Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hello. I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due mainly to the presence of a major cleanup banner and multiple citation needed tags, some of which have been in place since 2007.

There are other issues with the article, including:


 * In the Campaign development section, it is probably unnecessary to have the first three sections split into quarters. All of 2007 could probably be combined into one heading, with short paragraphs combined or expanded.
 * There are a lot of short paragraphs throughout the entire article. Many of these should be combined with other paragraphs or expanded.
 * Web references need to be formatted with a title, publisher and access date at the very least. They should definitely not be left as just bare links.
 * See this tool that shows you all of the links that have problems in the article. I counted 34 links that are completely dead, and at least that many that have been moved or are possibly dead.

This is not an exhaustive list, as I have not reviewed prose, images, NPOV or whether claims are sourced to reliable references. I would suggest that the nominator spend some time working on the article (as they have not made a single edit that I can find, either to the article itself or to the talk page), contact the editors that have been active in the past to see if they are still active and willing to collaborate, and renominate this article in the future after some significant work has been completed, especially with regard to references and sourcing. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)