Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive2


 * 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 Karanacs 03:23, 18 July 2010.

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

 * Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is ready. I addressed all the concerns of the previous FAC, and I feel it now meets all FA requirements. It has received a peer review and an extensive copy edit, both of which were requested at the previous FAC. William S. Saturn (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Why do you believe that File:Barr_logo.jpg crosses the threshold of originality? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment— a dab link to Election Day; no dead external links. Ucucha 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dab fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. The file is a non-free logo used for identification, as is customary in all campaign articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you asserting that it is non-free? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point Fasach Nua I think is making is that the logo is so simple that it may not cross the threshold of originality, and that it therefore may be public domain. Ucucha 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But wouldn't it be best to error on the side of caution? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would this usage be compliant with wp:nfcc, is there a free alternative? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the only logo of the campaign, there is no free alternative.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it replaceable with itself licensed as un-copyrightable?
 * Is it replaceable with this?
 * Is it replaceable with the text "Barr '08 Liberty for America"?
 * If the answer to any of those questions in yes then the image fails wp:nfcc and wp:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to all those questions is no.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, fails nfcc contextual significance, thus FAILS WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with you, thus PASSES WP:FA Criteria 3. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues
 * All print media sources should be italicised, e.g. The New York Times etc
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to give additional publisher information for well-known publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker etc
 * Non-print sources, e.g. "CBS News" should not be italicised.
 * The problem here is that the wikipedia format italicizes it automatically. Is there a way to circumvent this formatting? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better question: Is it necessary to put the "work" when the Associated Press is the publisher? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's these accursed templates again. What I do, with organisations such as CBS, is to put them in the publisher field and ignore work field. It is CBS, not its parent, that gives the citation authority. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Be sure to give the correct name of each newspaper or journal. For example, in ref 4, the newspaper is The Washington Post (not "Washington Post").
 * Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 38: What makes http://www.indytruth.org/pblog/index.php?entry=entry080611-005348 a reliable source?
 * I do not know. Perhaps I was thrown off by the ".org". However, its lists appear valid, and the commentary is attributed to it in the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Online sources are reliable when they are posted by established organisations or recognised experts in their field, or when they have backing or approval from such organisations. I don't think that applies in this case. It might be thought that your use of this material lends undue weight to what looks like a highly partisan blog. On a similar point, I seem to have missed this (ref. 53), which is a screaming rant. You use it to cite Jim Steinman's supposed endorsement of Barr. What the blog actually says, amid the frantic cursing, is: "I'm still voting for Bob Barr, though I hope with every breath that Obama wins." Is that an endorsement? More to the point, should an encyclopedia use such sources in support of its content? Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources and associated content have been removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't 47 and 50 be formatted in the same way?


 * Yes. This has been done. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Likewise 12, 37, 57 and 75 and other Reason.com citations.
 * Done. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are also variations in the numerous Atlanta Journal-Costitution citation formats, which need to be standardised.
 * Done. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Later): All sourcs concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: If nobody is going to add anything productive, I will withdraw to nominate another article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.