Talk:Delaware Plan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
This plan is part of the restructuring of presidential primaries discussion as of September, 2007.
[edit] Notability & Citations
First of all, I can't imagine what it would take to establish the notability of this article, if it isn't already. A plan, proposed by the Republican National Committee, to revise the presidential nominating process that has been largely untouched since 1952, is quite notable, even if it is not well known. But renown and notability are not the same thing, as is made clear in the first paragraph of WP:N. Besides, with the completely out-of-control state primary schedule, the way that primaries are conducted is more in the news than ever before.
Secondly, all the significant points in the article are covered by one or more of the citations here. There may not be many (although this short article—with five or so citations—has more cites than many longer articles), but they cover the ground laid out in the article.
There is no reason why this article needs the tags placed here. I'm sure the intent was good, but it was an unnecessary effort. Unschool 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How Many?
The text of the article says, "The smallest 12 states and all the territories by population would be the first group, or "pod". The smallest thirteen of the remaining states would be the second group, the next thirteen the third group, and the largest twelve states would form the final group." However, the map shows twelve states in each of the first two groups, and thirteen in each of the last two groups. Which is correct? 12.76.130.249 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that anyone can say. The plan was originally conceived in the mind of some RNC officials, but it seems that it clearly was in flux as it was being negotiated, and, if it ever came up, would again be subject to negotiation. Until it again gets serious consideration, I imagine the point it moot. Still, the basic principles are unchanged, regardless. Sorry I can't give a better answer. Unschool (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
