I am nominating this for featured article because the article has gone through improvements since the last wP:FAC. I think it is ready for another run at WP:FACCasprings (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not convinced there's a granular topic at the heart of this article. Most of the article is spent on a sequence of individual events. Only the "Wider Impacts" section, and not all of that, cites sources that appear to consider these events as a collective whole. And while there's some ideological spread to those sources, it's all media opinion-piece-style writing. Basically, lots of sources discuss specific comments. Lots of sources discuss the War on Women. I'm not sure that enough high quality sources specifically recognize this middle tier of structure. Certainly, the article doesn't cite any with particular gravitas who do. We're almost a year removed from these events at this point. Where is the scholarly analysis? I see a reference list full of news media citations. Where is the political science voice about the impact of these things? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, the navbox template should probably be removed since it does not include this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
On your oppose, this will be something historians deal with, not political scientist. This is an odd story, but a unique one. A political scientist would want measurable variables. This is largely the domain of the journalist now and the historian later. That said, there is some reasonable hard evidence that this did have a wider effect. For example, once the Akin remark happened, Nate Silver percentage chance that the Republicans would win the Senate went from over 50 percent to around 20 percent. Moreover, the exit polls in MO show that the Akin comments clearly had an effect there. That said, the article can only be as good as the sources that are available. I do not think the article should be judged on sources that are not available. As far as your NAV box comment, I took it out.Casprings (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If this is something you believe that historians will judge as historical shouldn't you wait until some historians actually make those judgments before saying that this is something that will be judged as historical? Arzel (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I think the article should be held to the same standards as other WP:FA articles. If you look at the list of WP:FA articles under politics and government, most of the recent ones are made primary of journalistic sources. For example, United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010. I am not saying that is a bad standard. I am simply stating it would be rather unfair to start that standard here, on this article.Casprings (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Question wasn't there a female also who got bashed by the Fox&co for making some statements in front of congress? Nergaal (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact, that person was Sandra Fluke, with a controversy over the topic of contraception, also in 2012, also with a perceived impact on the election. Does she belong in this article? There are certainly sources that connect her an Akin in particular, but I still find very little that identifies this series of comments and controversies in 2012 as a gestalt topic, which is really my biggest problem here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so. First, she wasn't nor was Rush running for office. It isn't really directly tied to the 2012 election. In fact, it is less so than comments after the election, I would argue. Plus there is already an article on it: Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. But I would be open to suggestions on how the material could be intergrated, if there was concensus to do that.Casprings (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No alt text on two photos.
Two dead links (refs #37, #80).
One link likely dead - access denied (ref #42).
Lede too short per WP:LEDE - 74K characters and only a two paragraph lede.
Will work on your other comments. The comments by Joe Biden and comments at the fund raiser of Alan Grayson should be added in the other comments section. Not sure about Sandra Fluke, given it was more a comment on contraception and she wasn't running for anything. John Edwards was 2008, not 2012.Casprings (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the POV issue is that the article focuses exclusively on Republican Party candidates, which narrows this to a POV/COATRACK article. FA is a high standard to meet, and it is not the place for partisanship, any more than an attack piece on the Democratic Party (or the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, etc.) would be acceptable. By expanding the article to show all controversial statements from both major parties (and any minor parties) it would be more balanced and show a NPOV. It should also be expanded to show not just candidates, but all individuals actively campaigning, which would include Fluke (and presumably others). GregJackPBoomer! 04:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comment -- No comment on the validity of the article per se, but with no reviews for two weeks and no consensus for promotion developing, I'm going to archive this nom shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)