Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Washington gubernatorial election, 2004

Self-nom. I think this is a well-written and interesting article about the closest race in American gubernatorial history. The main concerns from its previous failed nomination bid have been addressed, as all legal challenges to Gregoire's election have ended as of 6 June. Thank you! Páll 19:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The intro should probably state that Gregoire is a Democrat. Joe D (t) 20:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just fixed that! Páll 20:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support A fascinating, well-written, well-linked and authoritative article about an election that most of the world probably ignored, btu which was very interesting! Just wish more election articles were like this. Batmanand 17:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object. Overall a great article, but with so much detail I find it strange that the trial is covered so briefly. No mention of the felon voters identified by Democrats, the argument over proportional reduction, why the judge removed five votes from the total, etc. Tradnor 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Just took care of all of that, would you mind looking again? Páll 20:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support. Tradnor 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral in light of substantial changes that I haven't reviewed. Tradnor 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

• Support Very thoroughly covered article about the Washington state 2004 election debacle. Bumm13 21:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Object, still needs considerable work to qualify as a thorough treatment of the subject. Writing still reflects the process of being cobbled together as events unfolded, and needs to be edited for a more uniform style. In particular, there are numerous instances of mixed tenses, such as speaking in anticipation of events that are now already past. Furthermore, at times the text wanders off into analysis of hypothetical scenarios that did not come to pass, and worse yet this speculative analysis is not easily traceable to an authoritative source. The article also barely addresses the extent of problems in the King County elections office that were a focus of Republican criticism. In general, I would suggest that more information about the strategies of both parties in selecting and presenting evidence at trial is needed. A few other minor problems: there's a totally irrelevant tangent about creating a separate state out of Eastern Washington, and why do we need separate pictures of Gregoire being sworn in and taking the oath of office? --Michael Snow 05:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I've lived in Washington since I was 18 months old and this whole thing confused even me. I think that Wikipedia should learn about it. I didn't understand how Dino Rossi won the first two counts then she won the third and yet she becomes governor despite the fact that he won 2 out of the 3 recounts and he doesnt get another recount? What's with this? Redwolf24 3 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)

OK, I just fixed all the tenses in the article and made then past. I was not able to find your references to analysis and hypotheticla scenarios, could you tell me which ones you objected to? I also added more content abou the issues in King County, such as the military absentee ballott controversy. Also added more information abou the court trial. Thank you! Páll 08:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is, for example, a list of the options the court supposedly had at trial, even though I don't believe that the election contest procedures specify possible remedies in this fashion (and in fact, Judge Bridges determined that not all of these options were available). One of the options mentioned happens to be ordering a new election, yet later the article implies that the authority for this step was with the state Supreme Court rather than the trial court. At which point the text again starts analyzing what would have, but did not, happen next. While the analyses are not terribly novel, they are not facts in the same sense as saying how many ballots were found at what point, or what evidence was presented at trial, so better attribution is needed to show that this isn't simply our own speculation.

A couple more points that I notice now that I look at the article again. It seems very strange to me for the tables showing primary results to include people who were mentioned as potential candidates, but never actually ran. Why is this done? Also, with the expanded detail, you need to be sure the article reflects that a county and a precinct are two different things, and that the text uses these terms with appropriate precision. Right now, I think most readers would assume they were interchangeable. --Michael Snow 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I believe I cleaned up what you were objecting to, although I don't see how the term precinct and county were used in similar ways. I mean, the word precinct is only used three times in the entire article, all times very clearly. Páll 19:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not really using the word precinct when it should say county that's at issue, the problem is mostly the other way around. The article also talks about lists of ineligible voters who voted for Gregoire/Rossi when no such lists exist, because a secret ballot makes it impossible to conclusively match up the ineligible people with the person they voted for; that's why a statistical argument was attempted (the five votes actually subtracted were based on affidavits). In general, the article falls significantly short in its accuracy and command of the evidence involved here. --Michael Snow 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just completley rewrote that section. What do you think now? Páll 23:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not there yet, and in some respects it's moving in the wrong direction. I just indicated that the article needs to properly distinguish between a county and a precinct; instead, you seem to have essentially eliminated references to precincts, which is not progress. I observe that the rewrite added citations to two blogs. If these are indicative of the extent of sources you have access to, it's not surprising that your ability to fix the article's problems is limited. --Michael Snow 05:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you needn't be rude. I am doing my best to work on this article, and as someone who is not from Washington, I am learning more about the evidence as I edit. I have now spent several hours reading over as much material as possible and have completely rewritten the section, playing close attention to the difference between precincts and counties. Thank you. Páll 06:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude, I was simply trying to explain why it didn't look to me like you would be able to bring this article up to featured standard. I am still doubtful, but the latest rewrite was a significant improvement. However, now the section about the trial leads off by referring to fraud and gives the impression that all of the allegations fall under that heading. The distinction between questioning the accuracy of the ballot counts and alleging fraud in the counting is significant and affects the standard of proof required to overturn the election. In reality, the decision to make charges of actual fraud came very late and was rather surprising to many. --Michael Snow 17:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I removed the reference to fraud. Is there anything else? Páll 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't necessarily saying you should just remove one reference to fraud, rather I hoped you might continue to reevaluate how the article presents the fraud issue vis-a-vis the other evidence. Look, maybe my approach has been too subtle here, but this article is not in a position where I would withdraw my objection based on cosmetic fixes. The article is decent, and I appreciate that you've done quite a bit of good work on it, but plenty of things still need to be added or revised before this can qualify as comprehensive. If you would like more suggestions of things to work on, you could add information about the campaign, which is touched on only briefly and needs more coverage to balance the current emphasis on the counting and contest phases. For example, the issues raised in the campaign, what the candidates stood for (much has been made of Gregoire promising to "change the culture in Olympia"), major endorsements and participation by other political figures, the involvement of the national parties (in both the campaign and subsequent contest), and so on. --Michael Snow 00:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just added quite a bit of information about the campaigns and fixed the tagging of the images. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Nothing further. --Michael Snow 3 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

• Comment Won't give an opinion either way here because I'm no expert on the subject. But the article appears to be written from an NPOV position, provides references, presents data in a clear fashion, and has a decent layout. Kim Bruning 02:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I did do some work on this article over the new year. I think it could do with a bit more structuring, and also the figures from the first count appear to have been deleted at some point (just the machine recount is present). They should certainly be restored. David | Talk 14:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just re-added the initial count values to the table. Páll 29 June 2005 10:45 (UTC)

• Object The article is filled with images labled a GFDL which are almost certantly not GFDL. Gmaxwell 02:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise that. Fixed all of the images with the appropriate image tags. 128.122.129.4 28 June 2005 21:34 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've added {{PD-USGov-State}}, an unfortunately-named template intended for material that would be public domain based on being created by a State Department employee. It is not a template for material from US state governments; most states do not place their materials in the public domain. Furthermore, publicity materials of candidates aren't necessarily under government copyright anyway, even if the candidate is a government employee. --Michael Snow 28 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Please see reply below. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Object. The images Image:Christine Gregoire being sworn in as governor.jpg, Image:Christine Gregoire after winning nomination.jpg, Image:Christine Gregoire inaugeration.jpg claim to be "from Christine Gregiore's publicity packet", but are tagged as {{PD-USGov-State}}. The image Image:Dino Rossi at a dinner.jpg is claimed as "from Dino Rossi's publicity packet", but is tagged {{PD-USGov-State}}. The image Image:Washington Democratic Lawyers Hug.jpg is claimed as "from Christine Gregoire's publicity packet", but is tagged as {{PD}}. This could use some clarification. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Still object. The new copyright tag, {{WAEduGov}}, is about as incorrect as you can get. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

See below, please.

• Object. Looking good, but there are a few issues still: 1) In the lead, it says that the lawsuit was filed and rejected. This is misleading, as the lawsuit was filed and then decided against the plaintiff. Better wording is needed. 2) Under the "absentee ballots" header, there's a paragraph on manual manipulation of ballots. This needs to better explain what manipulation is needed, and why. A description of the types of ballots involved may help. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

OK, I fixed those problems. Anything else? :) Páll 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

I have fixed the tags used on the images. Washington State law makes any images or media created by the state for educational purposes available in the public domain, so these images are covered under that provision since they were created and used in educational publicity packets. The description of the images now reflect this. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

The law you cite (RCW 74.39A.200) specifically covers training materials developed by the Department of Social and Health Services for long-term care providers. I don't think it covers these images. Tradnor 29 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Oops, I suppose I should have read more about what the law was pertaining to. I have removed the errant images and replaced them with images whose permission to use I have from the original authors. Páll 30 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

• Conditional Object The pictures around the county map of Washington look cluttered. Try to clean that up a bit? --EatAlbertaBeef 29 June 2005 03:35 (UTC)

The addition of a new section to the article should address that. Páll 29 June 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Support. Very in-depth, and I helped to copyedit the article. Denelson83 30 June 2005 07:55 (UTC)

• Strong opposition. I don't think anybody not in USA would be interested in those tabular election results. --Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:47:20 (UTC)

You're wrong on that. I was fascinated by the whole subject. David | Talk 30 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not even from the United States and I made the whole article and the table. Páll 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

• Support (incidentally, I'm Canadian, Deryck C.). Interesting and well-researched. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)