Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/National Popular Vote Interstate Compact/1

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep. Improvements made, no consensus to delist. Geometry guy 09:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have never been given a "good" rating. It gives undue attention to a trivial topic and is assembled in such a way that it appears to not only actively promote the subject, but also acts as a primary and central source of information on the subject under the guise of neutrality. In actuality, this article could be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs or contained entirely within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#Arguments_against_the_Electoral_College

This is not AfD, and the article has plenty of secondary sources. Which GA criteria do you believe it fails and why? Geometry guy 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly fails neutrality, it is full of weasel words which mostly promote the topic and, to a significantly lesser extent, argue against it. Several "sources" used to back these weasel words are repetitive newspaper editorials or links to organizations that are actively campaigning to pass the legislation. Additionally, a significant majority of the non-biased sources are contained within the chart that takes up over half the article. Aside from the chart, scientific and actual news sources are few and far between. There is no mention of the sample size in the opinion poll illustrated because it is so small (about 2000) it would detract from its implied significance. The entire article is composed in such a way that wikipedia is being used to give it legitimacy, rather than simply recognize what legitimacy it has. This article contains little information that is not featured on nationalpopularvote.com and is designed to simply gives those ideas the appearance of neutrality. Averyisland (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a very important idea, and is well enough referenced (even ignoring the primary sources). The nominator seems to dislike the idea, and thinks writing an informative article about it is somehow taking sides, which it is not. As a foriegner, such articles are very informative. Strong, if not speedy keep.Yob Mod 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is a valuable one to have. As for its good article status, I would note that comments should primarily be based on whether the article meets the criteria or not, rather than agreement or disagreement with the nominator. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think i covered all the delisting concerns, NPOV ("not taking sides"), RS (well enough referenced) etc. Agreed that it can be improved, but nothing failing the criteria here imo.Yob Mod 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article fairly represents the issues and debates surrounding National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It accurately portrays the most common arguments both in favor and against the compact and no item in this section has been the subject of controversy. The section presenting these arguments is the most informative section of the article, but Averyisland would have that section eliminated because in the process of summarizing these arguments it cites "biased" articles that take either a position in favor or against the compact. Averyisland's argument is a perversion of the Neutral point of view which explicitly suggests that both sides should be described in a balanced fashion WP:NPOV#Balance. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article raises some POV concerns by starting off with a section named "Background" which opens with this sentence: Public opinion surveys suggest that a majority of Americans support the idea of a popular vote for president. A better way to structure the article would be to open with the section on "Details of the compact law", followed by "History of the compact". It's best to begin with the most relevent facts and then introduce arguments for and against later, after first describing the proposal. This should be an easy to implement fix. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some restructuring would help address neutrality concerns, and would encourage editors to follow independent advice such as Majoreditor's. Geometry guy 20:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]