![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Opinion polling for the 2008 New Zealand general election received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Onya Kripto, some good work here. -- Lholden 22:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Kudos should be extended to all who have contributed to this page - we're getting cited in the blogosphere now too!! eg Dimpost, The Standard. Congratulations on a job well done. -- Trevva ( talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the dates shown here supposed to be date released or date surveyed? Kelvinc 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pollcap.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Lot of work went into this page - good effort all you editors. The page could do with a graph of the averaged results for ease of interpretation an the background colour of the notable events could do with being a little more subtle. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The effort that goes into both graphs is impressive. What I'd like to see in the article draws from the strength of both; the detailed results and smoothed average of Avenue's graph, but the simplification by showing only the parties which have gained 5% support at some point since the last election in Alan's graph, and showing the support percentages every 5%, since the 5% threshold is so important.- gadfium 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a graph for the preferred Prime Minister too?- gadfium 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I put in polling data for Morgan, Colmar-Brunton, Nielsen, and DigiPoll. Unfortunately, I was not able to find preferred PM information for the June Herald-DigiPoll on the Herald's site or elsewhere. Could someone please help? It may require looking at the print addition of the New Zealand Herald (it should be in the 28 June 2008 edition). - Rrius ( talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've stripped 'redundant' % symbols as a soup of 1100+ %%%%%%%%%%%%% make reading data difficult and context is understood. Fanx ( talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've remade the main graph by parsing the html table directly in R, and then plotting it from there. It's not as pretty as the original, but its there anyway. Hope you like it! -- Trevva ( talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the opinion poll graph. I've been meaning for some time to learn an appropriate statistical package so I could do so, but you've saved me the trouble. I haven't seen such a graph in any other source; this is something which makes Wikipedia a particularly valuable source for election data.- gadfium 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has any suggestions about what else they'd like to see in the graph, I'm open to them - just post them here. I haven't made a "Preferred Prime Minister" one yet, but its relatively straightforward if anyone has a burning desire... -- Trevva ( talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Rrius - you got a smile from me, anyway. I've just put up the Preferred Prime Minister graph - it turned out to be three edits, and voila! I'm a little rushed at the moment, so don't have the chance to tweak it fully. I removed the confidence intervals, because they were pretty large and obscured the view (and also aren't as relevant here). Comments, suggestions? -- Trevva ( talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a bit of exploratory data analysis seems to show that the poll results vary significantly between the polling companies. Mrfebruary ( talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I was able to improve the bias analysis quite a bit after some thought. Rather than just look at the distribution of values, I de-trended the data by calculating the biases for each company ie the difference between the value fitted by the smoother, and the actual estimate from the poll. I was then able to test for significant differences in the bias between Labour and National (being the main two parties of interest). I conclude that two polling agencies (Colmar-Brunton, Nielsen) show a statistically bias towards National in relation to Labour at the 95% level. TNS shows a statistically significant bias in the reverse direction i.e. towards Labour in relation to National. -- Trevva ( talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Could I please make a request to everyone/anyone who updates the actual poll data only to cite Curiablog as a source of last resort - its an intermediary source, and I think its more appropriate to cite the original source whenever its available. -- Trevva ( talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which would you all rather see? The current graph design, or the following -- Trevva ( talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
So, how did the model do in the end? Here's the comparative table from the raw result this evening (ie without specials):
Party | Modelled Value (%) | Confidence Interval | Party Vote |
---|---|---|---|
National | 46.4 | 2.5 | 45.45 |
Labour | 33.9 | 2.1 | 33.77 |
Greens | 8.7 | 1.2 | 6.43 |
NZ First | 3.4 | 1.0 | 4.21 |
Act NZ | 2.9 | 0.5 | 3.72 |
Maori Party | 2.6 | 0.6 | 2.24 |
So it looks like although it did a pretty good job with the major parties, the model overestimated the Greens and underestimated NZ First and ACT. -- Trevva ( talk) 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Opinion polling for the 2008 New Zealand general election received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Onya Kripto, some good work here. -- Lholden 22:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Kudos should be extended to all who have contributed to this page - we're getting cited in the blogosphere now too!! eg Dimpost, The Standard. Congratulations on a job well done. -- Trevva ( talk) 11:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the dates shown here supposed to be date released or date surveyed? Kelvinc 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pollcap.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Lot of work went into this page - good effort all you editors. The page could do with a graph of the averaged results for ease of interpretation an the background colour of the notable events could do with being a little more subtle. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk) - 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The effort that goes into both graphs is impressive. What I'd like to see in the article draws from the strength of both; the detailed results and smoothed average of Avenue's graph, but the simplification by showing only the parties which have gained 5% support at some point since the last election in Alan's graph, and showing the support percentages every 5%, since the 5% threshold is so important.- gadfium 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a graph for the preferred Prime Minister too?- gadfium 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I put in polling data for Morgan, Colmar-Brunton, Nielsen, and DigiPoll. Unfortunately, I was not able to find preferred PM information for the June Herald-DigiPoll on the Herald's site or elsewhere. Could someone please help? It may require looking at the print addition of the New Zealand Herald (it should be in the 28 June 2008 edition). - Rrius ( talk) 12:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've stripped 'redundant' % symbols as a soup of 1100+ %%%%%%%%%%%%% make reading data difficult and context is understood. Fanx ( talk) 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've remade the main graph by parsing the html table directly in R, and then plotting it from there. It's not as pretty as the original, but its there anyway. Hope you like it! -- Trevva ( talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the opinion poll graph. I've been meaning for some time to learn an appropriate statistical package so I could do so, but you've saved me the trouble. I haven't seen such a graph in any other source; this is something which makes Wikipedia a particularly valuable source for election data.- gadfium 05:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has any suggestions about what else they'd like to see in the graph, I'm open to them - just post them here. I haven't made a "Preferred Prime Minister" one yet, but its relatively straightforward if anyone has a burning desire... -- Trevva ( talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Rrius - you got a smile from me, anyway. I've just put up the Preferred Prime Minister graph - it turned out to be three edits, and voila! I'm a little rushed at the moment, so don't have the chance to tweak it fully. I removed the confidence intervals, because they were pretty large and obscured the view (and also aren't as relevant here). Comments, suggestions? -- Trevva ( talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a bit of exploratory data analysis seems to show that the poll results vary significantly between the polling companies. Mrfebruary ( talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I was able to improve the bias analysis quite a bit after some thought. Rather than just look at the distribution of values, I de-trended the data by calculating the biases for each company ie the difference between the value fitted by the smoother, and the actual estimate from the poll. I was then able to test for significant differences in the bias between Labour and National (being the main two parties of interest). I conclude that two polling agencies (Colmar-Brunton, Nielsen) show a statistically bias towards National in relation to Labour at the 95% level. TNS shows a statistically significant bias in the reverse direction i.e. towards Labour in relation to National. -- Trevva ( talk) 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Could I please make a request to everyone/anyone who updates the actual poll data only to cite Curiablog as a source of last resort - its an intermediary source, and I think its more appropriate to cite the original source whenever its available. -- Trevva ( talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Which would you all rather see? The current graph design, or the following -- Trevva ( talk) 19:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
So, how did the model do in the end? Here's the comparative table from the raw result this evening (ie without specials):
Party | Modelled Value (%) | Confidence Interval | Party Vote |
---|---|---|---|
National | 46.4 | 2.5 | 45.45 |
Labour | 33.9 | 2.1 | 33.77 |
Greens | 8.7 | 1.2 | 6.43 |
NZ First | 3.4 | 1.0 | 4.21 |
Act NZ | 2.9 | 0.5 | 3.72 |
Maori Party | 2.6 | 0.6 | 2.24 |
So it looks like although it did a pretty good job with the major parties, the model overestimated the Greens and underestimated NZ First and ACT. -- Trevva ( talk) 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)