Misplaced Pages

:Featured article candidates/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:47, 13 March 2013 editCasprings (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,762 edits Image review← Previous edit Revision as of 15:22, 13 March 2013 edit undoArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits Comments from Arzel and MkativerataNext edit →
Line 65: Line 65:


:::::I am fine with that being a the standard. However, it should be the standard for WP:FA in general, and not this article. That is my two cents, at least.] (]) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC) :::::I am fine with that being a the standard. However, it should be the standard for WP:FA in general, and not this article. That is my two cents, at least.] (]) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::I think the question to ask is how many FA's are basically a research paper ''WITHOUT'' any actual scholarly research papers being used as sources. This entire article is written like a research paper. Background and Lit Reivew -> Evidence -> Conclusions. Casprings has written a really nice research paper, and that is where it belongs. ] (]) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


====Sources==== ====Sources====

Revision as of 15:22, 13 March 2013

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has undergone continued development and I feel it now reaches the point of a WP:FA article. It has undergone a peer review, a copy edit, and a GA review. I feel the article meets all WP:FA criteria now. As such, I would like to nominate the article for WP:FA Casprings (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn

  • Comment Just a suggestion. "Several pro-life, Republican politicians have claimed in the years since Mecklenberg's 1972 publication that pregnancy from rape is rare." This is one of the biggest recurring theme in the article, that a politician underestimated or marginalized the rate of pregnancy from rape. However, I didn't see any actual stats about incidences of pregnancy from rape in the article (perhaps I missed them? They'd be well-placed in the Background section). Because the article emphasizes that these politicians were ignorant of scientific data, anything to ground the subject in the scientific reality would provide excellent context. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Much of that context is in the article Pregnancy from rape. Do you think it would help the article to import that? The way I handed it was to place a See Also link, and start the section by telling the reader it was a "medically inaccurate contention". What are your thoughts. I am certainly not against it, given that it is important context. Casprings (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the See Also link is a good idea. One sentence in that section, or perhaps a brief explanatory note on the phrase "medically inaccurate" would probably fill in the necessary context. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from DavidinNJ

*Comment In terms of content, referencing, and neutrality, the authors did an excellent job. This is a controversial topic, and the article is written in an objective manner. In terms of structure and layout, the article is good, but not entirely consistent. For example, the Todd Akin section has a political impact subsection, but the Richard Mourdock section doesn't. There is a "see also" section at the bottom, but there are no entries. I would rename "other comments before 2012 elections" as "other controversial statements" or something like that. With its current title, it's unclear if the individuals are commenting about Akin and Mourdock, or making independent statements which are controversial. My other issue is the article's verbiage which needs improvement to be at FA-level. The background section should be broken into more paragraphs to make it easier to read. Some of the sentences are very verbose, and have a lack of commas. For example, "The medically inaccurate contention favored by some American anti-abortion activists that pregnancy consequent to rape is an exceptional occurrence first originated four decades ago in the work of Fred Mecklenburg." DavidinNJ (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

  • First, thanks for the comments. I made all the structural changes. I also agree with your assessment of the background section. I edited that so the writing would be clear and concise. I would love for you to take another look at the article and see what you think about those changes. Casprings (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Casprings, The changes substantially improve the article. I read the article in detail, and I have 3 other comments. (1) There is a reference error because there is a reference called "congress" in the ref section that isn't used in the article. (2) The post-election comment section should have subsections like the "other controversial statements" section. I like how the "other controversial statements" section has has subsection for each person. (3)This is just a suggestion, but the infobox at the top should either be expanded or removed. After that, I see this being an FA-quality article. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support After the recent changes that have been made, this a FA-class article. The authors have taken a controversial topic, and written an article about it that is both very comprehensive and completely objective. The article contains extensive information about the history of the belief that rape does not cause pregnancy, the complete list of politicians who made rape-related comments in the 2012 election cycle, and the ramifactions of those comments. Everything in the article is referenced, the prose is very good, and the article has a layout the is visually appealing and inducive to readers. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Todd_Akin,_official_109th_Congress_photo.jpg: source link returns error
  • File:Roscoe_Bartlett,_Official_Portrait,_111th_Congress.jpg: source link returns error
  • File:Rep_Joe_Walsh.jpg: source link wouldn't load when tried. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well they are all the official photos of the Congressmen. The problem is that they are out of office, so the photos are no longer hosted on a US government website (at least that I can find). I really don't know what to do in this situation. Should I just delete the pictures?Casprings (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I might have found sources indicating that they might be PD, but I'm not sure. I've posted the links at the article' s talk page. Can someone take a look? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I commented on the talk page. Casprings (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Arzel and Mkativerata

  • Oppose This article is little more than a continued attack on Republicans That it should even be considered a FA is disgusting. Advocacy on WP at its best. Arzel (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I am sorry you feel that way. I have tried to ensure the article is neutral, but I am sorry you feel it is an attack on Republicans. Casprings (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sorry. The reason it reads like an attack on Republicans -- which I know it isn't -- is that the article is the product of the author's synthesis of a series of news events, as opposed to the author's summary of reliable secondary sources discussing those news events. The evidence in this lies in where bold claims are made about the effect of the controversies: the sourcing is quite weak. For example, the claim in the lede that 'The comments may have had an effect on the national election results, especially among women voters' is sourced to a Politico article. Now Politico is reliable for facts, etc, but not for conclusions that could only be safely drawn by experienced political scientists. Ultimately, it's too early for this article. Once credible academic sources have discussed the role of these controversies in the 2012 election, a sounder article could be written. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. As you might guess, I disagree with the comment. I think the section on wider impact is well sourced and there are a number of sources that tie these events together though out the article. Politico is a WP:RS is a good source to show a secondary source commenting on the national effect of the comments.
Your point on academic sources is good with one modification. A political scientist will properly not ever tackle the questions of rather this election caused a national effect. They are more likely to compare this election to others within the US system or outside to try to tell us something about elections in general and their effects on political action. For example, what is the effect on a more diverse electorate on political action? This election would be one case study in a small N study or one data point in a large N study. A historian would be more apt to use the facts of this election and interpret the causes of those events. This is similar to what politico did. In sum, it is unlikely for a political science "study" to show anything of any relevance that belongs in the article. The article is and will always have to be make up of how WP:RS interpret events, rather those sources happen to be journalistic or secondary historical sources. There is no reason for the article to wait for historians to write about the subject and that should not stop it from gaining a WP:FA. Just my two scents. Casprings (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering that the outcomes of the 2012 elections are finalized, it's hard for me to conclude that its too early for such an article. Scholarly discussion of this topic does exist, and should be included in the article. Here are 2 examples, and more can be obtained at Google scholar. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2107991
http://books.google.com/books?id=HEplYeto-9cC&pg=PA435&dq=2012+todd+akin+republican+losses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ths_UY6-AoSV0QHP5YCwCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA
  • Neither the Abstract submission to a conference or the book (anyone can get their own book published) are peer reviewed scholarly publications. Considering it often takes several months to over a year for papers to make it through the peer review process and then be published, it is indeed far to early for any actual scholarly published research. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also the abstract was from a conference long before the election. Obviously it is not possible for that to be used as a review of what happened regarding the effect. Arzel (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. I think the authors did a very good job writing a balanced and thorough article on a very controversial subject. However, I agree with Mkativerata that while it's okay to use news sources for facts, they really can't be used to draw conclusions about the effect on a controversy. It's kind of like writing an article about a legal topic, and not citing any court decisions or law journal articles. Before I make any judgement, I want to see if the author of this article can find any scholarly publications evaluating these incidents and their effect on the 2012 election. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If the standard to offer commentary in an FA article is a peer reviewed academic article, then someone needs to start taking articles to WP:FAR. I would challenge you to find any WP:FA article on an historical event in the past 5 to 10 years that doesn’t include journalist sources offering commentary. For an historian to do research on this event, for example, he would need access to things like personnel papers. He would want to know what Akin was writing and saying in private, for example. He would also want to know what members of the GOP, like Reince Prebus, were actually thinking privately. This type of research is not possible until personnel papers and other sources are public.
I am fine with that being a the standard. However, it should be the standard for WP:FA in general, and not this article. That is my two cents, at least.Casprings (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the question to ask is how many FA's are basically a research paper WITHOUT any actual scholarly research papers being used as sources. This entire article is written like a research paper. Background and Lit Reivew -> Evidence -> Conclusions. Casprings has written a really nice research paper, and that is where it belongs. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I've done a source spot-check for about 10 sources, and didn't find any serious issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)