Wikipedia:Featured article review/Single Transferable Vote/archive1

Single Transferable Vote[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at User talk:Scott Ritchie, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda. Sandy 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There remains no summary of current usage of STV in the article (pretty pathetic for a featured article). Instead, since the splitting off of content to History and use of the Single Transferable Vote, there is only a summary of the early history (only up to the end of the 19th century).

Someone needs to summarise the remainder of the content in the article I've linked to, and append to the section "History and current use" in this article.

In the meantime, I do not think this article should keep its featured status - for an article on STV it offers scant example of how it works in practice in places such as the Republic of Ireland (where it is used for presidential, local council, national parliament and European parliament elections - not to mention popular Irish usage for secret ballot votes in random groups, classrooms, organisations, etc.)

From the talk page, it seems the article has ungone serious changes since its becoming a FA and its appearance on the main page. A complete review of the article is almost certainly necessary - and I do suggest not pretending it's of FA standard if it no longer is.

zoney ♣ talk 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that it has no inline citations. --Maitch 12:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has some, and inline citations are a recent "fad" on Wikipedia. Most importantly, it does have a reference list at the end of the article. While it may help in those attempting to verify information, I'm not at all happy with this recent tendency to want every sentence tagged with a citation/footnote.

That said, I think in this article, there is probably a fair bit of content without basis in any of the references.

zoney ♣ talk 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't notice that in this instance, the only references are the scant inline citations. That seems below the bar for an FA. zoney ♣ talk 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations (of whatever style the author prefers) have been a requirement for 18 months or more. The requirement is not recent and is most certianly not a fad. Raul654 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tactical voting section needs work. I've posted on its talk page for advice, and I'm going to try to edit it up to standards over the next few days. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Six inconsequential edits since it was nominated, here's the diff: [1]. Severely lacking in inline citations, plus concerns above not addressed. Move to FARC. Sandy 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as per reasons stated by Sandy. LuciferMorgan 08:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Now has a cleanup/advert tag, no one is working on it, insufficient citations. Sandy 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per Sandy.--Yannismarou 18:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pity that no contributor is willing to insert the references. Where are the political scientists? The article has merit, otherwise. Tony 09:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]