Wikipedia:Featured article review/Voter turnout/archive1


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:28, 17 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * User:SimonP notified

I believe this article no longer meets the following criteria:
 * 1(a) - There is some of unnecessary self-reference in the article (e.g., "Much of the above analysis is predicated on voter turnout..."), as well as some commentary (e.g., "Confusingly, some of the factors..."). Additionally, some of the writing just doesn't flow or is in poor tone/style. For example, I was lost by the section "The significance of voter turnout", which to me reads as "X, for example, x. Y, for example, y. Z, for instance, z." Also, some time-specific words (like recently) that are probably in fact four years old. (Not a comprehensive list of prose issues.)
 * 1(b) - this article is a textbook example of systemic bias: practically an entire paragraph of the lead is about US voter turnout, while there is no mention of the entire continent of Africa whatsoever within the entire article.
 * 1(c) - there are many sections that are totally unreferenced. Additionally, there are some weasel-words or non-NPOV words (like "However", "Several scholars have noted", "such-and-such is believed to be..." To be honest, I think this is the biggest issue.
 * 2(a) - not a huge issue, but the lead could be a lot better. It doesn't really summarize the contents of the article that well, and, as previously stated, the long example of US voter turnout is inappropriate (and not particularly informative, either).

Perhaps I'm being nitpicky, but I think that this is probably one of those articles that passed FAC in 2005 but doesn't pass now.– DroEsperanto(t / c) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The source of the data in File:Turnout.png should be specified. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Images and the equation all need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of statements given as fact but not sourced. Some are confusing in their wording. Examples:
 * "The salience of an election, the effect that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors that also likely have important effects on turnout."
 * "Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher turnout."
 * "Some nations thus have rules that render an election invalid if too few people vote, such as Serbia, where three successive presidential elections were rendered invalid in 2003."
 * "However, socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals may develop such habits. The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background."

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, systematic (geographic bias),lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per above concerns; doesn't look like anyone has been working on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. The article does a pretty good job of giving an international approach to the subject, but I'm concerned about the low number of citations, particularly with the potentially controversial nature of portions of this topic. Some paragraphs are uncited, even some that contain information that might be challenged by a reader. If anyone is interested in improving the article, I'll tag it up. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.