This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Splitting part of wasted vote article into this standalone article[edit]
Material from Wasted vote was split to Efficiency gap on 17:58, 24 May 2022 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Wasted vote.
@OveGjerlow, I added a number of templates around original research and made some NPOV rephrasing to try and outline some of the reasons why this section was summarized and removed recently. I noticed you seem new to Wikipedia and want to offer to walk you through and discuss any of the suggestions so that you have a chance to fix what you've worked on so far.
1) NPOV ('Shortcomings' may not be the best way to describe this, unless it's clear that the perspective appears to be universal. Otherwise 'critiques' attributed to specific people may be more appropriate)
2) Clear OR when linking to a Google Spreadsheet instead of a reliable secondary source (will note that the user suggested further citations were forthcoming in their edit)
3) Redundancies with other parts of the article (Mira Bernstein's assessment is already summarized)
Superb Owl (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
