Talk:2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama

Richard L. Hasen's opinion on the recount

Resolved

@Eggishorn: Hello. Why are you calling a notable expert's opinion which was reposted by two notable media outlets unnecessary? --Синкретик (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Синкретик:, I can call anyone I want "unnecessary" if they are only producing an opinion. No matter what their expertise, there is no value to their views per WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTNEWS unless and until there is something factual to report about the possibility of recounts. As of right now, all we know is that there isn't a small enough margin for an automatic recount and any opinions about whether there should be recounts are not meaningful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. --Синкретик (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for asking your question here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Change in vote percentage

Jeff Sessions ran unopposed in the 2014 election. Is the column detailing the change in vote percentage really needed for the table at the bottom? HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 23:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the table is kind of confusing. Plus, there isn't a column like that on the 2014 article. I think it should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing the column. Running opposed and against a candidate of the other party are not comparable enough to produce a meaningful swing calculation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Vote percentage incorrect

Jones recieved 49.9% of the vote, not 50.00% http://www2.alabamavotes.gov/electionNight/statewideResultsByContest.aspx?ecode=1000915Bjoh249 (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

49.97%, which rounds to 50.0%. Look at the certified results. MB298 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't round it up. You give the official results as is. The certified results are 49.97%. Sounds like this is a Democrat-controlled page trying to make Jones look better. Even the NYT gives these results: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/alabama-senate-special-election-roy-moore-doug-jones

No, it's standard procedure. Look at literally any other election page on Wikipedia. Look at 2016 Presidential results, 2012, 2008, 2004..... MB298 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Um no 2016 is still listed as 48.2-46.1%. Nothing is rounded up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 Bjoh249 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the percentages round to within 1/10 percentage point. Example is 59.2% instead of 59.22% or say 10.7% instead of 10.66%. It keeps it cleaner. MB298 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Jones got 49.97% which rounds up to 50.0% and Moore got 48.34% which rounds down to 48.3%. MB298 (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

WRONG! You don't round up, you give the correct percentages, but I know you Democrats like to hijack these pages and make things look like things they are not.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:886D:B378:9571:8FCC (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a Democrat, and second of all, this is what happens in every election page. If Moore got 49.97% and Jones got 48.34% we would do it the exact same. Take United States Senate election in Texas, 2014 for example: John Cornyn got 61.55% but we rounded it up to 61.6%. MB298 (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

673,896/(673,896+651,972+22,852) = 49.965%, which rounds up to 50.0%. Mélencron (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The LEAD is too long and includes information not found elsewhere in the article (does not summarize)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some statements lack supporting citations (e.g. "The Republican primary attracted national attention, especially following Trump's endorsement of incumbent Senator Luther Strange")

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given other issues in the article I did not do research to see if this article satisfies this criteria as compared to other GA/FA.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   The Moore picture is really low quality. Given his profile I would be surprised if a better picture isn't available.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lack of response to confirmation of interest means that detailed comments were not given.

Discussion

Can Nick2crosby or other article editor confirm that they are interested in going through the GA review process for this article? I have never done a GA review of an article under WP:ACDS so I'm not sure how they will play out in this review but am willing to do this review if there's an interested editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

maps

Something's seriously wrong with the primary results maps and I can't figure it out. Just leaving this here. MB298 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Russian interference"-style campaigning in the lead

I deleted a paragraph from the lead alleging a social media campaign benefiting Jones over Moore that was similar to Russian interference. I see that a few other editors have done so as well in the past few months, only to be reverted. The most recent of these reverts came with the explanation that "Lead summarizes the body". Well, sort of. MOS:LEAD says the lead is a "summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". The content in the body makes clear that it was a small effort, not likely to have had any impact. Therefore, this is not among the "most important contents" of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roy moore official portrait (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Context

this is a very extensive article, yet it manages to in no way describe the broader circumstances that made this race become such a major focus of national political attention, nor any analysis as to why a Democrat just happened to win this seat, shortly after the Charlottesville rally, followed by a significant dip in Trumps approval rating, and controversy surrounding Sessions and Roy Moore (which gets mentioned but not really how it affected the election). Not to mention the significance of prominent Republicans backing different candidates in this race, even members of Trumps own White House. But sure lets list 400 different endorsements, because thats encyclopedic somehow, instead of contextualizing it within the political climate of the day. jonas (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)