want to expand the lede again. Thanks for moving the stuff. I'm too tired to do effective work now, but will work tomorrow on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all too familiar with the feeling.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that the article contains fewer than 15,000 characters, so the lead only needs to be one or two paragraphs.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I won't be reviewing the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'm reasonably familiar with the race and the article is accurate. Prose seems fine too, though I didn't look too closely at that. The only suggestion I might add is to somehow discuss or reference Gillibrand's popularity - perhaps include Gillibrand's trouncing of a Republican no-name 3 months earlier along with the presidential vote percentages already there. But your call. 72.14.228.132 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Added sentence on Gillibrand's 2008 victory.
      --Gyrobo (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The facts in the paragraph about the Democratic nomination are in an odd order; they would probably read better in chronological order.

Ucucha 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Can you also get rid of that whitespace next to the NY elections box? Ucucha 22:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment. Looks good. A few minor issues:

  • Why does "election day" in the lead link to the standard US election day, when that's not relevant to this election? I think the link should be cut.
  • The lead says "Though the 20th district had historically been conservative, by February 2009 both the Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report had listed the race as a toss-up." Since a reader may not realize that Gillibrand is a Democrat, it could be misleading: it seems to imply that it was still a conservative stronghold though Gillibrand had won handily in 2008.
  • I don't think it's misleading, because a conservative stronghold is not a Republican stronghold. Gillibrand is a Blue Dog, and could be described as a conservative or centrist on many positions – when she represented the district, at least. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point about conservative vs. Republican, but I think it could be harmlessly clarified. The lead is not at all overlong , so it could also be expanded a little. This is just a suggestion, but how about "The 20th district had been a safe Republican seat until Gillibrand, a conservative Democrat, won it for the Democrats in 2006, and early polls showed Tedisco well ahead of Murphy, but in February 2009 both the Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report listed the race as a toss-up." I also just noticed that you don't reference these two political reports in the body of the article -- shouldn't they be mentioned in the Campaign or Polling sections? Mike Christie (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved the reports to the Campaign section, and rewrote the lead slightly. I think "historically" omits any outliers, such as recent elections. I put in a clause about Tedisco having high early polling. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Upstate Venture Association of New York" italicized? I don't think we typically italicize companies and association names, do we?
  • Because of the way the article is sequenced, you mention Sundwall's removal from the ballot before you mention his participation in one of the debates. It would help to give the date on which Sundwall was removed, so that the reader can see he was still a candidate at the time of the March 19 debate.
  • The body of the article says that "at one point" the votes were exactly equal at 77,225 votes each, implying that the totals changed frequently and it was only at one point that they matched, not at any completed counting milestone. The lead is more definite and implies that this was the total officially declared. Which is correct?
  • 77,225 was the tally on election day, but the count did change frequently during the counting of absentee ballots, as the lead says. I can't really see the distinction. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per an election day article in the NYT, the tally was 77,344 to 77,279 with all precincts reporting. The 77,225 was an unofficial tally (possibly the first one of the series of them -- I can't tell) released on 4/3, the following Friday. I don't think the "on election day" phrasing is the best way to put this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've fixed this, is the new wording okay? --Gyrobo (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a little and have switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you mention the date that Delaware and Otsego counties started to count the overseas and military ballots, but not the other counties? Is the date that the counties began this count significant?
  • Done, I think I cleared this up. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the sources you're citing and I think you're drawing the county list from this statement: "The revised tally reflects the counting of several dozen additional absentee ballots today in Columbia, Delaware, Otsego and Warren counties". I don't think that says what you're making it say, though. If you compare the counts on the 14th with the 13th, it's true that those are the four counties which changed their totals that day, but they had already started counting. That source statement just means that those are the four counties which changed on that particular day -- there was no particular significance to the counties involved. If you really wanted to, you could use those PDFs and the other daily totals released by the NY Board of elections to tally the daily totals by candidate, but I think it would also be OK just to drop the statement about those counties. Mike Christie (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it would probably be excessive to include daily vote tallies. I just thought there was some significance to that date. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; but I think the daily tallies would be fine if you wanted to add them -- they do give the flavour of those days well, showing how uncertain things were. It's optional. Mike Christie (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While still serving in the Assembly, Tedisco resigned the position of Minority Leader, and was replaced by Brian Kolb." I think this means that he resigned after the election loss, but it's not entirely clear -- it could mean that he resigned prior to the election. Could you reword to make it unambiguous, and perhaps give the date of his resignation as Minority Leader?
  • Done, I think it's much more clear now. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved greatly since I looked at it earlier. I stepped aside because I would have had to oppose at that stage. Now let me give you some quibbles I have:

Background: "93,337 vote" surely there should be a hyphen in there to be consistent with other usages?
  • It's actually "93,337 voter advantage", where "voter advantage" is used as a noun. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the hyphen, it does read better that way. --Gyrobo (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates: Saratoga carried the most weight ... for both parties? Should be specified.
  • "Tedisco did not live in the congressional district" It might be worth mentioning that he did not have to live in the district to be elected, per the Constitution, though obviously politically it helps.
  • I kind of thought that saying he owned a house in the district accomplished that. I can't think of a way to add that little qualifier without making it sounds like, "He owns a house there – and that's good enough!" --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a diner in Albany". A link to diner for those who do not live in the Northeast US would probably be in order.
  • In the Third Parties subsection, is it really necessary to have Scott Murphy's full name in consecutive sentences? And isn't the use of a blockquote for an accusatory statement a bit POV?
  • "Election day was set on February 23, 2009, when Governor Paterson issued a proclamation for a special election." This is a confusing sentence. I would say something along the lines of "On February 23, 2009, Governor Patterson issued a proclamation setting the date for the special election as March 31, 2009."
  • I do not like that image caption. It is unusual to be talking into news mics at a strategy session. Perhaps after the session (hint hint).
  • Why didn't Tidesco go to the second debate?
  • "Tedisco also called attention" This sentence is too long to be an "also".
  • The previous sentence started with "Tedisco called attention to...", so I really don't see the problem here. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is about it. I think a reaction section, that is, reaction to the results, would be good. Not overlong, just a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps call it "Reactions and aftermath" and complete it by saying what happened in the district in the November election this year. Hope to support once a few changes are made.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of paragraphs about the aftermath of/reactions to the election, how does it look now? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source issues:
    • Some source names are wikilinked, others aren't (like Fox News); why?
    • There are many cases where the citation is to a blog posting on a newspaper web site. In that case, I believe the blog should be cited, not the newspaper itself (see ref 33 and others). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • The blog posts are being published by a newspaper, so the two sources (newspaper and blog) are one and the same. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 3: What makes The Rothenberg Political Report a reliable source? The publisher seems marginally notable, but I don't see any evidence of fact-checking, editorial process, etc. on this blog.
  • The blog post linked to in the article is from the old blog. The new blog doesn't have the article publicly available. I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for, but the new site looks nicer. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 13: What makes Swing State Project a reliable source?
    • Ref 30: What makes California Independent Voter Project a reliable source? Their disclaimer says the contributions are self-published and not subject to any sort of control (read: no fact checking or editorial process)
  • Done, I removed the ref, as it was redundant.
    • Ref 33: You cite it as if this fact is in the newspaper. It's not—it's in a blog post on one of the paper's web sites.
  • If the blog post is published on the site of a newspaper, it's being published by the newspaper.
    • Ref 57: Here is the same source as ref 33 and you list it in a different way (I think this is the way we want to do them).
  • Fixed. That was actually an oversight, and not how I was trying to set up the refs. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources look OK. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I consider the sourcing issues above resolved. OK on the newspaper-blog thing, as long as we are consistent. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great article! I made one small grammatical change[3], and I'm still not certain that there's not a better way to write that sentence. The article otherwise looks clean and well-written. Good luck. --Coemgenus 23:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review Oppose for several image concerns:
    • File:Scott Murphy official photo.jpg
      Fails WP:CITE#IMAGE; the page on which the image is hosted or linked should be stated not the image link itself. scottmurphy.house.gov is a personal web site, and official portraits are not necessarily taken by a government employee (refer to previous cases of official portraits of Supreme Court judges and President John F. Kennedy).
  • Fixed URL. It's an official photo, in the public domain.
  • Official photographs are not necessarily in the public domain as stated. The official portrait of Supreme Court judge Anthony Edwards was located at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_current/images_b/005.html (supplied by courtesy of the Supreme Court), but it was taken by Robin Reid, who is not a government employee;[4] the photograph has since been replaced by one that is taken by a federal employee. This is similar to the case for Scalia (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antonin Scalia/archive1). Likewise, the first official portrait for John F. Kennedy was taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt, a LIFE photographer on assignment.[5] The copyright belongs to Eisentaedt and LIFE. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless it was transferred via formal agreement (contract). Unless he or she is a government employee whose job is to take photographs, the work does not automatically fall into public domain. scottmurphy.house.gov is the representative's personal site (hosted on house.gov), and nowhere does it state what copyright status does its contents enjoy. Where does it state the portrait is in the public domain or taken by a federal employee? Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PD-USGov-Congress template explicitly applies to "official Congressional portrait[s]", and his site claims the photo is his official photo. There are no explicit licensing terms on Murphy's site, but I don't think it's within the realm of possibility that a member of Congress would release such a high-res photo on their official site, claim it as their official portrait, and not place it in the public domain.
  • I disagree with the assertion that the template is correct (and several copyright templates here and on Commons have been deleted for the wrong interpretations or assumptions); I would like to be proven wrong (by being shown evidence to back up the claim that any "official" Congressional portrait is in the public domain) but at the moment other similar cases ("official" Supreme Court and Presidential photographs) prove otherwise. Obtaining information about the author of the "official" photograph (or affirmation from Scott Murphy) would be a better mean to resolve this issue. Regardless, your photograph is a valid replacement and would resolve the issue for this article as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with UpstateNYer. Let's use his photo for this FAC, and discuss the merits of the congressional portrait in a different forum. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the exact page, so I'm removing it from the article. But it was originally from his site.
  • Fixed.
  • I had this chart created; the graphic shows the same data as the table above it and all that data is sourced in the article. It might not be a bad idea for Gyrobo to add the table and sources to the image pages, but that's not an FAC requirement. upstateNYer 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is, per WP:IUP and WP:V (more particularly the latter). This is not just an image. It is a chart, presenting data. Such information in an FAC, like if it was done in markup (Wiki-class table), would have to be verifiable per WP:V and WP:WIAFA 1(c). I see no reason to exempt this policy when presented in pictorial form. Thus, the sources should be present on the image page as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
In regards to the concerns over File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png above, as Fasach Nua stated, if there are trademarks, the image should be tagged with the template {{trademark}} like so. Wikipedia:SOSUMI is a bit new to me, but it is neither policy nor guideline. I would say opposition based on this is on moral grounds rather than on non-compliance with the project's rules. One can address this by removing the trademark (the National Atlas logo) from the image (which is certainly possible as it is a public domain material) and still retaining the main contents of the image, but I do not think the project has yet to demand adherence to this suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written, well referenced, good use of graphs and charts. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer to my query above about the WP:LEAD; does it comply with LEAD and adequately summarize the article, and has a logical punctuation review been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments per Sandy's questions:
    • The lead does seem light when compared with similar articles such as New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009. Perhaps something could be added about the campaigns, endorsements, etc.
    • Cursory review of WP:LQ doesn't reveal any problems, although ref 79 times out for me and I can't verify the source punctuation.
    • Link checker currently reveals at least two dead links—these need to be fixed.
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I set up the two dead links to archived urls while Daily News fixes whatever problem they've had in the last week. The lead has been updated since Sandy's initial comments, and I'll try to add more about the campaign, but I think right now it conveys the same amount of detail as the 23rd's lead; it's just that the 23rd's infobox is wider, it uses smaller paragraphs, and it contains a lot of detail that would be better left to the body text.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead now touches on all major points of the article, and that its length is proper for an article of this size per WP:LEAD#Length. And regarding the comparison to the 23rd's lead, it has since been reduced (not by me). I don't see a way to add more to the lead of this article without bulking it up with filler from other sections.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever issues the Daily News was having with its site, the links work now. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll need to update the link to Murphy's house website to an archived version since he'll be out of office in a matter of days. upstateNYer 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the External links section. The results link was used as a ref elsewhere, and the Tedisco and Murphy links were to their office sites, not their election sites, which have been gone for a year and aren't very useful or informative anyway.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone performed a sourcing spotcheck for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO? Also, I happened to notice this line:
  • Tedisco, who had been criticized by Murphy for opposing the package, used the outrage over the AIG bonuses to reframe the debate.
I know what the outrage over the AIG bonuses is, but do all of our readers? Is there no link? Please review that all terms and concepts are defined or linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 checked for copyvios about two months ago. I've added the link to AIG bonus payments controversy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I now see Giants2008 post at the top of the FAC; I will review the rest of the linking myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things I don't understand:

  1. ...when the district's representative, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed as US senator from New York.
    The lead is still short and leaves the reader wondering too many things; for example, why not just say that she was appointed as US senator from New York to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton? And ...
    ... Eric Sundawall, attended one of the four debates that were held in March 2009, but was removed from the ballot a few days before the election.
    why mention this in the lead without telling the reader why he was removed? The lead is still short; why skimp on details that leave the reader wondering?
    Personally, I don't even think he should be mentioned in the lead since he was such a small player in the election anyway... upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tedisco conceded the race the following day. The race was seen as a referendum on Obama's economy policy.
    Economy policy or economic policy?
    Fixed. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. By November 2008, the Republican Party held an enrollment advantage of 70,632 registered voters across the district, down from a 93,337-voter advantage when the district lines were drawn by the New York State Legislature in 2002.
    Why "by"? Was something from the previous sentence the cause of this? What brought the advantage down and why the use of "by", as if the trend was changing over time but the reader isn't told why.
    I don't see the big deal here, but I've changed it to "in". upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is a mess of confusing numbers here, changes in style, and breaches of WP:MOSNUM:
    Although Republican George W. Bush carried the district by an 8-point margin in the 2004 presidential election,[7] Democrat Barack Obama won the district in 2008 by a margin of 50.7% to 47.7%, or approximately 10,000 votes of over 330,000 cast.[8] Gillibrand was reelected in 2008 by twenty-four points, a fourfold increase over her 2006 margin.[4]
    Why a margin for Bush, but percentages for Obama? The switch in style makes it harder for the reader to digest the meaning. And why is 8 not spelled out, while twenty-four is, both opposite of MOSNUM? Should four-fold be hyphenated? Getting through this sentence was taxing. Also, in general, the article is very hyphen heavy, making it rough going.
    WP:MOSNUM issues fixed. The rest is personal style preference on your part and/or the author's part. I can see your point, but on the other hand, to keep things at least somewhat interesting, the different way of showing the number differences gives the reader a break from potentially annoying repetition. Changed the 50.7%-47.7% to "three-point margin". And yes, "four-fold", as it is used, is an adjective by itself, therefore it requires a hyphen. Sorry if it's hyphen-heavy, but I think people can still read with some dashes in the article, to be quite honest. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In January 2009, Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration. This created a vacancy in the district.[4]
    Choppy, why can't the two sentences be better blended to one?
    I agree, I've never been able to merge these sentences though. The final product always comes out crappy. Suggestion? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees.
    Why "in lieu of"; is weighted vote the norm there or was this a departure from the norm of primaries? If it was a departure, why aren't we told why? Actually, I can't decipher what this paragraph is trying to say.
    "In lieu of" tells the reader that primaries—the typical method of choosing a candidate—were not used. The source cited is probably the best, most direct source for the statement, however it does not explain why a primary was not used. General knowledge of the political system and this election (information about which can be garnered from this article anyway) would offer a presumption of 1) there wasn't enough time to hold a primary and 2) why waste the money on a primary anyway? However I've never seen that written out. That said, this system of the party chairs picking the nominees is not the norm and that needs to be made clear, hence the 'in lieu of'. We can't get blood from a stone, and after working on this article for as long as we have, if we had come across a source that explicitly stated it, we would have definitely run with. Until I become a newspaper reporter myself and print the stuff I want to see, I can't just make up the sources I need for this type of application. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. State Senator Betty Little and former state Assembly minority leader and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate John Faso had been in the running for the Republican nomination.[11] Richard Wager, a former aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and State Senator Stephen Saland had also been mentioned.[12][13]
    And? Why "had been"? What happened to them? Why are they mentioned?
    And what? You know who was the eventual nominee, shall we just put "but they didn't get the nomination" after the statement and be completely redundant? I don't think we need to hold the reader's hand. However I guess you have to hold my hand, because I don't see the significance of the "had been" issues. These are names that were considered for the nomination, they didn't get the nomination, but their interest or possibility is completely relevant to the history of this election. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Why is this joined on to that paragraph? What is the relationship?
    Chairman Michael Steele of the Republican National Committee said the special election was the first of three elections that were "incredibly important" for the Republicans to win.[16]
    Moved to 'campaign' section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[17] Tedisco represents the 110th Assembly District, which includes a significant portion of Saratoga County.
    Switch in tense here is completely confusing, and recasting the paragraph might fix it. Why not, "winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009, to represent the 110th Assembly ... or something that doesn't have us switching from past to present.
    Agreed, the tense change is annoying, however we were never able to overcome this. Your interpretation of the meaning is incorrect; an interpretation is unnecessary because the statements are extremely clear, but admittedly are not qualified as "brilliant prose". He didn't win the nomination to represent the 110th Assembly District. 1) He won the nomination (to run for Congress)... and... 2) he represents the 110th Assembly (state legislature) district (currently, as in right now, and then). The importance of the second sentence is a connection to the third sentence, which points out that he doesn't actually live in the Congressional district (#20) he was hoping to represent, however much of his Assembly district (#110) overlaps with the Congressional district. This was a major issue in the campaign. Suggestion on phrasing? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. On January 31, The Post-Star reported that the Democrats had narrowed the field of potential candidates from over two dozen applicants down to six. The Democratic chairpersons met with all six candidates at a diner in Albany on February 1, and selected Scott Murphy of Glens Falls,[20] president of the Upstate Venture Association of New York,[21] as their candidate.
    Again, left wondering... a story is not told here, rather random seemingly unconnected details are strung togehter. How did they narrow them? Based on what? Why do we care that they met in a "diner"; what is relevant about that factoid? Why/how did they select Scott Murphy?
    Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" More detail is offered here because more detail was reported about the Democrats. We report that 1) there were over two dozen applicants, something that is not explicitly stated in the Republican section, however we list some names, since that list was smaller, 2) they met in a diner to do interviews (interesting, no?) and 3) they chose a guy. What more or less do you want? As to how they chose him, please see the first two sentences of that section: "In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees. The weight of the vote depended on the population of registered party voters (Republican or Democrat) in a given county." That's about as clear as it gets, unless of course, you want us to be completely redundant and hold the reader's hand. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. But also, why is Sundawall mentioned in the lead if he's never mentioned in the article? For the third time, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article; it's still not. Not only do we not know why Sundawall was removed from the ballot; he's never mentioned again anywhere in the article!
    First off, there's only one 'a' in Sundwall. Second, you must have completely missed this section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I would have noticed that but not for the typo in the lead. I'm still very uncomfortable with the prose here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped here; I can't get through any part of the article without questions about prose, relevance, missing info, and I'm left wondering why an interesting tale isn't spun and why we are told the factoids we're told and why we're left to wonder all that we're not told. I think this article needs a thorough revisit; these are samples only, and I'm frustrated that I've asked three times for the lead to be corrected, and each time I look, I fiend more issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm probably just as frustrated with the fact that this FAC has been open for almost two months now with multiple supports by users that thoroughly read the article and offered up issues for fixing (myself, Mike Christie (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) as well as base-less supports from Jayjg (talk · contribs), Coemgenus (talk · contribs), and an IP that claimed it was familiar with the race. Sourcing was okayed both by Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) (Andy Walsh) and the use of images in the article was completely massacred by Jappalang (talk · contribs). Then you've got a baseless weak oppose that has an issue with a set of images that are probably used on literally thousands of pages. You say it needs a thorough revisit, I say you've got some obvious consensus here. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead expanded. upstateNYer 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration about the timing, but please recall that you had outstanding sourcing issues on 8 December, no image review until 14 December, and my earlier request to look at the lead was unaddressed as of 21 December, so I think we're progressing as fast as we can here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like it in the record here that I agree completely with all of UpstateNYer's comments, and had I read this before he did I probably would have written exactly the same thing. I'd like to add that your "frustration" over your issues not being addressed is due to the fact that your previous feedback has been in the vein of, "it's not long enough! Expand it! And check sources!" You provided no concrete examples of problems that needed to be fixed, or of where the lead was not substantive enough. Throughout the two-month period this FAC has been open, I've responded immediately to feedback; if you had provided actionable criticism, your issues would already be resolved.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I wouldn't normally comment on another editor's comments on an article I've supported, but as you're a delegate your comments are given additional attention by nominators, so I thought I would respond. After all, the goal is consensus, which can require discussion. I see that a couple of the points you made above have been addressed, but in points 6, 7 and 10 I think you're asking for more than the sources provide, or at least for inferences and explanations that are not explicitly in the sources. Re point 1, my feeling is the lead is adequate; it's four non-trivial paragraphs and contains all the key facts. I'm afraid I don't see a problem on these issues, and I am still comfortable with supporting this article for promotion. (No comment on the other points, several of which have been addressed.) Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyrobo, I've provided 11 examples, which predominate the brief first sections of the article, including two three typos in the lead. I'm glad some of these issues have been addressed, but remain concerned about the others, and am reluctant to suggest the requested prose modifications myself, as you all have and know the sources better.
@UpstateNYer, re "Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" not so, these were samples only, and your veiled insinuation is not helpful-- there are issues throughout, I picked only the most obvious. It is also unhelpful to state that one of FACs finest image reviewers "massacred" the article.
@Mike, thanks for the helpful feedback; perhaps one more pass by an uninvolved editor can bring this over the hump. In my entire history at FAC, I have promoted only one article that had concensus for promotion but that I felt was still lacking, and I have lived to regret that :) On the other hand, since Karanacs is offline for the time being, and Laser brain also reviewed this article, I will likely be obliged to eventually promote it even though I'm uncomfortable with the prose, so I would appreciate it if others could work to bring it over the hump before I must promote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that each time I dig further into the article, I find more issues: redundant prose, sentence starting with number, and MOS captions punctuation on a quick glance.
  • The campaigns agreed to hold four debates.[40] The first debate took place on March 2, between Tedisco and Murphy.[41][42] The second debate, sponsored by WMHT and the Times Union, took place on March 19 between Murphy and Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall.[40][43][44]
Why do we need five sources to verify that two debates were held? If these articles are cited because they say something "about" the debates, why isn't that info included? If not, why the multiple cites to verify basic info? I continue to believe this article needs more review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT:
  • Redundant prose: I just wrote that (for you!), of course it needs review!
  • Number starting sentence: One example of this is not an FAC killer
  • Caption: I liked your edit summary when fixing this: "WP:MOS#Captions needs punctuation review", as if we have other images after your image reviewer went through the article. That is literally the only caption in the article. So that's an additional checkmark.
  • Please don't twist my meanings above. I'm not insulting your image reviewer in the slightest; massacre doesn't mean he/she did something terrible. Don't forget that I was the first person to propose removal of an image that I felt failed a copyright test. However I strongly disagree with removing a sitting Congressman's "official House photo" because we don't know who took the image. Getting a hold of a Congressman or his staff is hard enough. I'd have to get a hold of one that probably wants nothing more to do with Congress, therefore being even harder to get a hold of, all for an image that is taken in the Congressional photo studio. upstateNYer 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNY, I think you will find a positive, collaborative attitude towards reviews will yield better and faster results: I read and edit dozens of FACs at a time-- don't take it personally-- the goal is to get a well-deserved star, not to malign reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: a Google news search reveals some of the missing info that renders this article hard for me to follow, leading me to wonder if a thorough literature search has been done and whether the article is comprehensive. It seems burdened by factoids without telling a compelling story. Some examples:

  • This article explains why Democrats prevailed in spite of higher Republican voters:

But the record turnout that propelled Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 -- and created coattails that Murphy was able to ride to victory in his March 2009 special election squeaker over Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Schenectady -- did not repeat.

Our article doesn't explain why Democrats prevailed in 2009 over higher Republican voter registration in a traditionally conservative area. This is all we have:

Explanations for the Republicans' defeat ranged from accusations that Tedisco "dither[ed] on the stimulus bill", to intimations that Tedisco only became his party's nominee by manipulating the selection process.

That information isn't particularly comprehensive, and leaves many questions (which is the sense I get throughout the article).
That's great, and I'll make sure it's included, however please note that that article is from five days ago. It was not available when the prose of this article was being written. Also, this is the first time anybody has mentioned this. This is why specific requests (not just "lead needs to be longer!") is much more helpful than overly general demands. upstateNYer 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, lead needs to be longer is spelled out at WP:LEAD already, we have plenty of patience here, and these articles are only intended as samples of why I find the article so hard to follow-- I hope they help, but don't mean to say you must use them, only that they explain somewhat what I find missing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article gives more info.
    • Wrong election. The only discussion in this article about the election we're talking about is covered completely in our article. upstateNYer 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read critically; I know it's a different election, but it contains info about this election. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Practice what you preach and read what I wrote; we cover literally everything stated about this election in that article. upstateNYer 18:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Chill: my point is, this article is unclear to me, a reader who was unfamiliar with this election, so it will be unclear to other readers, for the reasons I give above and many more I haven't yet detailed-- it needs a more criticial review. We have plenty of patience here, but the article needs to be in promotable shape before it gets the star; that means comprehensive and compelling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this NYT article gives more background: these are merely the first hits from a Google news search, no special significance, but they do help me understand this election better than this article does. Samples only; you all know the sources, and these may not be the best sources, but I'm not yet seeing a compellng, comprehensive story, and have had to turn to Google to understand this election, which I did not follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) @Sandy, you provided those 11 examples in the last day, but you expressed consternation over inaction during the previous two months, a period in which you provided no helpful insights into improving this article. I don't know what kind of compelling story you're looking for here, and I don't think it's fair to say the research was poorly done because the article lacks a source that was published just yesterday. The article included all information that was available two months ago.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it appears that my attempts to help bring this article over the final hump are only irritating you, so I'll unwatch for a while, hoping that the kinds of improvements and review I'm still seeking are at least somewhat clear now. I think you'll be much happier with your eventual star if it is based on rigorous review and feedback :) Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of improvements you're seeking are entirely unclear to me. You seem to want a "compelling story", but based on your earlier comments about Sundwall, I don't think you read the article in its entirety. Saying that your comments provide "rigorous review", and that the purpose of making this article a FA is to gain some bauble of validation is reductionist and incorrect; however, I will accept the emoticon olive branch you have extended.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e/c Listen, I have no problem improving the article and adding information to it when it's found. Just like you, this isn't my day job, and yes, there are sources I may miss, however the FAC process shown here jumps all over the place, with Nov 15: please fix this; Nov 29: please fix that; Dec 7: please fix something else; Dec 15: ehh, you might want to look at...; Dec 24-27: expand the lead!, errors here!, because you expanded the lead, now there's errors in the lead!, here's four articles written in the last four days that are appropriate to include!. It's not to say that we'd have just left the article to waste (like sooooo many FAs after promotion; they should all be protected! but that's for a different day) if this article was promoted a month ago. These articles are great additions, I agree, it's just that the process has very much frustrated me the last few times I've gone through FAC. upstateNYer 18:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've described my views regarding this article's review here. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So summarizing, Sandy's eleven comments seem to be the only outstanding ones, some of which have been addressed. A summary for each follows:

  1. Covered by newly written lead.
  2. Fixed.
  3. Changed to "in". Is that satisfactory?
  4. MOSNUM issues fixed; consistency in X-point margin introduced. Is that satisfactory?
  5. Changed two sentences to one: "A vacancy was created in January 2009 when Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.[4]"
  6. I still don't think there's any issue with this.
  7. I still don't think there's any issue with this either.
  8. Fixed.
  9. See my response above and let me know what you think. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it.
  10. I think you're searching for a story that doesn't exist. These are just facts.
  11. Fixed.

Comment when ready. upstateNYer 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. UpstateNYer asked me to take another look at the lead, as it's been expanded since I supported the article. I've just read it and think it looks fine; I believe it's an improvement over the shorter lead, though I did not think that was unacceptably short. I see just above that there are assertions of errors in the lead -- I didn't spot any but would be glad to comment if someone could point them out to me. I'm happy to stand by my support for the article's promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick reply. Those errors were found in the previous version of the lead, however if you do notice something, please let us know. upstateNYer 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the wording for point 5 has been remedied. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/New_York%27s_20th_congressional_district_special_election,_2009/archive1&oldid=1138467807"