User:Kevin baas~enwiki/2004 us presidential election controversy review

Introduction

When this article started, the subject was murky, undocumented. There had been no investigations, no affidavits, no media coverage except a large number of odd reports that together suggested there were "irregularities". In that climate, it was important to document everything, because the only rebuttal of claims of sore losership was to nail down the facts. There were irregularities, there was evidence, it was of wide interest, it did cover many interlocking areas. To an extent, it still is controversial of course, but I think now it's safe to say we are well past those days. The matter is now documented in more legal ways, more formal ways. Those interested are now political coallitions, house committees, and investigatory organisations.

Whilst everything in the article is accurate and valid as far as it goes, I would like to propose a complete reworking project on the side, of what needs to be said with regard to the entire election controversy situation, covering all 6 articles. - User:FT2

The aim

The aim of this project page is:

To re-think what belongs and what doesnt: Never mind what we have all written so far. What would a well designed article say now on these topics? That should be our standard
Use and quantity of evidence: The articles have a lot of research material of value to everyone. But it is now no longer needed to cite it all in big paragraphs. It was before. Now we can summarise a whole issue in a few lines with references, and it will be credible.
What can be assumed: To keep this article in a good state, what can we now assume is not so controversial, and therefore can be summarised or omitted in a shorter space?
What articles are needed: We have 6 articles, I think. 7 if we split out news. Do we need these? Is this the best organisation?
Types of issue: Since the election, some aspects of the issue are now more mainstream, and we are not under pressure to "justify" them as much. Nor are we a news page (as the "anti-bloggers rightly say) to list every blow by blow accouunt without summarising. Some issues can be stated sourced and done. Others, such as voting machine company ownership records and such, are less well known, and may still need to be included at more length, perhaps in an article called "2004 Election controversy (other issues)" or "(connected controversies)". So we need to think what aspects are given what space too.
News: how and where news should go, to avoid article sprawl
Duplication and omission: With multiple articles, sometimes an item is in one article that is relevant to another (eg a news item on voting machines in ohio should technically be noted on 3 articles. This hasnt't been well co-ordinated or managed so the articles have to an extent not served their full purpose as they could. Planning would help.
Wikipedia guidelines: In what ways does the article not meet wiki standards? What do we plan to do? Which ones will we address now, which will we let time take care of so as not to remove information needed at this moment, and which are inapplicable to this article at present?

Articles under discussion

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities

To re-think what belongs and what doesnt

Never mind what we have all written so far. What would a well designed article say now on these topics? That should be our standard.

Use and quantity of evidence

The articles have a lot of research material of value to everyone. But it is now no longer needed to cite it all in big paragraphs. It was before. Now we can summarise a whole issue in a few lines with references, and it will be credible.

What can be assumed

To keep this article in a good state, what can we now assume is not so controversial, and therefore can be summarised or omitted in a shorter space?

What articles are needed

We have 6 articles, I think. 7 if we split out news. Do we need these? Is this the best organisation?

2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida

I think 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida can definitely go. There's insufficient info to justify an article.

I created it originally, for expediancy. When it was on VfD, I voted to delete, while abstaining from voting on the ohio page. But I don't think it's right to list an article on VfD after less than a month of it passing a VfD (though I understand that not everyone shares this view). Kevin Baas | talk 23:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Possible new articles

News
Ohio recount or
- Recounts in general or
- Recounts and contests or
- Remedies (recounts, contests, investigations, legal actions)

Kevin Baas^talk 21:54, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Types of issue

Since the election, some aspects of the issue are now more mainstream, and we are not under pressure to "justify" them as much. Nor are we a news page (as the "anti-bloggers rightly say) to list every blow by blow accouunt without summarising. Some issues can be stated sourced and done. Others, such as voting machine company ownership records and such, are less well known, and may still need to be included at more length, perhaps in an article called "2004 Election controversy (other issues)" or "(connected controversies)". So we need to think what aspects are given what space too.

News

How and where news should go, to avoid article sprawl.

Duplication and omission

With multiple articles, sometimes an item is in one article that is relevant to another (eg a news item on voting machines in ohio should technically be noted on 3 articles. This hasnt't been well co-ordinated or managed so the articles have to an extent not served their full purpose as they could. Planning would help.

Wikipedia guidelines

In what ways does the article not meet wiki standards? What do we plan to do? Which ones will we address now, which will we let time take care of so as not to remove information needed at this moment, and which are inapplicable to this article at present?

General discussion

I have found 2 other wikis covering similiar topics. A preusal of them may be of some creative help.

Kevin Baas | talk 23:39, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)