Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it could one day be a featured article. The article is GA, and during the review, a user left a comment stating that it is close to being an FA: Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. I nominated it for FA earlier in the year and it failed. They asked that I open a peer review. I would like to know how I can improve the article so that it can be an FA.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note, these comments were placed on Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive1 - that page was histmerged into this one.  Chzz  ►  14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have twice read this article and find it to be well developed. I think the current rating of GA is accurate in that the article seems to lack adequate closure. In that I mean, although it is an article highlighting the candidate, his efforts, and the results of the 2008 campaign, such a article begs to know the post-election plans of this candidate. Does he still support the Libertarian party? Is he still active in politics and if so in what manner? Does the candidate intend to aspire to this same office in the future? Where there any "lessons learned" where the campaign may have failed, as well as aspirations to correct any shortcomings and put forth renewed efforts. If a reader could leave this article with a sense to these and perhaps others, I believe it would make a fine FA.My76Strat (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Libertarian presidential nomination - Images should not be left-aligned at the top of sectons.
• Full-time escalation and Libertarian presidential nomination - Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images. (GA criteria)
• e.g. File:BobBarrBallotAccess.svg|thumb|250px Image size should not be forced without a good reason. (MOS)
• Reference formatting needs to be consistent. Some have access dates in the form "Retrieved 4 January 2010", some are "Retrieved 2008-07-23". Others (with URLs) lack a 'retrieved date' completley.
• receipts = .859 - I think should be 0.859? Check MOS
• Early stages, quotation, "dissatisfaction with the candidates for the two major parties", "advocat[ing] libertarian and true conservative principles.", "looking very seriously at", "condign punishment" - direct quotations must have a reference directly following the quote - even mid-sentence. There are other cases needing this throughout the article.
• Please add appropriate ALT text to the images
• "Barr's candidacy soon came under fire from Libertarians" (lede) - a bit colloquial
• Ballot access, according to the Libertarian Party website - this is an external link, which is not permitted in body text
• last nav template, I can't see a purpose in the 'books' line as the only entry is redlinked The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.
• Ref. 16 "Barr Set to Make Debate Push" is a dead link
• Ref. 24 "Statement of Bob Barr After Vice President Al Gore's 'We' Campaign" is a dead link
• Ref. 30 "We Agree" ditto
• Ref. 15 " Barr Welcomes Election Contest With Barack Obama and John McCain - Urges Weekly Debates" ditto
• Ref. 6 " Bob Barr to announce presidential plans" ditto
• Refs 48,49 and 51 the domain "blog.bobbarr2008.com" does not seem to exist
• Ref. 52 "Jay Endorses Presidential Candidate Bob Barr" is a soft 404
• Ref. 43 "Barr can stay on Pa. ballot, judge rules" fails to connect to a page that verifies
• External link "Bob Barr, 'Why I Want to be President'" fails
• In 'Final stages', "The current Texas Secretary of State Esperanza Andrade reported" - try to avoid saying 'current'; as it will become outdated.

Best of luck with developing the article.  Chzz  ►  14:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article has developed well since its archived FAC. I note that my more significant concerns (inadequate lead, image clutter and lack of information on Barr) have all been addressed. There are, however, prose issues, including a number in the lead:-

• "Barr's candidacy was criticized by Libertarians who opposed his efforts in Congress, including a vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act..." The use of "including" is wrong. They "opposed his efforts in Congress, which included..."
• "Opponent for the nomination sounds odd" I think "contender" is a better word.
• "an alternate for conservatives..." is an awkward mouthful. "A conservative alternative to..." would be a little better.
• "However, the campaign never took off in election polls, usually placing in third or fourth when included." This is poor wording. I take it the intended meaning is: "However, the campaign never took off, polls usually placing him in third or fourth place when his name was included."
• "Failed to meet the minimum standards" is uninformative, and "standards" is the wrong word. I assume this refers to the 15% threshhold of poll support - should be clarified.
• The sentence beginning "Although the candidate campaigned..." is too long and comvoluted, and should be split.
• The sentence which follows it should not begin with "but"
• The final brief paragraph needs a full stop after "44 states", and the last word should be "total" rather than a repeat of "votes"

This suggests to me that the whole text needs a copyedit, which I don't have time to do at the moment. Maybe someone with good prose skills will oblige? Another area that slightly concerned me was the list of endorsements. Is it really worth listing other members of the Libertarian Party who endorsed Barr? Also, some might wonder if the list is representative of Barr's endorsements, or what the reason is for including these particular people (presumably Barr got other endorsements)?. This is a pretty minor matter; on the whole the article looks very comprehensive, and I am sure that some prose polishing, and attention to matters raised by other reviewers here, will see it safely home. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine the polling section with the main campaign body text.  Done
• Create a small box for the "Endorsements" section in the "Final stages" section.  Done
• Change "Results" into a level two header and move "Ballot Access" in front of it.  Done
• Make sure reference dates and format are consistent. Done
• Request a copy edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Done

--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on an earlier request, I read this article at the end of last week and wrote down some comments, then ran into other activities and a time crunch at work. Anyway, here are my comments, if any of them have already been incorporated in the article, please ignore.

• The article needs to focus on what would seem to be a disappointing result for the campaign. The LP presidential candidates have been locked into a fairly narrow range of getting around 200-600,000 votes nationally for a number of elections. Yet Ron Paul got 1.2 million votes in just the Republican primaries alone earlier in 2008, and the Tea Party movement started up very soon after 2008. (Rand Paul's win last night is another indicator.) Bracketed by those trends, Barr's result seems pretty disappointing.
• Thus, more attention needs to be given to a comparison with Paul. Why did Barr fail to ride the Ron Paul 'Revolution'?
• This article never really mentions Barr's fundraising efforts. Usually, presidential campaign articles have a whole section on this, with FEC reports being one of the sources. This is especially pertinent given Ron Paul's very successful fundraising.
• This article also doesn't mention advertising much. Did Barr run any TV ads? Print? What? Of course, this is a function of fundraising.
• The article gives several poll results during the campaign that give Barr unexpectedly high numbers, like 7% or 6% nationally or close to 10% in some states. Yet in the end he only got half of one percent. What happened here? Did support for him crater? Or were the poll results bogus in the first place? (Or cherry-picked by previous editors at the time??) The only factor the article gives is Palin's appearance on the scene, but I find it hard to believe that that would account for this kind of drop.
• More analysis is needed as to why Barr got the LP nomination in the first place. Given his somewhat inauthentic past, what did LP delegates see in him? Were they merely after someone with some national name recognition, due to his having been a somewhat controversial congressman?
• And what do LP members think of Barr now? Were they sorry that they nominated him, given the lackluster results in the general election?

Anyway, those are the areas that I think the article needs to better focus on. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more information about fundraising and advertising, but let me try to answer some of these questions. Firstly, Barr's nomination was highly contested, but he was supported by Libertarians who felt he truly regretted his past votes evident by his endorsement of Badnarik in 2004, his work with the ACLU, and his membership in the party since 2006. Mike Gravel as a former Senator might have had more name recognition than Barr, but he was rejected by the party because he joined just before he decided to run for the party's nomination. Paul refused to give his endorsement to Barr alone since Chuck Baldwin was an early Paul supporter. This angered Barr who refused to show up at Ron Paul's press conference, guaranteeing that Paul would not support Barr. This significantly hurt Barr's campaign, along with the exposure of Libertarian-leaning (individualist) Sarah Palin. This may explain the drop in the polls.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your whole explanation is what you should stress more in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]