Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:17, 24 January 2008.

Ron Paul

previous FAC

Check external links

I'm nominating this article because this article has been subsequently expanded since its previous nomination. Also, the article has many references and sources, and it meets all other FA criteria. - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a (fact) tag in "Newsletter controversy". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There's also one in the "Political positions" section. Given the fact that this page is semi protected as of now tells me that it is a tad bit on the unstable side in terms of edits and vandalism. Finally, given the state of US politics of current and presidential primaries, I believe this nomination should be suspended until after a candidate for the republicans is selected. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Semi protection of page, fact tags.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given the current major disagreement regarding the newsletter controversy. The article is nowhere near stable. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not think it is the appropriate time to try for a FAC. The article is currently unstable and there are plenty of formatting problems. There are obvious issues of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT that need to be urgently addressed per WP:BLP. It needs more time. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too soon: he's an active politician involved in a current election, so information on him is going to be changing frequently. Wait at least a year before re-nominating for things to settle down. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Though I generally don't object for this, this article fails (and will continue to fail) 1e until the election is over. Semi-protection of the page is one sign of such turmoil. Additionally, fact tags need substantiation. I highly recommend the semi-automated peer review for this article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unstable and choppy one-sentence paragraphs. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. ref with a red error msg, a current event tag,....hmmm wait til the election is over and it's stable. Meanwhile fix all the issues mentioned. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the red error reference Tvoz |talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - interesting read - but seems "political" in nature instead of "scholarly".--Kiyarrllston 02:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unstable - not because of sprot against IP vandalism (which shouldn't preclude FA status), but because of POV battles. Tvoz |talk 04:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose - Article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:GA criteria. It appears to support only POV of Ron Paul. Surely there is some citable material that expresses contrary views to his. There are unsupported statements, like "Paul sponsors many more bills than the average representative." The article appears to be an extension of his political campaign information.--User:HopsonRoad 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose - This article is much too supportive of Ron Paul. Many of the criticisms that he has received are not mentioned at all, even where they would perfectly fit in the context. Some time ago, when this article was still fully protected, I concluded that a lot of work would have to be done in order to bring back some kind of balance. I proposed removing its A-status, too, since I felt that the article simply did not live up to the expectations that one would have of such a rating. Needless to say, it also should not be a featured article, especially since it isn't stable. —msikma (user, talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article to one-sided to Ron Paul. The page is unstable, and is too vulnerable to vandalism and rapid changes. Geosultan4 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: As much as I'd like to support this article, if Paul were to win the 2008 election, a lot of information is likely to be added during his first term alone. Let's save this one either for if he loses, or after he's out of office. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.