Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington gubernatorial election, 2004/archive1

Washington gubernatorial election, 2004
I think this is an interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs about the closest gubernatorial race in US history. I would like to see it as a FAC! Páll 02:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An interesting circumstance and a well-crafted article, but IMO of little interest to readers outside the US. I know this is not an actionable concern, but it is a concern for me nonetheless. Denni &#9775; 03:36, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you came to that assessment, seeing as I'm from outside of the US and it interested me. Páll 03:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * International interest isn't a criterion of Featured articles. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello? 03:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Carrp 03:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you oppose? it is customary to justify an oppose or a support statement. Páll 03:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My opposition is based on the fact that there is still a pending legal challenge. I prefer that Featured Articles not be based on ongoing events. I agree with everything you stated about the article ("...interesting, well illustrated, and very factual article with good tables and photographs..."), and will support for FA once the legal challenge has been decided. Carrp 04:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not complete, and I gather will not be so for several months. Mark1 05:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused by the remarks that we cannot have a featured article on a story that is "incomplete" because ongoing. So can we never have a featured article on (for example) a living person, or the history of an existing country? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * In any election article the crucial pieces of information concern who won and who lost. In the case of the Washington gubernatorial election, 2004, there is still a legal challenge pending. Thus, it is not yet possible to answer the question "Who won?". Without knowing the final result, an election article isn't complete. I would also vote against making an article such as Super Bowl XXXIX a featured article until the result is complete. Carrp 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. In addition to the problems raised above, the article needs some work. Non-Americans (like me) will not all be familiar with the primary system, so it may be a good idea to explain it briefly. The sections on the primaries themselves are brief, especially the Libertarian one. If little is to be said, make them less promiment (no need to subsection sections of a few lines) (And who or what is "Mike the Mover"?"). Jeronimo 08:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Mike is a libertarian political gadfly, and that is legally his name. He changed it before he first ran for office, because he was better known by what it said on his truck. I won't go on here, but he probably deserves an article... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article is already quite a bit behind on the legal challenges raised to the election. I agree with Jeronimo that the structure of the sections on the primaries is disruptive to the flow of the article. --Michael Snow 21:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fairly comprehensive and well referenced to me, but as I know very little about the subject I will wait with interest to see how Jeronomo and possible other factual objections (if any)are adressed. I don't mind if it is ongoing event or not, and international interest is not any criteria I heard about. Also, most terms used in the article seem to be explained or ilinked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)