Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Illinois House of Representatives election/archive1

1964 Illinois House of Representatives election

 * Nominator(s): Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the time in 1964 when Illinois elected their entire State House at-large. In a twist no one expected, politicians played politics, leading to a redistricting deadlock and this fascinating election, the only one of its type. This is my first FA nomination and I hope y'all enjoy reading and reviewing it as much as I enjoyed researching and writing it :) I'm on holiday break the next few weeks so I should have plenty of time to respond to comments; also happy to provide digital copies of the offline sources if anyone needs them. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Airship's flyby
Welcome to FAC. Quick note: is it possible to format that lengthy table in the analysis section so that it is collapsible? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure; did that now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Generalissima's review
I'll take a look at this and see what problems or issues I can find.
 * I know you use inline page numbers for some of them, but Improving the State Legislature: A Report of the Illinois Commission on the Organization of the General Assembly, the Illinois Blue Book, and Legislative Redistricting in Illinois: An Historical Analysis are lacking page numbers within the citations themselves.
 * I used inline page numbers for all of those (every book source). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I meant the pages used in the books itself. (Or the page count of the entire book, if you're using it all.)Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that makes sense to add? Could do it if that would be better though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that'd be nice. Generalissima (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing stands out in the lede as unnecessary. The ballot being 33 inches long is noteworthy enough, but why is the orange paper important? All four election ballots were on different colored paper, so it doesn't seem like this was particularly unusual. If this was a one-time-only instance of the paper being colored orange, find a source for that and mention it in the Ballot subsection
 * Just something that was reported in most coverage? Can remove it though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You need a source on footnote C.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice. Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Prose is generally tight and high-quality. American politics articles have a very particular tone of voice to them and I think you're spot-on at capturing it. Skimming through, I don't see any major prose issues springing out.
 * Only one I could find that irks me any. At the bottom of Constitutional procedure; "Overall, though, the maps were considered a significant improvement." You can avoid needing the 'though' here. "The maps were however considered a significant improvement" perhaps?
 * I've edited this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice! Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel this generally meets the Featured article criteria, albeit with some minor mistakes which I outlined. It is certainly well-written and comprehensive, and I do not see anything which would go against NPOV. Its of a good but non-excessive length. The images are well-used. (Ah, if only there was a picture of someone holding the ballot! That'd be good, but probably does not exist.) Obviously, someone needs to do a proper source review, especially on that monster of a citation #1. Good work! Hope to see this polished up a little so it can firmly pass. - Generalissima (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I've addressed your suggestions above. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking pretty good, thank you for the fast work! I elaborated on my first point. Generalissima (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking back at everything, I can say Support. Good job! Generalissima (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

image review

 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding alt text


 * See MOS:COLOUR


 * File:1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_Sample_Ballot.jpg is marked as lacking a description and author, and the tagging is contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a description and clarified the authorship. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891
Interesting article. That's a first pass. Not wedded to any of these points at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a read through hopefully in the next week ish. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " it did not provide any method of enforcement" What would a method of enforcement been? Do you mean it didn't specify when/how the redistricting would occur?
 * Basically, if the legislature didn't redistrict, there was no recourse in the courts, and no other mechanism for redistricting to take place. So, the legislature could choose not to redistrict and they would not be forced to. I've added "should the legislature fail to do so" to the end of the sentence -- hopefully that's good enough? Not sure how to phrase this best without being clunky. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "with courts continuing to allow this practice" What does this mean? How did the courts 'allow it?
 * I've rewritten this as "with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting". Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "A constitutional convention, approved by voters in 1918, aimed to deal with the issue" Where does this appear in the source? It's also not clear to me which issue you mean by 'the issue' here-- the broader lack of redistricting, or just the under-representation of Cook County. I see "allowing cook county representation in the State House of representatives on the Basis of Voting Strength" which would, I guess, address the latter but not the former
 * The relevant part of the source is on page 292: "...the 1921 general assembly was content to allow the constitutional convention then meeting to wrestle with the difficult problem of representation. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed constitution in 1922...". Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason Keogh is red-linked and Fergus is not?
 * Yes! Keogh murdered an attorney and that case is probably notable, though I haven't been able to find quite enough sources for it to write a satisfactory article yet. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "for periodic reapportionment of the Senate, but it did provide that for the House's 59 districts." periodic being?
 * I've clarified this to explain the practice of redistricting after each census. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "in one legislative chamber, but limit its representation in the other, but these proposals died due to strong bipartisan opposition from downstate politicians." I don't believe you've mentioned or established another chamber yet.
 * I've clarified this to list both chambers. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "for if the legislature failed to redistrict." was there a timeframe on this?
 * Yeah. Am not sure it's necessary to spell that out explicitly though? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "have districts that would cross include parts of both Chicago and its suburbs" Maybe just "...would include parts..."
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Democrats responded on the same day with a plan to instead have districts" I think the relevance of this is predicated on understanding that democrats are concentrated in cities, so would have been in favor of this, but that would not be clear to someone just reading the article-- if that was the case in Chicago at this time
 * Yeah, this was the case. I guess the thing is, it's so self-evident to political observers that it's often not described explicitly? So mentioning that this would give Democrats a political advantage would be SYNTHy given that the sources I'm using don't explicitly say it (though obviously a party isn't going to propose a plan that wouldn't give them some advantage). So not sure how best to deal with this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "that would only remove one district from there, at the expense of a district in Lake County" meaning that Lake County lost a district, or a district that would have been added to Lake County was not?
 * The latter. I've changed "in" to "planned for"; not sure if this is the clearest it can be but not sure how to better word it. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "deliberate under-representation of Republican areas" I don't think it's clear what is being referred to as 'Republican areas'
 * The area here is particularly Lake County. Newspapers from the time mention this, though I haven't found one that makes the connection that the secondary source I'm using does (while that secondary source doesn't explicitly mention Lake County here). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "of which Kerner appointed five of each " the "of which...of each" phrasing is a bit awkward. I would maybe rephrase to "Each party's state central committee nominated ten candidates for the redistricting commission. Kerner appointed five from each party on August 14, 1963"
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Starting on November 14, the Republicans on the commission began boycotting the meetings" raising the questions: When did meetings begin? How often were they?
 * Sadly there isn't great secondary coverage on this. I think most of the meetings received some coverage in newspapers but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to find out how many they were. They started after the commission was appointed in August. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "two days before the final deadline" consider adding something along the lines of "... to agree on a map"
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "party to nominate 118 candidates for the 177 seats available." So was there no consideration for third party candidates?
 * There was, though it wasn't initially expected for third parties to run; they needed 25k signatures to do so (see this newspaper source cited later in the article. However, coverage about the election procedure doesn't mention the signature requirement, presumably because no one was seriously expecting a third-party run, and it was obvious that both major parties would qualify. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You never state the date of the election in the body of the article
 * Added a mention in the "Election procedure and campaign" section. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe just "stating that they still believed they had a chance of victory" -> "believing they still had a chance of victory"
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "were reported on November 26" Do you know why the delay?
 * I think it was because of the extremely long ballot (and in general results can take a few weeks to fully count, even nowadays). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "claiming that there were more votes cast than voters registered in five precincts" did they ever decide whether this was actually the case?
 * The recount didn't, and that's the most decisive thing that happened (and is mentioned). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "releasing the DuPage results only hours before legislators were sworn in" Were vote counts not typically released?
 * Nope! The results couldn't be sent to the secretary of state for certification due to the injunction. I think some partial results were released, but not in an official way if that makes sense? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How do the sources determine that "The results were strongly influenced by endorsements... [endorsements] were mostly responsible for the results"? That seems like something that would be hard to quantify
 * The results almost perfectly correlated with newspaper endorsements, and didn't really correlate with anything else. The sources on this are mainly just one guy's analysis (whose writing I've used as a source for much of this article), but he seems pretty reliable and there aren't any other theories mentioned in other sources that I've found. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it might be good to somewhere explicitly state the seat balance after the election
 * I've added a mention of the Dem seat number in the first Analysis paragraph (the Republican seat number was already mentioned there). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The resulting maps were relatively fair to both parties, though caused a significant shift of power from downstate to the Chicago area" feels like there's maybe a missing word in here?
 * Fixed. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?
 * I've tried to tighten the wording a bit here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "In 2000, Pat Quinn" maybe define who Pat Quinn is?
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks again for your review! I've implemented many of your suggestions and explained my thinking regarding the rest. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, only a couple of responses which I'll put here:
 * Suggest adding the process for third party to make the slate, as you later say "that they had failed to gather enough signatures"
 * I've expanded upon this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "legislature was required to redistrict the state, it did not provide any method of enforcement should the legislature fail to do so" Maybe just "...it did not provide any method of enforcement if the legislature did not"
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a great way to handle the Chicago/Democratic thing without being synth-y, so probably best to leave it out.
 * RE: "The two paragraphs beginning "The legislative process was not successful for redistricting" feel only tangentially related to this article. Could maybe be condensed?" I'm not sure why the sentences about happenings in 1991 or 2001 are really relevant here at all.
 * I get where you're coming from here. The problem is that it's relevant to mention the failure through the entire period (I definitely want to keep the "The failure of the legislature to redistrict in every cycle between 1965 and 2001" sentence), and if I only mentioned the 1990s and 2000s failures in passing, I think it could leave a reader wanting ("what happened in 2001 that caused the legislature to fail?"). I agree that it's a bit detailed for something that isn't super closely related but I don't see a better way of doing it. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I want to have another read through before supporting, but I doubt much else will come up Eddie891 Talk Work 20:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Think I've addressed all of your comments now :) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think you cite the 87 / 90 seats in the previous election anywhere?
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd expect to see two-thirds or supermajority mentioned in the article body
 * Added a mention. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally think of the past tense of veto as vetoed, not veto'd
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 33 inches should have a conversion factor
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "which were made up of delegates elected on the old legislative lines" Do you cite this in the body?
 * Yep. "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention.[13] Delegates to each party's convention were elected using the previous districts during the state's April primary.[1]: 301–302" (start of "Election procedure and campaign" section). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " Both political parties received significant criticism for their failure to redistrict." Do you cite this in the article body?
 * I've added a sentence for this in the body, and changed the wording to "Politicians in both political parties...". Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Thanks for your responses and attention to detail. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami
I will also review this shortly. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Will wait for replies to Eddie's comments (don't want to reinvent the wheel). – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  02:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replied to all of his comments now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all of your comments now, though there are a few that aren't totally resolved (where I would like your opinion). Thanks for the review btw :) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Why are there two paragraphs to expand on a single sentence in the first sentence?
 * Not sure exactly what you're asking here? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Should have clarified. The second sentence of the lead first mentions a failure to redistrict. Paragraphs 2 and 3 walk us through the history of failure to redistrict in Illinois. The result is a lead of five paragraphs; that should not be. A more concise summary of no more than four but optimally three paragraphs is optimal. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've consolidated those two paragraphs into one and removed some less-relevant details. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several possible links missing from the lead. The Democratic and Republican parties. The Illinois Supreme Court. The office of the Governor of Illinois.
 * Linked these. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Everything else
 * Recommend linking the Constitution of Illinois.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "While the Constitution of Illinois stated that the legislature was required to redistrict the state" How often?
 * Clarified. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "and downstate legislators did not want their region of the state to lose influence." "downstate" already implies that the state (of Illinois) is shared; delete "of the state".
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "legislators chose not to redistrict the state, with courts choosing not to intervene to force redistricting." The change of tense here is unnecessary; suggest "chose not to redistrict the state and the courts chose not..."
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Worth mentioning that Cook County is where Chicago is, I think.
 * Done (not sure how I like the wording on this? couldn't think of something better though). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "requiring redistricting after every decennial U.S. census." Recommend a Wiktionary link for "decennial".
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Each chamber created their own map, and passed the proposed map of the other chamber," I'm confused; is this supposed to be "to the other chamber" or is this correct?
 * Basically, each chamber created a map only for their own chamber, but since the maps needed to be passed by both chambers to go into effect, they each passed the map that the other chamber came up with as well. Not sure of a better way to phrase this? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Each chamber created their own map and passed the proposed map to the other chamber..." as a start, I think. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hm, I've changed up the wording a bit; think it's more clear now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The map used for the House of Representatives map was fairly apportioned" Too many maps here.
 * Fixed. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Edward Jenison, a former congressman" State or federal?
 * Clarified (federal). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a need for repeating that there was a maximum of 118 candidates per party and their endorsements of straight-ticket voting in #Election procedure and campaign?
 * Probably not, but I'd like to keep that first sentence for flow reasons. Could remove the number (just say "allowed each party to nominate candidates") but not sure if that would be an improvement. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * #Analysis has duplicate links for Stevenson and Eisenhower. Stevenson has another duplink in #Aftermath.
 * I usually link relevant terms in each section (even if linked earlier in different sections). I think this is compliant with DUPLINK? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm okay; checks out. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  07:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "and Eisenhower 79th Republican" Recommend a "the" between Eisenhower and 79th.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Duplicate link for Touhy in #Aftermath.
 * Same here as above. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "especially regarding improving how the legislature operated." Revise; too much happening at once, verb-wise. Suggest "especially improvements to the operation of the legislature."
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "while new maps for the State Senate had to be passed to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Reynolds v. Sims" Clarify that this is the Federal Supreme Court; link the Supreme Court of the United States.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "and would be randomly chosen by the Secretary of State" link this
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "However, the Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats," State or Federal?
 * Clarified. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed. Pleased to support now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink
Drive-by reviewing. This one intrigued me. It's a lot of small quibbles that add up to an oppose from me (for now). Conditional support.


 * Lead
 * You should probably wikilink "redistrict" in its first usage in the first paragraph of the lead.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking of leaking, I feel like the lead needs to mention U.S. state at least somewhere. It takes until the end of the lead to mention the US, and not that "Illinois" is terribly ambiguous, but I feel like the country would be listed if it was in any other country.
 * Maybe something like:
 * The U.S. state of Illinois held an election on November 3, 1964, for all 177 members of the state's House of Representatives for the 74th Illinois General Assembly, alongside the other statewide and federal elections.
 * That way it includes the U.S. state link, and it removes one usage of "Illinois". It doesn't have to be exactly this obviously, but something along these lines would be helpful to include the country that it took place in. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "There were expectations of widespread voter confusion before the election, and a high number of undervotes, but this did not happen. " - just to pick this apart a bit, there's no mention of the word "confuse" or "confusion" anywhere else in the article but the lead. So, I gotta ask, is there a source for that part? I see the undervote part mentioned later, when it says:
 * ''Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place."
 * I see that this is sourced, but I also notice that a lot of the lead was written in passive voice, and this sentence doesn't say who even made these predictions. Pundits? Election officials? This is me being picky, but it's something that I'm looking out for, now that I finished the lead and did a spotcheck.
 * The main source I'm using for this article (and for this claim in particular) doesn't go into detail on this, unfortunately. I've tried to improve the phrasing in the lead (think it's reasonable to infer from the source that at least some of these predictions were by pundits). Could use more improvement but not sure what to go with; feels wrong to leave this detail out entirely though it's less clear than I'd like it to be. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any quotes from election officials? That could be a useful way to convey the confusion. That's why I had such issue with passive voice. It's a way of getting around saying something without saying who said it. If this election happened nowadays, I'd expect a similar level of confusion. I still take issue because technically the bit about "Some pundits predicted significant voter confusion" isn't sourced. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Background
 * I got a bit confused for a minute in "1960 redistricting cycle" over the year. You first mention 1962, then 1964, then 1960 census, then "April 23", without any reference to the year. I believe it's 1963, but please double check.
 * Yep, it is 1963. I've clarified this in the text. I'd still call this the "1960 redistricting cycle" as it was based on the shifts in population shown in the 1960 census. For example we have 2020 United States redistricting cycle, even though almost all of the redistricting took place in 2021 and 2022. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The commission faced harsh criticism for its failure to agree on a map, with particularly strong criticism directed at the Democratic members for insisting on more Chicago-based districts than the city's population warranted." - this I think could be expanded a bit. "Criticism" is a pretty broad to be used twice without saying who criticized. Were there any opinion polls?
 * Clarified that the criticism was in newspaper editorials. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * " This lawsuit was initially dismissed in Sangamon County Circuit Court before being appealed to the state's Supreme Court, which also ruled against Williams." - when? This is an example where passive voice can be eliminated to make it that much stronger, "The Sangamon County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit on X date"
 * I've expanded and rephrased this a bit to include the dates. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The bill was signed by Kerner on January 29 after it passed 161–0 in the House and 46–6 in the Senate." - the six defections in the Senate is mildly interesting to me, and I wonder who they were, if there was a pattern. I'd imagine someone disaffected, but I'm not sure who.
 * Did some searching; seems to be that some Senators were unhappy over the limitations on the number of members of each party that could run in the election as they viewed it as corrupt. has some who objected to an earlier vote and  mentions the bill's passing as well as some in the opposition. Looking for more comprehensive sources though to add more details. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a list of the 6 senators who opposed the final bill, but I've expanded on the general legislative process which should give sufficient context for the lingering opposition. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciated - that works. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Election procedure and campaign
 * "The emergency bill passed by the legislature in the special session allowed each party to nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention." - here is a great example where a bit of reordering makes for a stronger sentence. In its current form, it's a long sentence without a lot of structure.
 * Tried improving this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Third-party and independent candidates could also run, though they needed to gather 25k signatures to make the ballot." - "25k" is weird here, considering every other instance in the article writes the digits up to the hundreds of millions.
 * Changed this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "The election was held on November 3, 1964, as part of the 1964 Illinois elections." - and also the 1964 presidential election. If you want to flesh that out, maybe mention why Election Day for president is on the first Tuesday of November? (Presidential Election Day Act of 1845)
 * Worth adding? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Delegates loyal to Percy refused to renominate nine incumbent legislators from the Chicago area, a part of the so-called "West Side bloc", who were viewed as loyal to the Democratic political machine in Cook County.[" Who?
 * I've added a list. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Incumbent legislators were placed at the top, ordered by seniority, alternating between candidates from Cook County and downstate. "
 * I'd love if you could add something like - "Accordingly, the Republicans nominated [Majority leader XX] first, and the Democrats nominated [Minority leader YY] first."
 * Ah, I think I was unclear here. Seniority is determined by years served, not leadership positions. I've linked to legislative seniority, which does... somewhat of a job of explaining this? Could also add a footnote though I wouldn't have a source for it (because my source did not go into detail on this subject, but based on the ballot it can be verified that legislative leaders were not placed first). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place." - was there an exact percentage given? Was it exactly zero? If you don't have the numbers for this, it's ok, I was just curious.
 * I've detailed this in the "Analysis" section (the best numbers on this are "about 5%"). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "ensure representation from every district in Illinois". - I see this is in quotation marks. Did someone say this? Was this an official policy/slogan?
 * Tried to clarify this; it was the message of the Democratic State Central Committee which was responsible for the Democratic campaign. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aftermath
 * " However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats due to similar failures to redistrict." - what do you mean?

All in all, a really good read, and I kept wanting more. I hope that my issues are fairly minor to address. I'm not sure which parts I brought up can be expanded, but I hope it's not too arduous. I do believe this article is close to FA standards. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! You've definitely caught some things I've overlooked and I'll get to addressing them soon; shouldn't be too hard. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for the quick responses! I expect to be able to support before too long. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * think I've addressed most of your significant concerns now. Couldn't actually figure out the best way to work "U.S. state" into the lead; would appreciate your input there (this actually isn't done in most state legislative election articles... maybe it should be though). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice, good job on all of these fixes! I changed it to a conditional support. I suggested a change for including U.S. state link. The only other thing I'd like to see added are the bit about the confusion, and maybe the bit about why Election Day is held on the first Tuesday in November. Neither is significant enough for me to oppose, so I'm striking my oppose. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've implemented a (slightly edited) version of your suggestion regarding the U.S. state link. Thanks for that and for your support :) I'll continue looking for more sources about the confusion. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review
What is the Illinois blue book? There are several citations with no explanation of what it is. And I get the impression that the format of the names is wrong. Some newspaper articles lack bylines. Otherwise, it seems like this article is primarily sourced to newspapers - are there think tank reports or political analyses in academia too? Formatting mostly consistent. Spot-check:
 * I've been meaning to write a page to explain what the Illinois blue book is; it's a biennial publication from the state government with info on the government. Many other states have them as well. As for think tank reports and analyses... I've used secondary sources where possible, but unfortunately a lot of the relevant details were only reported in primary sources. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I notice that the article has little to say about how this at-large election was opined about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2: The source gives two percentages, 60% and 80%; what is the logic between using 80% in the article? The redistricting commission appointment process isn't on page 299. And the date of the SuCoIl not on page 300. The four ballots paragraph needs an additional page number, especially regarding the undervote thing. Chicago American isn't mentioned on 306.
 * The source is just written poorly here. 80% is the correct number.Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "That sequence of events required the nonlegislative apparatus for redistricting be employed in the autumn of 1963." Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The SuCoIl date is from the NYT source. This source is used to support there being two lawsuits (which NYT isn't clear about). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added the other page number four the four ballots paragraph. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this by using the source particularly about newspaper endorsements. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 OK
 * 5 I think my eyes glazed over at that giant list.
 * Yeah, sorry. No way to really avoid that and be comprehensive, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I could verify the first few names at least, but not the numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have them all listed in a massive spreadsheet (allowed per CALC). The numbers are there in the source as well, you just need to go down a few pages (I think each set of candidates spans over four pages). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 13 OK
 * 18 Where does it say that the House vote was unanimous?
 * "which had passed its version by a 156–0 vote" Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 21 The list in the source is quite a bit longer than in the footnote - I presume that not all politicians who were targeted failed renomination?
 * The other six did manage to become convention delegates, but lost renomination there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 22 Not seeing the names.
 * It's at the very bottom-right corner and also continues to page 8: "On the purge list were Reps. Peter Granata, Louis Capuzi, Peter Miller and Walter McAvoy, all of Chicago; Robert Austin, East Moline, and W. J. Murphy of Antioch". I've updated the clipping to add a link to the second part of the article. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 23 Seems OK, although I think that 2 supports most of the content here.
 * 24 Need access to this source.
 * This archive link should work. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 25 Why are the United Auto Workers singled out?
 * Don't remember what my thinking was; I've included IBEW as well. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 26 OK
 * 29 Where is the questionnaire mentioned? It also says "first" at-large election in the USA, not "only". I don't see the footnotes, either.
 * In source 23. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There aren't often news reports on the lack of at-large elections. This was the only one as of 1965, and there hasn't been once since. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 30 OK
 * 35 Where does it say "every Democratic candidate"?
 * "Republicans could not even come close to blocking the Democratic sweep." ("sweep" indicates that every candidate of a party has won) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 36 OK
 * 37 Where does it say that the vote count exceeded the number of voters?
 * You're right, this isn't in the source. I've changed the wording accordingly. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 38 OK
 * 41 Need a bit of explanation of where the information is.
 * "We can assume that the lowest Republican and the lowest Democrat realized all of their votes due to the marking of the party circle. [...] We see, then, that roughly 95% of the Presidential electors cast an at-large ballot." on pages 303 and 304. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 42 I think my eyes glazed over at that giant list.
 * 44 Need access to this source, Google Books snippets only support the chairmanship.
 * Am happy to email you a PDF of the book if you'd like. Also I did fix the page number on this, had mixed up with the number of suggestions with the page number. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns now and would appreciate another look. Apologies for the errors I made; hope they did not cause you too much of an inconvenience in reviewing.
 * As for the lack of coverage on opining... there really isn't much good coverage on that, especially in secondary sources? Which would be more necessary to determine due weight, compared to the other parts of this topic which can be more easily sourced to primary sources while remaining neutral.
 * Also not sure what you mean by "I get the impression that the format of the names is wrong." Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * From the way the citations are formatted, I got the impression that you were using the author parameter for the subjects of the pages in the BB. Also, I think that editorial in prominent newspapers and prominent think tank reports would be adequate analysis, when attributed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm only using editor parameters, not author parameters. The editor of the blue book is the secretary of state, who is also documented in the book; I can see how that'd be a bit confusing. Not sure how to do that better though?
 * I'll look for more editorials. Not sure where to find relevant think tank reports, especially from back then. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one going? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't check every number and name in the table so if there is something wrong in it (and there probably is - typos happen when writing up such large piles of data), I won't see it. Otherwise OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Edge3
I'm really excited to read this article! This is my first time reviewing at FAC, but I'm from Illinois and have written a few articles related to state politics, so hopefully you will find my insights to be valuable. My review comments will come within 2 days or so. Edge3 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Here are my comments: Overall, nice work! Edge3 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Citation 1 (Official Vote Count) – Link the publisher to Illinois State Board of Elections
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many instances where you cite consecutive sentences with the same citation. You can consolidate these citations per WP:CITEDENSE.
 * I've fixed these. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph starting with "As the population of Chicago and Cook County grew...", you have a citation to [2]: 294, then [2]: 292–294, and then [2]: 294–295 after that. You could consolidate those to [2]: 292–295 for the entire paragraph, so I'm wondering if you have reasons for keeping them separated? The same applies to the rest of the article, where citation [2] seems to be used quite a lot. Edge3 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's intentional -- I try to keep the cites as specific as possible (so the parts cited to 294 are only from that page, while the parts to 292-294 are from all three of those pages). I think that makes it a bit more convenient for a reader to verify facts? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying. As for the paragraph starting with "Democrats received no Republican support..." uses the same citation to page 299 three times. Could those be consolidated, or do you have a reason for separating them?
 * Similarly, for the paragraph starting with "Among the Democrats elected...", could you consolidate the citations to page 307? Edge3 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a similar idea: some parts are only supported by ref 2, while some parts are supported by ref 2 and another source. Separating these out makes it easier for readers to know what came from where. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Republicans passed a plan that would only remove one district from there – I would clarify again that "from there" really is referring to southern Illinois. A person reading quickly might not realize which part of the state you're talking about.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For all Blue Book citations, you can state that the "publisher" was the State of Illinois or Illinois Secretary of State.
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Would it also be helpful to mention the specific chapter(s) of the Blue Book that you are citing? Edge3 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure? I include the page numbers and I think that's sufficient. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "state's election board" – Link to Illinois State Board of Elections
 * Done. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the entire first paragraph of "Redistricting", did you intend to cite page 16 instead of 17 from the Green 1987 source?
 * Yep. I've updated it to span both pages. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "five-judge panel" – As per Green 1987, would this have a five-judge panel of the state Supreme Court? Or did the Supreme Court refer this matter to a different group of five judges?
 * FYI this item is still awaiting your response Edge3 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, missed that, sorry. I'm actually not sure? Neither source (Green or McDowell) is clear about this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * After doing some more research I'm even more confused; newspapers from the time don't mention a five-judge panel and instead say a federal three-judge panel forced redistricting while the Supreme Court -- particularly, two justices from it -- did the remapping, which the federal judges then signed off on. Maybe that's how they get to five judges? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked into the case law, and I was able to find Scott V. Germano, where the US Supreme Court directed the US District Court to stay its proceedings, pending redistricting by the state. Simultaneously, the Illinois Supreme Court was considering People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner. See orders dated February 4, 1965 and September 9, 1965. In the state proceedings, three amici curiae to present maps for consideration. Ultimately, both the Illinois Supreme Court and the US District Court agreed to a provisional map. Edge3 (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for figuring that out :) I've expanded the section a bit. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! One more thing. In cite court, I think you are using the "pinpoint" parameter when you actually meant to use the "opinion" parameter. This applies to both the People ex rel. Giannis case and the Scott case. So the opinion number goes into the "opinion" parameter, and the specific paragraph or page number goes into the "pinpoint" parameter. See Case citation. Edge3 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Not very experienced with that template. Corrected now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "not successful for redistricting in 1971, 1981, 1991, or 2001" – Did this also continue in 2011 or 2021? Does it matter for the purposes of this article? Theoretically, this could happen again in 2031, but I'm not sure that you'd need to update this article even if that happens.
 * Nope, as Dems held a trifecta at both elections. And I don't think it'd need to be updated for the future? The relevant factor imo is that there were six consecutive redistricting cycles that the legislature failed on (counting the cycles before and after this election). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to point out explicitly that there were six consecutive redistricting cycles where the General Assembly failed to redistrict. That way, it doesn't look like you're just listing off decennial cycles (1971, 1981, 1991, 2001...) and then suddenly stopping at 2011 without explanation. McDowell was written in 2007, so I wonder if there's a source post-2011 that helps illustrate this point. Alternatively, you could state (with the appropriate citation) that 2011 redistricting took place without the need for a redistricting commission. Edge3 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the "six cycles" point... I feel like 2011 wouldn't really be relevant though? I dunno. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You added the clarification to the lead, but I also think you could add clarification to the "Redistricting" section. Also, I do think it would help to point out that no commission was required in 2011, meaning that the trend stopped in 2001. Edge3 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused... I did clarify it in the "Redistricting" section (Special:Diff/1198007854). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh you're right; I was confused. Would you also like to add the note about the trend stopping in 2011? Edge3 (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to not have that note. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've re-read your edit, and you're right: the current version is better. I think I was too tired yesterday afternoon and not thinking straight! Edge3 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries :) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This was the only time in which a state legislative election was held at-large in the United States. The source is from 1965. Do you have a more recent source that confirms that no at-large state legislative elections have occurred since 1965?
 * Unfortunately not, though more recent reports on the phenomena of at-large elections mention 1964 IL and nothing else. (I know for a fact there have not been any others, but, well, few sources report on things that don't happen.) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats when states have failed to pass a congressional map. You cite only one example, so you should use the singular "election" and "state" instead of the plural. I would also suggest mentioning explicitly the Minnesota election in 1932.
 * The ref in the [h] footnote goes into more detail on this. If it was just Minnesota, yeah, I'd mention it, but there's quite a few others. The reason I cited the Minnesota source separately is because that drew a parallel between the Minnesota at-large election and this election, indicating the connection between those topics is relevant. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to be more specific with this statement. Maybe mention a few examples from the source. The statement as currently written sounds vague: Which states? Did they "fail" to redistrict due to legislative gridlock, or because they outright refused to comply with the constitutional requirements? Did a failure to redistrict guarantee that an at-large election must be held in all cases? Edge3 (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly it varies by state. I have a large footnote written up listing all of them but it's commented out (see Special:Diff/1196669592) -- do you think it'd be better if I uncommented that? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly I really like the footnote, despite its being long. I think you should un-comment it. Edge3 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've done so now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * thanks for the review! I've addressed most of your feedback and will hopefully get to the rest of it soon. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! I have a few more comments above that you may address at your leisure. Edge3 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Think I've addressed everything now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to support. Nice job! Edge3 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)