Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Paul/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [1].

Ron Paul

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:manchurian candidate
previous FAC (24 January 2008)

need to get this article FA class.As the elections are over i see no bias.The reason why i call for FA class is that the congressman is totally different than the rest of the senators,congressman.His credentials are undebatable bizarrely clean for a politician but the most important reason why i nominate this article as FA class is his economic warning which are coming true.this article is also very well written and has lots of citations and is factually correct. manchurian candidate 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:The article is well-written with an exceptionally well-done layout. It is also extremely well reasearched and and supported by vast and credible sources. Well deserving of FA class.--JayJasper (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is definably FA material. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nominator meant to nominate this to be a feature article candidate or to start a peer review. Ron Paul is currently not a FA. There have been two FACs (1, 2) but the article did not pass either time. Eóin (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from FAR to FAC. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The section on the 2008 presidential campaign is too long, especially considering that there is a daughter article giving details. This section should be reduced in length, updated, and copy-edited for verb tense.
  • Please check for dead links (by clicking on "external links" in the box above) and either cull or correct them. DrKiernan (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not sure how serious this is – the nom has made few if any edits to the article. But the 2008 presidential campaign section has a maintenance flag on it, and deservedly so. It still contains language that was written during the campaign, such as "Though projections of 2008 Republican delegate counts have varied widely" – we don't need projections anymore, we know what happened! Or "The congressman had reportedly invited presidential candidates ... to the press conference, leading some to speculate ..." We don't need to speculate, again just describe what happened. On a larger level, the entire article still carries the pro-Paul skewing that it's had since day one. Just look at the lead: "While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in some Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in the actual primaries." This formulation dates back to 2007, when Paul supporters were convinced there was much more support for him than polls were showing. Well, we know what happened now. We know how many votes he got in each of the primaries and caucuses. And when you're running for president, that's what counts. Straw polls are unscientific and irrelevant, certainly for the lead; and the absence of polling of cellphone-only voters (another obsession of Paul supporters) didn't make a big difference either, and thus also doesn't belong in the lead. Per this source, during the course of the primary season, Paul got 1,210,022 votes for 5.7% of the Republican popular vote total. That's what the article needs to state. Also how many delegates he won, and what percentage it was of that total. The article needs to make clear that Paul was never in the top tier of Republican candidates and never a serious contender for the nomination, although he did end up getting more votes than one-time top-tier candidates Thompson and Giuliani, both of whom performed badly in the primaries. The article needs to include the total amount of money that he raised for his campaign, which was large; if that figure is in here, I can't see it for all the minor details. I read at the time that for all the money that was raised, some of his supporters were disappointed that the electoral results weren't better, especially in libertarian-sympathetic states like New Hampshire; that perspective needs to be included in this article. There are other parts of the article that are too slanted towards Paul as well, but the 2008 presidential campaign material is the worst offender. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. I reiterate Wasted Time R's comments above. I am also concerned at the level of sourcing in this article.

  • Nothing should be sourced to Youtube.
  • There are several dead links in the references
  • Not all of the references are formatted consistently
  • I'm concerned that much of the description of his policy positions are taken from primary sources (the Congressional Record, Paul's websites). There are sure to be discussed in independent, reliable sources (like newspapers/magazines), which are preferable to primary sources (at the very least try The Facts (www.thefacts.com), the Lake Jackson paper)
  • What makes http://voteview.com/default.htm a reliable source?
  • What makes Ballot Access News a reliable source?
  • This source is a blog http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html; blogs are generally not reliable sources
  • What makes http://www.lewrockwell.com/ a reliable source?
  • About.com is not a reliable source
  • What makes http://www.wargs.com/political/paul.html a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with Reitwiesner (wargs.com) because he published the book on the American ancestors of Diana, Princess of Wales [2]. I think he's an acceptable source for genealogical information, such as here. DrKiernan (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the dead links and consistency of the refs. Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff, so it seems as if he would be a pretty reliable source. I'm not sure about the other ones, I can work on them over the course of the next few days. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About.com removed. "Vote view" is operated by a Professor of Political Science: http://voteview.com/bio.htm DrKiernan (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Wasted Time R and Karanacs. My earlier remarks in favor of the nomination are now withdrawn. The above comments have convinced me there is considerable work to be done before the article can be given serious consideration of FA Status.--JayJasper (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

It is User:Allison Stillwell. DrKiernan (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Allison Stillwells Flickr account and found the photo. It looks as if she is the author of the photo. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we accept that license - it has a "no-derivative works" clause. Did she upload it to wiki with the PD release? Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an account named "Allison Stillwell" uploaded it to Wikipedia and selected {{PD-self}}, so yes. --Carnildo (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ron_Paul/archive3&oldid=1078805766"