Talk:Pacific Green Party

Notability?
Why is a state chapter of a national organization sufficiently notable to have a separate Wiki article? Especially as the bulk of the article is just a cut and paste of material from the article about the national party. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Pacific Green Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927201136/http://ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/060036.html to http://ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/060036.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928115846/http://www.greenscc.org/FrameWhoWeAre.htm to http://www.greenscc.org/FrameWhoWeAre.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120109100425/http://www.gp.org:80/elections/officeholders/index.php to http://www.gp.org/elections/officeholders/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

More issues besides citations
There are more issues with this article besides the general lack of citations. "In 2020 the Lane County chapter of the PGP contended with the PGP Statewide Coordinating Committee, energized by the strength of Lane’s appeal to constituencies on the libertarian and right sides, as well as the left, evidenced by large numbers of signatures collected to support Lane affiliated candidates for Federal office, which horizontally challenged the SCC that was deemphasizing anti-imperialism while credulous on Russia-gate, even as party registration had declined by approximately 20% relative to 2016." My list of articles to work on is getting long, but this will be on it. Dgndenver (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This paragraph is one very long and barely coherent sentence:
 * Besides that, the use of the word "credulous" is strange; it makes me wonder if the author knew the definition of the word. If the editor did understand it, such a claim needs extra support. Otherwise, I'd suspect an NPOV problem.
 * The lists need updating.
 * There are large gaps in the history, and filling them in some would improve the article.