Template:Did you know nominations/Suffolk University Political Research Center


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Suffolk University Political Research Center

 * ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center is one of a handful of well-known academic polling centers in the United States, alongside Marist, Monmouth, and Quinnipiac? Source: Nick Anderson, How did Marist, Monmouth, Suffolk and Quinnipiac get known for political polling?, Washington Post (August 3, 2016)
 * ALT1: ... that Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight gives the Suffolk University Political Research Center a "B+" grade for polling accuracy and methodology? Source: Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight's Pollster Ratings, FiveThirtyEight (last accessed October 7, 2016).
 * Reviewed: James Kaliokalani

Created/expanded by Neutrality (talk). Self-nominated at 22:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article is new enough, long enough (at 1,644 characters, it makes it over the hump) and within policy regarding neutrality, sourcing and avoidance of close paraphrasing and copyvio issues (note that Earwig gives a 14.5% confidence rating to a page from the center, which is related to a direct quotation used in the article). Hooks are within length and sufficiently interesting, though ALT1 to my tastes appears more useful, though here will those who may be unfamiliar with the fivethirtyeight.com site (I'm a giant fan). QPQ has been met. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm fine with ALT 1. Neutralitytalk 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Returned to nominations page as hook is uninteresting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Before we promote this to the main page, can we find some more non-Suffolk sources to show the notability of this university centre? We have the FiveThirtyEight survey, and a news report based on that and, er, that's it. The page is too dependent on Suffolk sources at present and reads like a puff piece: "Suffolk is known for being one of a handful of well-known academic polling centers" - no, one news report mentions it, and while the article mentions that Marist, Monmouth and Quinnipiac are other well-known [sic] university polling centres, it fails to mention that the FiveThirtyEight rated Suffolk the lowest of these four (B+ vs A+, A and A-). BencherliteTalk 10:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Adding icon to supersede the earlier tick, and striking the hook that was pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've significantly expanded the article: The new material and cites should put beyond doubt the subject's notability (see below). I will note that the Washington Post directly states that Suffolk is one of four academic polling centers of note. Given the quality of the source and the uncontroversial nature of the statement, this doesn't need hedging. The first Post article is also not "based on" the 538 report; the Post mentions 538 briefly, but the article is much broader in coverage that that. Neutralitytalk 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , : I have expanded the article substantially, adding a second Washington Post article (2016), a Wall Street Journal piece by Carl Bialik (2011), a piece by two academics in Survey Practice (2015), a brief mention in the journal State Politics & Policy Quarterly, and a citation to a journal article in American Behavioral Scientist devoted to explaining a particular nontraditional technique used by Suffolk in some races. I propose the following additional alt hooks:
 * * ALT 2: ... that the Suffolk University Political Research Center included mobile phones in its polls for the first time in 2012? Source: Carl Bialik, Pollsters Go Mobile, Wall Street Journal (December 2, 2011).
 * * ALT 3: that in polling the New Hampshire primary in 2008, the Suffolk University Political Research Center combined statewide probability sampling with nonprobability sampling of "bellwether" districts to make predictions? David Paleologos & Elizabeth J. Wilson, "Use of Bellwether Samples to Enhance Pre-Election Poll Predictions: Science and Art," American Behavioral Scientist (April 2011),  vol. 55 no. 4 (published online before print February 28, 2011), pp. 390-418. 10.1177/0002764211398068.
 * I prefer ALT 3 as I think it is interesting from a statistics perspective (usually we think of polls as either scientific or nonscientific, but this pollster has combined both, which is somewhat unusual). Neutralitytalk 01:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that ALT3 is best.  E Eng  01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, ALT3 is also 215 characters, well beyond the 200 maximum. I've struck it, though a shorter version could be proposed. ALT2, at 117 characters, is a fine length. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shorter version of ALT 3 (172 characters): ALT 4: that the Suffolk University Political Research Center has combined statewide probability sampling with nonprobability sampling of "bellwether" districts to make predictions? Neutralitytalk 02:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check new ALT hooks, and also to recheck article now that more material has been incorporated. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Article is still big, and referenced enough. It passes the copyvio test too. ALT4 is 173 chars, ALT2 is 117 chars, so length OK. Both ALT2 and ALT4 are in the article with reference, but I cannot confirm, so AGF good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)