Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by 10:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC).

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

 * Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has undergone continued development and I feel it now reaches the point of a WP:FA article. It has undergone a peer review, a copy edit, and a GA review. I feel the article meets all WP:FA criteria now. As such, I would like to nominate the article for WP:FA Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

 * Comment Just a suggestion. "Several pro-life, Republican politicians have claimed in the years since Mecklenberg's 1972 publication that pregnancy from rape is rare." This is one of the biggest recurring theme in the article, that a politician [mis-]underestimated or marginalized the rate of pregnancy from rape. However, I didn't see any actual stats about incidences of pregnancy from rape in the article (perhaps I missed them? They'd be well-placed in the Background section). Because the article emphasizes that these politicians were ignorant of scientific data, anything to ground the subject in the scientific reality would provide excellent context. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Much of that context is in the article Pregnancy from rape. Do you think it would help the article to import that?  The way I handed it was to place a See Also link, and start the section by telling the reader it was a "medically inaccurate contention".  What are your thoughts.  I am certainly not against it, given that it is important context.  Casprings (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the See Also link is a good idea. One sentence in that section, or perhaps a brief explanatory note on the phrase "medically inaccurate" would probably fill in the necessary context. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I added an explanatory note. Would love to know what you think.  Thanks again for the comments.  Casprings (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Be consistent with the capitalisation of "god" in "something that God intended". 86.186.238.234 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for taking the time to find that.  Casprings (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from DavidinNJ
*Comment In terms of content, referencing, and neutrality, the authors did an excellent job. This is a controversial topic, and the article is written in an objective manner. In terms of structure and layout, the article is good, but not entirely consistent. For example, the Todd Akin section has a political impact subsection, but the Richard Mourdock section doesn't. There is a "see also" section at the bottom, but there are no entries. I would rename "other comments before 2012 elections" as "other controversial statements" or something like that. With its current title, it's unclear if the individuals are commenting about Akin and Mourdock, or making independent statements which are controversial. My other issue is the article's verbiage which needs improvement to be at FA-level. The background section should be broken into more paragraphs to make it easier to read. Some of the sentences are very verbose, and have a lack of commas. For example, "The medically inaccurate contention favored by some American anti-abortion activists that pregnancy consequent to rape is an exceptional occurrence first originated four decades ago in the work of Fred Mecklenburg." DavidinNJ (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for the comments. I made all the structural changes.  I also agree with your assessment of the background section.  I edited that so the writing would be clear and concise.  I would love for you to take another look at the article and see what you think about those changes. Casprings (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Casprings, The changes substantially improve the article. I read the article in detail, and I have 3 other comments. (1) There is a reference error because there is a reference called "congress" in the ref section that isn't used in the article.  (2) The post-election comment section should have subsections like the "other controversial statements" section.  I like how the "other controversial statements" section has has subsection for each person. (3)This is just a suggestion, but the infobox at the top should either be expanded or removed. After that, I see this being an FA-quality article. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Made those changes. Again, thanks for the comments.  Casprings (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support After the recent changes that have been made, this a FA-class article. The authors have taken a controversial topic, and written an article about it that is both very comprehensive and completely objective.  The article contains extensive information about the history of the belief that rape does not cause pregnancy, the complete list of politicians who made rape-related comments in the 2012 election cycle, and the ramifactions of those comments. Everything in the article is referenced, the prose is very good, and the article has a layout the is visually appealing and inducive to readers. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I think your comments improved the article.  Casprings (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Todd_Akin,_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg: source link returns error
 * File:Roscoe_Bartlett,_Official_Portrait,_111th_Congress.jpg: source link returns error
 * File:Rep_Joe_Walsh.jpg: source link wouldn't load when tried. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well they are all the official photos of the Congressmen. The problem is that they are out of office, so the photos are no longer hosted on a US government website (at least that I can find).  I really don't know what to do in this situation.  Should I just delete the pictures?Casprings (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, btw. Casprings (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still couldn't find anything. So I started a section on the talk page and removed the images. That section can be found, here.Casprings (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I might have found sources indicating that they might be PD, but I'm not sure. I've posted the links at the article' s talk page. Can someone take a look? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented on the talk page. Casprings (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I updated to new sources for both the Walsh and Roscoe pictures. The Akin picture is in a move request on the commons because I uploaded with a file name the same as on the english wikipedia.  That should be fixed soon. Thanks to FutureTrillionaire for the help in this.Casprings (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all issues have been resolved. I will leave  message on Nikkimaria to double check. Casprings (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Arzel and Mkativerata

 * Oppose This article is little more than a continued attack on Republicans That it should even be considered a FA is disgusting. Advocacy on WP at its best.  Arzel (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I am sorry you feel that way.  I have tried to ensure the article is neutral, but I am sorry you feel it is an attack on Republicans.  Casprings (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sorry. The reason it reads like an attack on Republicans -- which I know it isn't -- is that the article is the product of the author's synthesis of a series of news events, as opposed to the author's summary of reliable secondary sources discussing those news events.  The evidence in this lies in where bold claims are made about the effect of the controversies: the sourcing is quite weak.  For example, the claim in the lede that 'The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters' is sourced to a Politico article.  Now Politico is reliable for facts, etc, but not for conclusions that could only be safely drawn by experienced political scientists.  Ultimately, it's too early for this article.  Once credible academic sources have discussed the role of these controversies in the 2012 election, a sounder article could be written.  --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. As you might guess, I disagree with the comment.  I think the section on wider impact is well sourced and there are a number of sources that tie these events together though out the article.  Politico is a WP:RS is a good source to show a secondary source commenting on the national effect of the comments.


 * Your point on academic sources is good with one modification. A political scientist will properly not ever tackle the questions of rather this election caused a national effect.  They are more likely to compare this election to others within the US system or outside to try to tell us something about elections in general and their effects on political action. For example, what is the effect on a more diverse electorate on political action?  This election would be one case study in a small N study or one data point in a large N study.   A historian would be more apt to use the facts of this election and interpret the causes of those events.  This is similar to what politico did.   In sum, it is unlikely for a political science "study" to show anything of any relevance that belongs in the article.  The article is and will always have to be make up of how WP:RS interpret events, rather those sources happen to be journalistic or secondary historical sources.  There is no reason for the article to wait for historians to write about the subject and that should not stop it from gaining a WP:FA.  Just my two scents.   Casprings (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that the outcomes of the 2012 elections are finalized, it's hard for me to conclude that its too early for such an article. Scholarly discussion of this topic does exist, and should be included in the article. Here are 2 examples, and more can be obtained at Google scholar. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107991
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=HEplYeto-9cC&pg=PA435&dq=2012+todd+akin+republican+losses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ths_UY6-AoSV0QHP5YCwCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA


 * Neither the Abstract submission to a conference or the book (anyone can get their own book published) are peer reviewed scholarly publications. Considering it often takes several months to over a year for papers to make it through the peer review process and then be published, it is indeed far to early for any actual scholarly published research.  Arzel (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the abstract was from a conference long before the election. Obviously it is not possible for that to be used as a review of what happened regarding the effect.  Arzel (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I think the authors did a very good job writing a balanced and thorough article on a very controversial subject. However, I agree with Mkativerata that while it's okay to use news sources for facts, they really can't be used to draw conclusions about the effect on a controversy. It's kind of like writing an article about a legal topic, and not citing any court decisions or law journal articles. Before I make any judgement, I want to see if the author of this article can find any scholarly publications evaluating these incidents and their effect on the 2012 election.  DavidinNJ (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If the standard to offer commentary in an FA article is a peer reviewed academic article, then someone needs to start taking articles to WP:FAR. I would challenge you to find any WP:FA article on an historical  event in the past 5 to 10 years that doesn’t include journalist sources offering commentary.  For an historian to do research on this event, for example, he would need access to things like personnel papers.  He would want to know what Akin was writing and saying in private, for example.  He would also want to know what members of the GOP, like Reince Prebus, were actually thinking privately.  This type of research is not possible until personnel papers and other sources are public.


 * I am fine with that being a the standard. However, it should be the standard for WP:FA in general, and not this article.  That is my two cents, at least.Casprings (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the question to ask is how many FA's are basically a research paper WITHOUT any actual scholarly research papers being used as sources. This entire article is written like a research paper.  Background and Lit Reivew -> Evidence -> Conclusions.  Casprings has written a really nice research paper, and that is where it belongs.  Arzel (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume alot of FA articles provide background, the events it covers, and then their impact. For article structure in general, I that is pretty common. Casprings (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And to provide a little context to Arzel comments, this issue of a "research paper" was very well discussed at WP:ORN. His/her view was not shared.  That discussion can be found here.Casprings (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

After some degree of research on other FA articles, I've struck my previous comments. I'm concerned that we may be creating an impossible standard for FA-review. A recent event is not going to have the same volume of scholarly interpretation as an event that took place decades ago. However, that does not mean that it cannot be a feature article. For example, United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010 and New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 are feature articles, and they have no academic references. That being said, I was able to find 2 university textbooks and 2 journal articles that supported the article's claim that the rape controversies affected the election results. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright (15 Jan 2013).

The Elections of 2012: Outcomes and Analysis by Bob Benenson and Chuck McCutcheon (1 Dec 2012).

Human Life Review by Ryan T. Anderson, Chuck Donovan, and Richard Goldkamp. (Fall 2012).

Why Obama Won by Megan Trudell (8 January 2013).
 * Thanks. I will read these sources.  Thanks again for your comments.  It is about article improvement in the end, after all.  Casprings (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead review

 * "Republican U.S. Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, who was the Republican nominee for a U.S. Senate seat." This could be made more concise: "Republican U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri." Given the scope of the article, the fact that he was running for senate is more relevant than the fact that he was a house rep.
 * Agree and done. Only modification was adding Rep. in front of Todd Akin.Casprings (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "...what he called "legitimate rape." Akin's comments had a far-reaching political impact..." It might be worth giving a pinch of explanation regarding why this exploded the way it did. Perhaps this would work: "what he called "legitimate rape", a phrase which many women's rights groups(?) found demeaning." Not perfect, but hopefully it gives you an idea of what I mean.
 * Done. Just added a cite to show women groups had a problem. Casprings (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "changing the focus of campaigns" I suggest linking "campaign" to political campaign.
 * Done Casprings (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "triggering another nationwide controversy." I don't think that this clause is necessary. The previous sentence already mentions additional controversies, so it should be pretty clear that this was one of them.
 * Done Casprings (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments" Not really sure what "observers" means here. If it's a person whose commentary is notable due to their profession, such as a journalist or analyst, say so: "Some political analysts identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments"
 * Done. I used analyst.  I think it fits best with the sources throughout the article.Casprings (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments as a principal factor in their election losses and other comments may have contributed to the loss of various other candidates." Clunky phrasing. Try regrouping: "Some observers identified Mourdock's and Akin's comments, as well as those of various other candidates, as a principal factor in their election losses."
 * Done Casprings (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters." It might be worth giving a statistic or broad statement regarding how much of the female vote went to Obama: "The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters, who overwhelmingly supported Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama".
 * Done. I think that sentence works, especially with the sourcing throughout the articleCasprings (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that little statistic is not backed up by the results. Obama recieved 55% of the women vote in 2012 while he recieved 56% of the vote in 2008.  To say that in 2012 this was a factor belies that fact that in 2008 the vote % was higher.  one source  But then this article is already little more than an original research paper with a bunch of opinion being used to make factual statements.  Arzel (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another source showing that Romney recieved the highest percentage of women vote in some time. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Akin and Mourdock comments were also compared to several comments made after the election." It's good to summarize key points from every top-level section, but this sentence really doesn't give the reader any useful information.
 * Sentence Removed. Casprings (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (not from lead) "According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney." Err, what? Presumably, this means that of those who voted for Obama, 55% were women and 45% were men, but that's not a useful statistic at all. What we really need is the percentage of all women who voted for Obama. I misread this. I have a tiny brain.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I will get to work on them shortly.  Casprings (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made per comments. I think it improves the lead.  Casprings (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your recent changes now violate NPOV and introduce Original Research with only opinion to back up the statement. Arzel (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A few points. First, I would ask that Arzel doesn't derail this WP:FA review.  In my opinion, he has shown a WP:Battle mentality, and that can be shown both in his edits on the article and his comments on the talk page.  Most recently, it was shown in the placement of a NPOV tag on the article, when there was a clear consensus that the article was neutral.  I would ask that the article either pass or fail based the article, not a content disputes that come from the FA review itself.  Second, on his general point, several WP:RS have speculated that the various comments had some effect on the election.  To me, providing one statement that the President won the election provides context to their statements.  It isn't meant prove rather it did or didn't have an effect.  I agree with Cryptic C62.  Finally, a conversation on this is taking place on the talk page.  Casprings (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When then don't violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. WP is not the place to promote your personal research paper.  Arzel (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started a discussion at WP:ORN. That discussion can be found, here.Casprings (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose All the good writing in the world will never take away from the fact that this article as structured is a non-neutral coatrack. I expressed my concerns in the RfC that this article's "other controversial statements" article has numerous examples that are just seizing on trivial connections to a broader subject to shove in non-notable incidents. The purpose, of course, is to generally denigrate the Republican Party. I am disappointed that this article was given GA status without that issue being resolved. This article is not one for which I would have approved such status.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If the problem is the article is as "structured is a non-neutral coatrack", and there are numerous examples in the "other controversial statements", then state which examples don't belong and why.  I have tried to make the article neutral and my purpose is not to "generally denigrate the Republican Party".  However, to me, these comments are relevant to the article and I have tried to handle them in a neutral manner.  It doesn't help the article to make a vague statement that many portions of the article don't belong and give no rational for why any particular portion of the article doesn't belong.  Casprings (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentioned some examples in the RfC.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One was removed. The other two, you mentioned sources as the key rational for their removal.  They are pretty well sourced.Casprings (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Being sourced is not the only relevant criteria. How are these things connected to the other statements? Are they significant enough to warrant being mentioned in such detail? It seems to me that statements are being included largely because you have maybe a sentence or two in one or more sources that connect them and this is used to justify detailed mentions of each incident. Seems to me that this type of writing is just exploiting a loophole in WP:NOTNEWS.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well McMahnnon was removed. The two in your RfC comment other then here was Rivard and Koster. In both cases, multiple sources tie the comments to Akin comments and the events were national stories.  To me, I think both fit well in an article on Rape and pregnancy controversies.  Casprings (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I started an RfC on this to get community input on this. That can be found here.Casprings (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

 * Support
 * Given the length of the article, the lede seems a bit short.
 * Some reviews have said that. The only problem is, I don't know what more content is needed in really needed here.  To me, it seems to effectively summarize the article in a neutral means.  Any suggestions.  Casprings (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, yea. You neatly summarize the non-Akin and Mourdock candidates in one little sentence, which probably works fine. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "additional controversies about comments made by other socially conservative Republican candidates arose" - this wording is a bit awkward
 * Wording was awkward. Changed it to "Following Akin's comments, additional controversies arose concerning other remarks made by various Republicans."Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth mentioning that Akin was a member of the House science committee.
 * Added this sentence to the reaction section. "Democratic members also started a petition to remove him as a member of the science committee."Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "There were multiple calls from Republicans for him to step down as nominee" - I don't think a paragraph should start without an antecedent (although admittedly it is clear who you're talking about).
 * Agreed. Changed sentence to "Republicans made multiple calls for Akin to step down as nominee. "
 * "endangering Republicans’ hopes of retaking the majority in the Senate" - I think this quote is missing context. The Democrats had a 53-47 majority before the election, and Nate Silver had the Republicans as the frontrunners until early September. Akin's comments really are pretty vital toward the GOP blowing their chances, and I understand that the article is about the controversies in general during the 2012 elections, but maybe mention something, either that they were the favorites in August to take over Senate, or something.Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added sentence, "During August, when the comments were made, Nate Silver gave the Republicans an over 60 percent chance of gaining a majority in the Senate." with source.Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I was told that there is a decision has to be made by 5 o'clock tomorrow" - what date does this refer to, and why would it have to have been by that date?
 * It refered to the deadline for him to remove himself from the race. However, it isn't that relevant (dif not relevant enough to explain.  I changed the sentence to eliminate it. Casprings (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "On October 22, a television commercial showing Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for United States President, supporting Mourdock began airing." - just have to ask, but airing in Indiana, right?
 * Yes. Added.  Casprings (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Mourdock apologize for his comments?
 * Sort of. His comment on his statement was, "God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick"  That is covered in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you have a section for Steve King, maybe mention that he still won re-election?
 * Added. Casprings (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Walsh lost reelection to Tammy Duckworth." - should probably cite that.
 * CitedCasprings (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should it be mentioned Roger Rivard lost? Ditto Tom Smith?
 * Added a sentence and a cite to show they both lost. Casprings (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All in all, a pretty good article on an interesting series of events in the 2012 election. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will get to work in addressing them. Casprings (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. Casprings (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks for getting back to my comments so quickly and addressing them. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.Casprings (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Iselilja

 * I find that the first section Background violates WP:SYNTH, as it is not clear in the article how much knowledge or interest Akin had of these ideas. We don't learn about more than this one remark of his (as I noticed). At least, it is undue weight to the background factor. If the section is kept, something specific about Akin's inspiration for his remark should be added.
 * A discussion on that section and the issue with WP:SYNTH can be found at WP:ORN, here. Their was consensus that there was not a problem with WP:SYNTH.  However, I am certain open to further discussion on the issue and removal of the section if consensus is changed.  Casprings (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lede says: "He stated that pregnancy rarely occurs as a result of what he called "legitimate rape", a phrase which many women's rights groups found demeaning". Here it appears that the reaction was mainly a reaction to the "legitimate rape" phrase; shouldn't it also say that there was reactions to the idea that "legitimate rapes" rarely leads to pregnacies? In particular, since the whole first section is about the second aspect. Thoughts about "legitimate rapes" per se, doesn't authomatically lead to the pregancy theory. People may well be dismissive of some kind of rapes (like rapes in marriage), and still believe that the rapes that they consider legitimate (like attack rapes) very well can lead to pregnacies. (I also find the Akin section to be somewhat messy about this; but I understand this partly reflects the debate and sources).
 * I agree with that.  Will make the changes to the article.Casprings (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed. Casprings (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In the Akin section, the article states that "the term "legitimate rape" was assumed to imply belief that some types of rape are "legitimate", or alternatively that rape victims who become pregnant are likely to be lying about their claim". I don't have issues about this claim per se, I think it's probably accurate, but I would like to see sources for this interpretation. (And the article could probably do with fewer sources that refute the pregancy theory).
 * I found three sources, which I will bundle together, that will work.
 * http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/20/opinion/a-legitimate-rape/
 * http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/carroll-akin-rape/index.html
 * http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-33506022.html
 * Sources added. Casprings (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Akin section is perfectly organized: It starts one paragraph, stating "Akin's comments almost immediately led to uproar" - which is OK - but then the same sentence is practically repeated again several sentences further down, in the next paragraph, after Akin's apology has been mentioned: "Akin's comment was widely characterized as recklessly inaccurate; many commentators remarked on his use of the words "legitimate rape". Here, however, there appears to be some of the sources that I missed that I missed earlier (allthough I have just skimmed the sources).
 * Agreed. THe article should state the criticism once, in one place.  The language should be precise and concise.  With that in mind, I worked a little at organization on that section.
 * Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I will return to your comments later.Casprings (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. This is an important topic, and a hard one to insulate from claims of bias, given that it does mainly concern the attitudes and comments from one side of politics. That in itself shouldn't stop it becoming an FA. But I haven't read much of the article to determine whether this is a problem in relation to WP's neutrality policy. Just one thing: the title says "... electionS, 2012". So shouldn't the lead specify which elections in that year we're talking about? Was it the federal election (presidential and/or congressional)? State elections? Ah, the link at the top is the answer ... but perhaps just a quick explanation at the opening? "..., comprising the many federal elections on November 6, 13 state and ..., and .... throughout the year." Tony  (talk)  09:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the title just imply that the controversies involved were during the 2012 election cycle. That is a general cycle that includes federal, state, and local elections.  I am fine with changing and rewording, but I am just not certain what needs changing.  In either case, thanks for the comments.  Casprings (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most American readers will be fuzzy about exactly which elections are being referred to; most non-Americans won't have a clue. Yet it's important to explain the scope right at the start. Tony   (talk)  12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, maybe plugging in the words, "federal,state, and local" into the intro sentence would work?  A little modification on that sentence should make it clear.  I will do it when I get to a computer(on a cell phone right now).Casprings (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I just added, "in federal and state elections".  I don't think there is a need to say "local" because no comments came from local races.  See what you think.  Casprings (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's closing comment - This FAC has been listed for a long time but I cannot see a clear consensus for promotion emerging on this occasion. I think it would be best for remaining issues to be resolved on the Talk Page and the article renominated at a later date. Graham Colm (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.