Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/U.S. Electoral College

U.S. Electoral College

 * Article is still a featured article.

The first half of this article is decent enough, but then it descends into a bit if trivia about "faithless electors" and then a virtual flame war of "detractors of the college" and "supporters of the college." The pro/con section makes some interesting reading, but it is not really encyclopedic in quality. I'm also afraid that the article isn't very informative. I think that most (American) adults already know how the electoral college works. 1User:dinopup 1/24/05 (Moved from Featured article removal candidates/archive --Conti|&#9993; 10:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))
 * Just a comment, not a vote. First off, Wikipedia is not just for American readers, most of the rest of the world does not know how this works. Secondly, as most American adults tend not to vote, I wonder if they really do know how the damned thing works. Filiocht 11:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly agreed with Filiocht. Covering the basics of a subject so that it is understandable is not a reason to remove it from being featured. Currently the only elements of the featured article criteria  this article no longer meets is the lack of references.  It seems so far people are not willing to vote to remove articles on that basis alone.  Though I personally do believe references are important enough that we should not keep FA's without them. - Taxman 21:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Taxman's evaluation is correct - the only criterion this article does not meet is the lack of references, and there is no consensus about how to apply that criteria retroactively. &rarr;Raul654 21:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. A lack of references should be a reason to remove FA status. If we can't even agree on this, how will we get people to take seriously Wikipedia's woeful failure to adhere to basic referencing standards? And, unless that is addressed, Wikipedia's enemies are much more likely to be successful in spinning the 'Wikipedia is not a reliable source' line. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The requirement for references is not retroactive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Its not now, but it ought to be. As said above, its been 5 months, more than enough time. We've got to take a stand sometime. Why not now. - Taxman 13:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. What Johnleemk said. Mark1 04:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a change of style half way through, which is regretable, but otherwise it is fine. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)