Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Historical polling for U.S. Presidential elections edit

(
)

Created/expanded by Futurist110 (talk). Self nom at 05:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry. Lists and charts don't qualify as prose for the character count for DYK. You need a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose. Great work on the charts, though! Anne (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If I need prose, I can add some when I have more time. Futurist110 (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Great! Also, keep in mind formatting for the hook and URLs. Anne (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I added some prose. Hopefully it's more than 1,500 characters. I need some help properly formatting the hook and the URLs, though. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be busy this morning, but I can work with you later today. To get you started today, I reformatted your hook slightly by linking U.S. President and shortening the amount of your sentence that was linked to your article. Anne (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


- OK, the tables are amazing. And it has far more than 1500 characters now (it has over 3000). However, there are a few issues:

  • Lead - the lead should summarize the article. While it's tougher to do something like that here, the lead should at least mention any particular trends (based on the reference), perhaps also you can get another reference to put in the lead, etc. At the very least, it should explain what the article is more - it's an article on historical polling data from 1936-1976, based on Gallup polls. It should also explain the formatting for the table (example: "Month" refers to the month that the poll was conducted, and the next two columns refer to the polling data and what percent of voters chose that candidate. (D) means the candidate was a Democrat, while (R) means the candidate was a Republican."
  • Upset victory isn't clear to people like me who are unfamiliar with this terminology. Was he upset (I doubt it)? The article should either explain the term or wikilink it, if such an article exists. Then, it should be either wikilinked in the hook or the hook should be revised.
  • Each table and passage should have a reference, even if it's to the same reference. The reason is because someone may come along with other data, and include that in the article, and we won't know which comes from which reference. I'm going to expand the Gallup reference parameters. When I'm done, simply copy <ref name="Gallup"/> to the end of each table/passage that it applies to. --Activism1234 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor above made some excellent suggestions. Let's keep you going. I noticed that you wikilinked upset victory in the prose of your article. I've wikilinked it in your hook as well. Next, the prose in your lead and in each section will need references. I don't know whether you've ever used the citation templates, but I use them religiously. They're really handy. I'm going to do the Gallup one for you and lead you through the process in case you've never used them. (Although your charts are so great, I would think that you must have.) Click on Edit. On the bar at the top, click on Cite all the way to the right. Then click on Templates all the way to the left. Choose cite web and just fill out the template. Then select Insert and you're done with that one reference. For more inline citations, pick a ref name and insert that. I'm going to make the Gallup poll results the first ref for each of your paragraphs of prose. Anne (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you may want to use ProveIT to put in references (that's my choice!). Simply go to "My preferences" on the top --> Gadgets --> scroll down to "Editing" and check "ProveIT." See which one you like better - they're both good. --Activism1234 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Everything in this article is already sourced. However, I'd also like to put the data for elections from 1980 to 2008 there, but I'm not sure when I'll have the time or will to do it. I'll do it eventually, but if someone wants to help me out (and get partial credit for this article's DYK? nomination), then that would be greatly appreciated. My link already has all the data for 1980 to 2008, one just needs to copy it into Wikipedia. Futurist110 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What else do I need to do now? I just put all the poll data for 1980 to 2008 into this article and put poll summaries for all of the elections as well. I also made sure that everything in this article is sourced. Do I need to do anything else before this page gets a DYK nomination? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's good now, just the lead part that I mentioned above should be changed, I think. If Anne feels differently, I don't have an issue. --Activism1234 03:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the lead right now. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

- I'd say it's good, as all problems mentioned above have been fixed. --Activism1234 16:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK good. :) Futurist110 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please close this discussion now? Futurist110 (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Removed from the queue per WT:DYK. This should be easily expandable / better referenced with tertiary sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding an icon to clarify that this is not current approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
As the article stands right now:
  • The singular source, when accessed, is one page of images of Gallup Poll graphs. No prose exists in the source to support the author's prose.
  • The article is a set of tables/lists, with a brief lead paragraph. The other prose in the article, are the author's interpretation of the individual campaigns and elections. No source is provided. Unsupported statements, which also could be interpreted as a POV, include:
  • (1936 FDR's campaign) "...due to the improving economy and optimistic hopes that he was able to provide to most Americans"
  • (1940) "Willkie was hurt by his lack of political experience..."
  • (FDR's 1944 campaign) "...similar to the campaigns that Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush ran "
  • (1949) "...Dewey's unenthusiastic campaign..."
  • (1952) "...Dissatisfaction with the Korean War, corruption, and the threat of Communism allowed popular WWII hero general Dwight Eisenhower to win..."
  • (Eisenhower, 1956) "...was easily reelected due to the good economy and lack of severe foreign problems..."
  • (Nixon, 1960) "... a knee injury which prevented him from campaigning..."
  • (LBJ, 1964 in the Vietnam War era) "...lack of severe foregin problems..." (author's typo)
  • (1968, Humphrey) "... he ran out of time..."
And it's that way with every year. Whether those statements are fact or not, there is no sourcing to support any prose in the article. I think the article shows promise, but the prose needs to be sourced. If you are going with the prose written, it could take some work to make the reader understand things like how FDR's 1944 campaign was comparable to Lincoln's and Bush The Younger's. Sourcing needs to be checked against DYK's duplication detector. Maile66 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Referencing:Futurist110, I see you are right now working hard to make sure the article is properly sourced. The way you are doing it is with "bare urls", which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I think this Template:Citation Style 1 might be of some help to you. Maile66 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to need some help with properly formatting all of that, and I also need some help with finding good sites with a good summary of the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns. I added sources for all the other elections (but the sources need formatting), and for the record I did link each election's article to my historical presidential polling article. Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I just posted over at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know that you're asking for assistance. Wouldn't hurt for you to post over there yourself. Good luck. Maile66 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, do you have the Edit toolbar enabled on your account? Preferences/Editing/ check the box that says "Show Edit toolbar". The Edit toolbar has a button called "Cite". If you click that, then over on the left-hand side (on mine, anyway), you would see "Templates". Click on that arrow, and it brings up selections. Click one of the selections, and a window pops up for you to fill in the blanks for a citation. Maile66 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Let me try using this in several minutes. Futurist110 (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Futurist110, I noticed that you now have five successful DYKs. That's the most you're allowed to have before a quid pro quo (QPQ) review is required for all subsequent nominations processed after them. As such, that means you must supply a completed review of someone else's nomination before this one can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed a DYK? article here: Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Brisbane and I added sources for 2004 and 2008 now as well. I think this historical polling article is good to go right now. Futurist110 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed another two DYK? nominations right now:
I hope that someone can review this DYK? nomination of mine now, since I already did 3 DYK? nomination reviews myself. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs new review now that QPQ has been satisfied. (QPQ article reviewed, the al-Bukhari, now listed in header.) Sources should now have been added to all paragraphs in article per above. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah someone needs to please review this DYK? nomination of mine. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly new to reviewing DYK but after reading the guidelines I believe this meets the criteria. A new article, more than adequate prose, well sourced and researched, neutrally written and no copyright violations or plagiarism that I can detect. The hook is in the article and its an interesting factoid for the front page. I would say its now good to go. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes Yahoo! Voices reliable? FN4 fails verification in part, as nowhere does it mention a "landslide" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I did look at the Yahoo cite, although an SPS, the author is a known writer with appropriate expertise so I think it falls into one of the exempt categories of SPS. Whilst it could possibly do with another opinion or even a change to another cite I think its OK. I'd suggest removing the landslide comment unless you have another cite. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I removed Yahoo voices and removed the landslide part. I need some help formatting one source due to problems with my current computer. Is there anything else that I need to fix or am I good now? Futurist110 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There are still numerous issues which are not part of the criteria (missing periods in the text, for example, and The Economist is not the publisher but the work). I'm giving this the tick and assuming that you'll get those. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd endorse that, I think this is ready to go. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections&oldid=1021526790"