The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
College Republicans was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Need to verify the claim made by the CFCR, they say they have Lousiana but they don't have a single chapter in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:138C:4500:BD5F:FEF2:58CA:C965 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen college republicans try and register voters, ever.. the only time they get involved in voter registartion seems to be when they're harassing people for registering to vote, thus the accuracy tag-- 64.12.116.133 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have been told by multiple credible (Republican) sources that there was chicanery in the 2005 CRNC elections. I don't think anyone has seriously disputed Foers claims in his NR piece either. 23:36, 25 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.160.212 ( talk • contribs)
CRNC had 52 State Federations about 4 years ago, they are down to 12 or 15 since then. Slightly more then the new CRU rival organization which now has 6. --
70.184.119.177 (
talk)
19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot of information on this site was unsourced, so I added a few links. Will add more later when I get time. Probably add more about history of CRNC and how it changed from being under the RNC to being a 527. Maybe some stuff about the increase in field reps in the last few years and plans for 2008-- 2Snazzy ( talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Should we create a separate page for Morgan Wilkins? I hear that she's running for some CRNC posts in Kentucky, and is still stirring up trouble. Any thoughts?-- 2Snazzy 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On two occasions ( one and two) User:Thomastedder has blanked the well-sourced section about Rove. You must establish consensus on the talk page in order to delete something like this. -- Dr. Ivo Shandor ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what people think about the title, since the organization is technically the "College Republican National Committee," but I think "College Republican" is better since it can encompass the entire history of the organization under different names dating back to 1892. -- Dr. Ivo Shandor ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Ashley Todd be include as a notable CR? Good or bad, she is notable. Here is here YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqsBlXhnFng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.221.134 ( talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Those supporting this move have not made a policy based rationale for the move, and the opposition's argument on common name usage, Tony's in particular, as well as anon 125.9.31.50, along with the argument that the article title is capitalised as the name of the organisation, and the article discusses the organisation and not college attendees that are Republicans, meaning reader confusion is less likely, is compelling enough to close this RM as not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
College Republicans → College Republican National Committee – This article is titled "College Republicans", which is a general descriptor. However, this page's content discusses the College Republican National Committee, an independent 527 PAC. As an organization, it does not necessarily represent all college republicans, but rather the college republicans that register or participate in the College Republican National Committee organization. The new name would serve to clarify the subject matter and eliminate any confusion that the College Republican National Committee inherently speaks for all college republicans. 76.176.202.180 ( talk) 03:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I will be reassessing this article to determine whether it still meets the Good Article criteria. Any user is encouraged to assist in improving the article to keep it up to GA standards. Thanks. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | See issues below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See issues with Twitter sources below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | A majority of the "Notable Organizations" section is unsourced, and almost all of the "Notable members" section is unsourced as well. "Activities" also needs more sourcing, with the first paragraph entirely uncited. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | The lead of the article contains several lines that are a little too close to this source, which is not directly cited in the article (as far as I can tell) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This one is close, but a little more prose on the organizations themselves, in addition to the prose describing the organizational style and governing setup of the organizations, would definitely be helpful. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Only five edits (including mine) in the whole of the calendar year up to this point. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Three images present:
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are relevant and have good captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
website
fields where applicable
WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity.
As there has been no activity on the review for seven days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3a at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs) 01:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Diff and ping Secarctangent. I don't think this person should be included in this list. While it could be valid for a more inclusive list, I don't see how this one relatively minor figure is really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion, as not every member of an organization who has a flash in the news should be mentioned. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Many times information about the NFCRs, CRA, and CRU have been removed via unnamed accounts. This is despite the fact that both the NFCRs and CRAs are a larger organization than the CRNC, and the CRU has been relatively newsworthy (news articles popping up once every few months). It is dishonest to remove information about these organizations, and I suspect it serves the interest of the CRNC and their donors. Lohengrin03 ( talk) 03:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Ohio College Republican Federation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Ohio College Republican Federation until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
College Republicans was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Need to verify the claim made by the CFCR, they say they have Lousiana but they don't have a single chapter in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:138C:4500:BD5F:FEF2:58CA:C965 ( talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I've never seen college republicans try and register voters, ever.. the only time they get involved in voter registartion seems to be when they're harassing people for registering to vote, thus the accuracy tag-- 64.12.116.133 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have been told by multiple credible (Republican) sources that there was chicanery in the 2005 CRNC elections. I don't think anyone has seriously disputed Foers claims in his NR piece either. 23:36, 25 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.160.212 ( talk • contribs)
CRNC had 52 State Federations about 4 years ago, they are down to 12 or 15 since then. Slightly more then the new CRU rival organization which now has 6. --
70.184.119.177 (
talk)
19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot of information on this site was unsourced, so I added a few links. Will add more later when I get time. Probably add more about history of CRNC and how it changed from being under the RNC to being a 527. Maybe some stuff about the increase in field reps in the last few years and plans for 2008-- 2Snazzy ( talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Should we create a separate page for Morgan Wilkins? I hear that she's running for some CRNC posts in Kentucky, and is still stirring up trouble. Any thoughts?-- 2Snazzy 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On two occasions ( one and two) User:Thomastedder has blanked the well-sourced section about Rove. You must establish consensus on the talk page in order to delete something like this. -- Dr. Ivo Shandor ( talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what people think about the title, since the organization is technically the "College Republican National Committee," but I think "College Republican" is better since it can encompass the entire history of the organization under different names dating back to 1892. -- Dr. Ivo Shandor ( talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Should Ashley Todd be include as a notable CR? Good or bad, she is notable. Here is here YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqsBlXhnFng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.221.134 ( talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Those supporting this move have not made a policy based rationale for the move, and the opposition's argument on common name usage, Tony's in particular, as well as anon 125.9.31.50, along with the argument that the article title is capitalised as the name of the organisation, and the article discusses the organisation and not college attendees that are Republicans, meaning reader confusion is less likely, is compelling enough to close this RM as not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
College Republicans → College Republican National Committee – This article is titled "College Republicans", which is a general descriptor. However, this page's content discusses the College Republican National Committee, an independent 527 PAC. As an organization, it does not necessarily represent all college republicans, but rather the college republicans that register or participate in the College Republican National Committee organization. The new name would serve to clarify the subject matter and eliminate any confusion that the College Republican National Committee inherently speaks for all college republicans. 76.176.202.180 ( talk) 03:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I will be reassessing this article to determine whether it still meets the Good Article criteria. Any user is encouraged to assist in improving the article to keep it up to GA standards. Thanks. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | See issues below. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | See below. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | See issues with Twitter sources below. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | A majority of the "Notable Organizations" section is unsourced, and almost all of the "Notable members" section is unsourced as well. "Activities" also needs more sourcing, with the first paragraph entirely uncited. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | The lead of the article contains several lines that are a little too close to this source, which is not directly cited in the article (as far as I can tell) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | This one is close, but a little more prose on the organizations themselves, in addition to the prose describing the organizational style and governing setup of the organizations, would definitely be helpful. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Only five edits (including mine) in the whole of the calendar year up to this point. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Three images present:
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images are relevant and have good captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
website
fields where applicable
WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity.
As there has been no activity on the review for seven days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3a at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs) 01:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Diff and ping Secarctangent. I don't think this person should be included in this list. While it could be valid for a more inclusive list, I don't see how this one relatively minor figure is really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion, as not every member of an organization who has a flash in the news should be mentioned. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Many times information about the NFCRs, CRA, and CRU have been removed via unnamed accounts. This is despite the fact that both the NFCRs and CRAs are a larger organization than the CRNC, and the CRU has been relatively newsworthy (news articles popping up once every few months). It is dishonest to remove information about these organizations, and I suspect it serves the interest of the CRNC and their donors. Lohengrin03 ( talk) 03:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Ohio College Republican Federation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Ohio College Republican Federation until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 04:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)