Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 2004/archive1

U.S. presidential election, 2004

I submit this article because of it's depth and usefulness. This article seems very fair and neutral, despite the sticky political subject. Many questions I have had, some I couldn't even articulate properly are anwsered here, especially the Ohio situation. It also includes much information that could have been left out if not for the author's attention to detail. --Kode 22:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support Very well written informative article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} July 5, 2005 04:29 (UTC)
• Support can't believe they've managed to make an article like this so balanced Borisblue 5 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)
• Support. A great time to put this up for FAC. People have accepted the 2004 election results, and there's no reason for any more anon vandalism than usual. Great article (pity about the size of the TOC, but it has to be like that), and it sets a standard for all future election pages. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
  • Changing to oppose. As has become quite obvious, this article has some major flaws in terms of missing information. Looks like it needs lots of writing, and then a long stint on peer review. Harro5 July 7, 2005 11:48 (UTC)
• Object (replacing earlier comment with no vote). Having read the whole thing:
  1. There's five citations in the text, and these use a plain external link, they should use {{ref}} and {{note}}.
  2. Additionally there are many plain external links (not in reference format) in the text that should be split out and cited properly.
  3. More citations! While there is references the article does not cite sources (a rule for featured articles), and the current references section does not aid the researcher who may wish to trace the source of a fact.
  4. There is a section "Overview", but the introductory section above the fold is supposed to provide a 2-5 paragraph overview (that section is only one very short paragraph).
  5. There is an empty section "Timeline".
  6. There are a lot of single paragraph (very short paragraph) sections, either they don't need splitting under their own headings, or they can be expanded.
  7. Newspaper endorsements contains a link to subarticle, but there's no summary which is the point of subarticles.
• These should be easy to fix (I'll even help if I find the time), and since I'm not qualified to comment on the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of the article and don't object to the prose, when they are fixed I'll consider removing my vote. Joe D (t) 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
• Object. Good work getting this a NPOV, but it needs quite a bit of work to be a FA. The lead needs to be considerably longer, at least two or three paragraphs. The overview section should be turned into prose, rather than a list of bullet points. Sections like ==Ballot access== and ==Newspaper endorsements== should be more than just tables, and should get some explanatory prose. These small tables also do not look very good in their current formatting. They would look better if they were right aligned and floating. The external links section should be cleaned out. It is huge and looks especially bad on the TOC. It would also be good to see some book references, rather than just news websites. Also the page has some major gaps. There is noting on the issues in the election. Topics like Iraq, social security, and national security, are nowhere mentioned. - SimonP July 5, 2005 13:15 (UTC)

• Support Very informative, very nice work, great info! Nice use of pictures. So I definitely support! LordMooCow 09:20, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)
• Object. Agree with SimonP. You need to mention the issues of the campaign, otherwise the article does little or nothing to explain why Bush won. It shouldn't be that difficult to find reliable info: opinion polls by newspapers on the most important election issue for example. At the moment, if you search for "economy" or "Iraq", there isn't a signal reference in the entire article. Deus Ex 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
• Object--there needs to be more coverage of the unusually contested Democratic primary especially. For example, there is no reference to Howard Dean outside of a sentence on an unrelated issue, despite his frontrunner status and dramatic fall from grace. Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
• Object. Per above objectors. Reorganizing this article according to summary style (e.g. Primaries, Campaign, Results, Controversy) is extremely important and would help resolve all the other objections. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 16:55 (UTC)