Wikiwand AI

Talk:2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good article2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Close


Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illinois's 1st congressional district election, 2000/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Holy crap, I cannot believe that you waited this long for a review in response to this GAN. With that said, I will now start the review, after 3 months and 22 days since its nomination. As I am reviewing, I will list the issues I have with the article usually with quotations, which you can search for if you press "Ctrl" and "F" simultaneously.--12george1 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Is there a picture of Raymond Wardingley or Barack Obama (campaigning in 2000)?
    • I looked on Commons for a good picture of Obama and couldn't find one from 2000. Most images are post-2004, when he was a federal employee. These are the only pictures from 2004 and earlier. I almost went with this picture, which shows him during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate, but I thought there was too much noise.
    • As for Wardingley, not likely. He was a paper candidate, and I don't even think he bothered to campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Press on his primary victory calls Wardingly a "perennial candidate". He worked as a clown professionally, and his personal website is something to behold. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Illinois's 1st congressional district is a minority-majority district and has a higher percentage of African American (65 percent) than any other congressional district in the nation. It is a working class district, and currently has a Cook PVI of D+35, making it one of the most Democratic districts in the country." - [Citation needed]
    • I rewrote this with information I could properly source (those PVI numbers are outdated and I can't find them anywhere). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "In mid-October, Rush’s son, Huey, was murdered, leading Obama to put his campaign on hold." - What year? 1999? 1823? 2011?
    • I thought it was implied that it was 1999, as it follows the campaign, and two paragraphs earlier it says "September 1999". Should I add the year there, or is it redundant? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Obama lost the primary election, held on March 21, 2000, by a 2-to-1 margin." - Well, who won the nomination? You could re-word that like this to include the answer to that question: "In the primary election held on March 21, 2000, Obama lost by a 2-to-1 margin against Rush."
    • Changed to "Rush defeated Obama" – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 2004, Obama was the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. After his speech, political pundits speculated about his future as a possible presidential candidate. After being elected to the United States Senate that year, and amid much speculation in the media regarding his future plans, Obama announced that he would seek the 2008 democratic presidential nomination in February 2007 and went on to defeat Hillary Clinton in one of the closest presidential nomination races in American history. He then defeated fellow senator John McCain in the general election to become the first African American to be elected President of the United States." - [Citation needed]
    • Whole paragraph cited. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is minor name inconsistency within the references. On reference #4, you have "Edward McClelland", but "Obama, Barack" on reference #7. Please fix it so it is either last name first or vice versa, but not both.
Whoops! So sorry I haven't started on this yet! I thought I had watchlisted this GA nom, or maybe I expected it to be a continuation of GA1, which I do have watchlisted. Anyway, what's another week on a nomination I made in March, eh? I'll start working on it today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, everything looks good. I will now pass this article for GA. Regards,--12george1 (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

just sayin

Can you even imagine the level of satisfaction Barack Obama must feel to walk into the House chamber to deliver his 8th state of the union and see Bobby Rush hanging out in the crowd -- knowing he had to wait there for hours to get that seat -- looking for a handshake and an autograph?

Requested move 23 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)


2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district election → 2000 Illinois's 1st congressional district Democratic primary – Suggesting this as a move and rescope. The only noteworthy part of this election was the primary, and everything about the general can be covered at 2000 United States House of Representatives elections#Illinois (ideally in a stand-alone 2000 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois in the future).

The focus of this article is the primary, and that's also why readers would be interested in reading it. We don't talk much about the campaign between Rush and Wardingley, because there really isn't much to say compared to any other completely noncompetitive election. The current way the article is structured, emphasizing that contest (with the lead infobox, for example) over the one between Rush and Obama, is not helpful to our readers. The "Aftermath" section also only focuses on the Rush-Obama race, not the Rush-Wardingley race. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Oppose as there are many general elections in the United States that are non-competitive due to gerrymandering, but that does make the general election less relevant than the primary election. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC) — Blocked sockpuppet Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is our general format for U.S. elections. It's the November election that matters most, even with what makes the primary election in this one significant. I intend to add some prose on the general election here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject U.S. Congress and WikiProject Elections and Referendums have been notified of this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Chicago, and WikiProject Politics have been notified of this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
@Elli and Muboshgu: is there still a dispute here? Feeglgeef (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes; I still think the article should be moved/rescoped. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
And I don't, I think it just needs to be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the primary is what was competitive, it's still reasonable to include the general election results in its scope, and there's no need to limit this in a way inconsistent with typical conventions. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Per both Reywas92 and Moboshgu. Agreed. Even if the primary was competitive, and featured a future U.S. President, still no reason not to include the general election results. It is not consistent with typical conventions. Also, what? Primary main focus? That's just one of many times throughout history where the primary was the main focus for congressional elections, and elections in the United States in general. Also, if the title were changed and information on the general election was kept, the article title would be misleading.
Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks