Talk:BC election writ drops; referendum campaigns underway

• move to Story Preparation (actual writ is on April 14th).

Not sure how to do this, but I can read up on Wikinews.

This is done by adding the preperation template which is presently on the article itself.

• Incorporate Wikipedia articles in line with style guide.

Done all previously included wikipedia articles are in the article story line rather than as cited sources.

Agreed.

• Add news media sources (rather than just debate-on-STV websites).

Agreed.

Done, added media sources to the article

• Give more context to the issues in British Columbia -- the election is not solely about STV.

I would like to make the article about electoral reform only. The election will get sufficient coverage. Electoral reform does not. The reason I talked about the election was that it is technically incorrect to talk about a writ drop for the referendum.

Added a brief blurb about the parties running as then wikinews also provides exposure, and the article is more rounded. May be changed back if desired. Made additions from reading article page before reading this note that the article intention was to address the referendum for the main part on collaboration page.

• Even out pro-STV bias; a change in an electoral system is not necessarily reform

What is your definition of reform?

If you want the article to be only about STV, you should title it that way; adding tidbits on the REAL electoral race that are not "well-rounded" does not make it "well-rounded", it's not fair to those issues and the real election. Make the referendum article separate, there needs to be an election article per se.Skookum1 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jlam (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Jlam (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Webster's definition: "1 a: to put or change into an improved form or condition b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses 2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action 3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways (reform a drunkard) 4 a: to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking b: to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking"

Has the election itself actually been called or is it just definitely going to be called? --Killing Vector (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The election is definitely going to be called: the writ drops on April 14th, hence the date of this article.

I would ask for someone else to even out the bias for me. I'm having trouble seeing how I could achieve that (plus, I am pro-BC-STV).

Found a newspaper article and tried to even out both sides of the issue somewhat.

Jlam (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

209.217.100.70 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated some comments into the above conversation. I think a great deal of the concerns have been addressed with how many news articles there are available so far online.SriMesh | talk 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Revision 804302 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 804302 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Gimme a break - NPOV passed as of today? By whose say-so? I don't normally contribute to WikiNews but it's clear to me that having only Premier Campbell's imsage here and not Carole Jamaes and Jane Sterk's at least is clearly POV in effect. The image-links on regular Wikipedia are and File:Carole james.jpg, don't know if they'll work here but it's scarcely an oversight not to have them; I guess I'll have to look over the text here now too, to see what the as-of-today Peer Review also thinks is NPOV. Sorry for no-AGF but blatant presentation of only one candidate should have caused the peer review to FAIL.Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Angus Reid vs Tyee polls

Angus Reid is a known Liberal-backed, Liberal-oriented polling firm, this should be stated in the mentioning of its poll; a counter-poll, also an online, by The Tyee, which is admittedly NDP in orientation. The important part is teh poll results - the top issues are corruption, environment, poverty/homelessness and education, in that order, with crime far down the list. Did the Angus Reid poll even mention corruption?? That the article doesn't mention the Kinseall Affair (or its predecessor the Dobell affair) and the mounting questions about the Premier's personal involveement in the sale of BC Rail, and how this is becoming an issue even in the mainstream media (finally) is a major oversight; the Carole James also made a point of campaigning on it is also newsworthy; as is the divisions within the Green vote over run of the river power. It would help also if the NDP's slogan "Take Back our BC" wasa put in context, i.e. the sell-loff to American ownership of BC Rail, BC Hydro, hydroelectric leases on run of the river, and so on and so on. I'm not an NDP supporter and I realize issue-development in the article is a tricky NPOV subject; but not covering important issues becasue it might be POV to mention them.....this article is sadly lacking, other than in its coverage of the STV refereundum. I'm in no mood to become an election journalist, but I'm calling on conscientieous Wikipedians, partisan or otherwise, to get into the nitty-gritty. If NPOV news has to be so lacklsutre I'm not sure I can consider it journalism at all.....essentially, back to the start of this comment, having polls from only one company, and a Liberal-affiliated company to boot, is another reason why this shouldn't have passed NPOV.Skookum1 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the subject matter - I think your perception of NPOV is different than mine, at least, and probably that of most people round here: I don't see it as necessary to show every angle/all sides. In some political matters, this will be impossible to do exhaustivly. What I see is crucial is that the major views/opinions are reflected - and that space that is given (whether article or photo) is not allocated arbitrarily, but rather according to importance/weight of opinions. Thus, with just one photo, I think having just the PM is fine: he's the most important representive of the currently most important party. Now if there were two images, both showing candidates from the liberal (or whichever) party, that, to me, would be obvious bias. I'd follow the same line of argument for the poll: adding a further poll for a contrasting picture would be great - but it not being done is due to the constricted contributor-time we have here, rather than a certain point of view being put forward.

The best way to remedy your objections (though you stated this is unlikely) is to address them yourself, and change the article appropriately - though admittedly before, and shortly after publishing is the best time to do that. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. from reading the discussion at the top of this page, and scimming the article, it started out as coverage of the new voting method used in this election (STV). That probably goes a way to explain that coverage of the election itself is somewhat thin - I think two separate articles might have been more elegant. Sean Heron (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)