Talk:Arizona Libertarian Party

Image copyright problem with Image:Libertarian Party.svg

The image Image:Libertarian Party.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Websites

In addition to the website listed, there is <http://www.lpaz.org/>. James thirteen (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

{{requested:edit}} The official name is the Arizona Libertarian Party. -> http://ecorp.azcc.gov/Details/Corp?corpId=%2008328991 -- Michael Kielsky :-) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Kielsky

@Kielsky: Do you have a reliable source to support that? —C.Fred (talk)

https://ecorp.azcc.gov/PublicBusinessSearch/PublicBusinessInfo?entityNumber=08328991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielsky (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Arizona Libertarian Party Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Arizona Libertarian Party Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arizona Libertarian Party/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The 2000s section needs cleanup. Beyond typos like dealth, you're failing to tell the story here. I think the sources show that there was a break between the Pima County (Tucson) group recognized by the national party and the splinter Maricopa County (Tempe) Gila River valley group, which somehow retained recognition by Arizona, which is easier that referring to "the party recognized" and "the party not recognized". It was the splinter group that then sought to end open primaries in Arizona so independents couldn't drive the LP platform in AZ. I would also revwrite the 2004 section as it's a run-on sentence. The party asserted that staff at ASU, who were employees of the State, should not have solicited donation for a primary excluding the LP candidate. You still have a run-on sentence: "Arizona continued its recognition of the rival faction when it gave the Libertarian presidential ballot access to author L. Neil Smith, who failed to win the national party's nomination, was supported by the rival group, which was upheld after a lawsuit filed by the national party and Harry Browne who would be forced to file as independents, but due to the short time frame were unable to appear on the ballot." That ought to be two or three sentences.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The names of current LP office holders should not be bold.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The AZ Central piece (cite 53) does not quote Judge Cindy Jorgenson, so your quotation is actually of Howard Fischer who wrote the piece, who was perhaps paraphrasing what the judge said. Please fix.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citation 29 archived link points to the wrong article; please fix.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I think you have an error of fact regarding Steiger's 1982 run. As I read the cited sources, the party gathered 5% of the vote statewide, but only fell short in Pima county, whereas your text claims they only met 5% in two counties, which you provide no citation to verify.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	COPYVIO detector says it's fine.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Based upon the reliable sources, this covers the major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	You can't say the article drifts from the subject.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I would worry that articles like this would be influenced by the party itself or partisans on their behalf. This articles sticks to what the sources say, so there's no issue of POV.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars or content disputes in evidence.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Both images are properly licensed.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	These are fine.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	I'll wait seven days for the required fixes to be made.

• @Chris troutman: Thank you for the quick review during this backlog drive. I have fixed all of the "Verifiable with no original research" problems and will get to the "Well written" problem sometime within the week. Jon698 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: Hey I got some time to fix the article today due to a class being cancelled. I think I have fixed the problems you had so could you review the changes I made and see if the article meets the criteria to become a GA?

• @Jon698: You have one run-on sentence to fix and we're good. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Chris troutman: Thank you for the great review. I have fixed the runoff sentence by turning it into two sentences. Jon698 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)