Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States presidential elections in Oklahoma/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

United States presidential elections in Oklahoma

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have spent the past few days drafting up an overhaul of the list in my sandbox. I adapted the format from the other FLs in the series particularly the Arizona. I am disclosing upfront my reasoning for nominating this which is I hope to get it passed for the Wikicup. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment: Double check accuracy of 1940. How did Roosevelt win with 43% of the vote, when his opponent had 57% but only 34k votes? Ravendrop 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well its simple, someone incompetent put in the wrong numbers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"It was initially granted 7 electoral votes,[2] gaining three following the 1910 census" - write both numbers as words
"to 8 votes in the 1950 census[5] before returning to its original 7 following the 2000 census." - write those numbers as words too
"was won by Republican candidates Richard Nixon/Henry C. Lodge" - any reason for the slash rather than "and"?
" decided cast a faithless vote" - the word "to" is missing
"for Harry F. Byrd/Barry Goldwater" - same comment about the slash
"While the state initially went back and fourth " - last word is spelt incorrectly
"etween voting democrat and republican" - capitals on the party names, surely.....?
Comma needed before "most recently"
"Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election and the state being Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016" - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
"Republicans have won the election without carrying the state only twice" - what does "carrying the state" mean?
"While democrats have won without the state 8 times, most recently Joe Biden in 2020." - this is not a grammatically complete sentence
also that 8 should be written as a word and Democrats should have a capital D
"Additionally, a third party did not qualify every single year." - no need for the word "additionally" here
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I think I fixed all of it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Carrying the state" is still unexplained and the final sentence of the lead is still a fragment rather than a full sentence...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I replaced carrying with winning and per another editor merged the final two sentences. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last query - the double dagger in 1920 is bolded - is this intentional and if so, what does it signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. It was a mistake Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

The scope for "Winner", "Runner-up" and "Other candidate" should be colgroup.
Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too.
Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. !{{anchor|1912}} becomes !scope=row|{{anchor|1912}} (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Done :D Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text shouldn't be the only way to indicate something. Use a symbol too. On second thought, this is not needed. The winners (in the state) are already in the "winner" colgroup and so don't need the extra symbol to differentiate them. My fault for not noticing. Sorry about that.

I'm also noticing a cs1 error for the wsj 2016 ref. Please fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I fixed the first thing. Secondly is the issue also in WSJ 2012? Because the two citations look identical besides the title and dates. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

I would merge the last two sentences, because that While at the beginning of the last one feels a bit odd.
For purposes of these lists - Even though there may be other lists for other states, we only have one list in hand here, so I'd say something along the lines of "For the purpose of this list".
At the beginning of the second paragraph, "1960 election" should be in blue and not only 1960.
The state later passed a law that would invalidate any votes cast - I don't think I understand that. So is any vote cast invalidated? Or only those by faithless electors?
Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election, additionally the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016 - The way this is written, I feel the sentence would read more naturally without the "additionally".

That's what I saw, OlifanofmrTennant. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adressed most of the comments, for the fourth point: you've taken a portion of the sentence and not the full one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the sentence didn't make sense. It does now, though, because of the change ChrisTheDude made. Is that what you meant originally? Alavense (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election; the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016. - That sentence still doesn't quite work. Either you exchange the semicolon for a comma or you say "Republicans have won every single county". Alavense (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna send a ping to see if all of @Alavense's concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poking @Alavense once again. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see the first ping. I'm afraid I'm in no position to support yet. I feel as if the text could still be worked on a little bit more. For example, when reading the first paragraph out loud, you'll find out that it's a constant "census ... census ... census ... census". Same about While the state initially went back and forth between voting Democrat and Republican, more recently the state has been considered a safe red state, which has too many "states". Alavense (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: I addressed the second concern but the first one kinda has to be that way since its discussing results of the census. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense: Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I feel the article is not up to the standard yet with regard to how it's written. I don't really know how I can help here, but I'm afraid I cannot support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose from Kavyansh

Always a pleasure to see that this series is being continued on the format I set some 3 years ago!

What is Oklahoma? Ofcouse it is a state but I don't expect a non-American to know it, or to know what are we focusing on trends of a state. The first introductory sentence should be like "Oklahoma is a state in __ part of the Southern/Central United States", like the first sentence here.
"Since it first joined the United States in 1907," : How many times has Oklahoma joined the United States?
"electoral votes, gaining" --> "electoral votes, but/and gained"
"it was given an additional vote in the 1930 census" --> "it was given an additional electoral vote following the 1930 census"
On another note, why are we so much inclined to list all the changes in its electoral vote count? These lists are to analyze the results of elections every 4 years in these states. I think all we should be specifying should be the current electoral vote count (as of 2024).
"In the 1960 election the state was won by Republican candidates Richard Nixon and Henry C. Lodge" --> Can just say Republican ticket lead by Nixon. Why mention Lodge?
"votes cast by and issue fines to faithless electors" --> "votes cast by faithless electors, in addition to issuing fines to"
"While initially Oklahoma went back and forth between voting Democrat and Republican, more recently it has been considered a safe red state." - What is "initially", what is "more recently". It is always better to provide years, if not decades (like since 70s, its a safe red state)
"Republicans having won every single county since the 2004 presidential election, the state was Donald Trump's third largest margin of victory in 2016." --> This sentence simply doesn't work for me. It state two arbitary facts and tries to combine then in attempt to get a link between both, which doesn't happen. Split and state both things as separate facts. And why does it matter if it is the third largest margin of victory for a particular candidate. We are writing this becuase contemporary media articles have stated this. Did we conduct a thorough research (which I admit, as wikipedians, we are not responsible of doing. We are not historians) whether Oklahoma had third or second or fourth largest margin of victory for Bush 92' or Nixon 68' or not? I don't know, neither do I expect anyone to know, but whats the point of writing it was for Trump in '16 if there is no conclusion we can draw from it?
"Democrats have won without the state eight times, the most recent example being Joe Biden in 2020." : Whats the importance of giving most recent example when it has happened 8 times?
"Note – Percentages may not total 100.0% because of rounding." Not just because of rounding, also somethimes there are some 0.02 or 0.07 percentage of votes to a fourth candidate not in the table. I don't think we need to justify this, it is pretty obvious. I'd suggest removing this, but I won't oppose just on this.

Im sorry but I am leaning to oppose due to the prose and anaylsis part. The table is fine; in fact it looks perfect. The references need a bit of formatting changes. The is missing in NYT, WSJ, etc. I rarely oppose, especially here at FLC. I have to oppose becuase this is a "short and sweet" article, we have nothing more to give to a reader than the table and formatting. So there is no reason why it should be a FL unless it has a strong interesting lead, alongside solid references and sources. This has scope for improvement, but that would happen if the entire prose part is re-written. I am willing to help if you wish. As the things stand, this unfortunately does not "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". Let me know if you need any help, I am willing to remove the oppose if substancial changes are made.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for your comments. Unfourtnetly I saw your comments as I was withdrawing this nomination while I rework the lead. I'll defently take your notes under consideration. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @OlifanofmrTennant, that is a very kind thing to do. The list has potential to be a FL, feel free to leave a message at my talk whenever (if) you need any help reagrding this list or any other similar list, and I'll be more than willing to help. p.s. you'll need to inform one of the FLC coordinators that you are withdrawing this nomination to prepare it off FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw

Due to substantail prose issues noted by multiple reviewers I wish to withdraw this nomination and both rewrite the lead myself as well as requesting a copy edit at the GOCE. @Hey man im josh: I saw you commented twice so maybe you wish to do the formal closureQuestions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @OlifanofmrTennant, I hope you come back with this again sometime or another nomination.

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.