Talk:2009 New York's 20th congressional district special election

Polls

There has been one opinion poll for this race. I post it in the article and it keeps getting deleted. Why?

Because Wikipedia has a liberal bias... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

Source	Date	Scott Murphy (D)	Jim Tedisco (R)
Public Opinion Strategies	February 6, 2009	29%	50%

Line graph

Is the line graph really necessary? It contains identical information to the chart, and five polls aren't exactly difficult to understand. I'm shrinking it for now, but I really question its necessity, period. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

I think it works well, but I'm a tad biased. :-) I made it because graphical representations of opinion polls are much easier to see trends, even if the stats are still easy to understand. It doesn't hurt the article, does it? It's also used in this wikinews article (admittedly, I wrote it). I personally think it's used well in both places. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt the article, which is why I didn't remove it without support from others. It would certainly be valuable in a presidential or even gubernatorial race where there are dozens and dozens of polls over time. I just don't think it's needed for an election with only five opinion polls. But like I said, I'm going to leave it to others to make the final decision. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Um... I'm undecided. Lots of people are visual, and graphs can be helpful, but it isn't necessary for five polls. Which of course doesn't mean it doesn't add to the article... Hmm.... --Muboshgu (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's useful to see the numbers in both forms. The eyes make sense of the line graph faster than the numbers, even with the table cells highlighted as they are. Chadlupkes (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Section: Libertarian Party

While I definitely think its noteworthy that Sundwall blames Tedisco for the ballot challenge and has subsequently endorsed Murphy, featuring his un-sourced and highly incendiary remarks in blockquotes places undue balance towards his assertion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's not terribly fair as currently worded. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't like having the blockquote either. I removed one of Tedisco criticizing the bailout a week or so ago. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, and it's too political to simply quote what a self-serving politician says, no matter what agenda they're pushing. It's noteworthy that Sundwall blames Tedisco and endorsed Murphy, it's noteworthy that Tedisco denies involvement. I think that's all that needs to be said, but it should be said by journalists writing the articles using the candidates as the subjects of their story. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Tally

The current tally now stands at 178 for Murphy, should someone change the total in the article? http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/Elections/2009/Special/20thCDSpecialUnofficialResults041609b.pdf 12.203.0.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

Over, probably

Tedisco has announced that he'll not contest the final result, which will almost certainly be in Murphy's favor. (Haven't time to update the article myself.) 68.249.1.170 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article. Please contact me with any issues, or if I don't follow up in a week from this post. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose isn't the best, but it seems relatively good. I'll say "aye" to 1a, but I strongly encourage that this go through Peer Review. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Could you please check out the deadlinks in this Checklinks report. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Didn't know that existed. I'll get on that later tonight. upstateNYer 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Done Not sure what the last blue link is on that page, but the link does work. Otherwise, should be all set. upstateNYer 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Can you get a better citation for "Michael S. Pollok, an attorney from Red Hook, announced his candidacy as an independent,[30] but subsequently withdrew.[31]" 31 should be replaced if possible; right now, there is nothing on that website but a redirect. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

   I removed it. The source saying he had considered was completely speculation. I saw 2 faces on the page that definitely did not put their names in the race. Seems he may have done it as a media stunt to get more traffic to his law firm's website. upstateNYer 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

   That seems good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "Candidates" section needs more expansion on why "the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees".

   Perhaps I missed it, but a read of this tells me nothing about why the special election was called for in the first place. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

   Will update and source that later tonight. upstateNYer 02:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Done See here. upstateNYer 04:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm unsure if File:James Tedisco.jpg actually needs to be in the article; it doesn't look like it adds much to it. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Just messaged the Flickr user to see if they'll freely license this image. I doubt it, but worth a shot. upstateNYer 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   All issues here have been resolved. I'll be passing this to a GA. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)