Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive1


 * 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 User:GrahamColm 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012

 * Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This article chronicles a failed presidential campaign of a colorful Congressman, which ends with the Congressman writing a TV pilot to "get over" the failure, and then having to resign his Congressional seat amid a fraud investigation. I created the article two years ago, and have worked on it since. It was promoted to GA status last year. I believe it meets the FA requirements.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:McCotter_logo.gif: who holds copyright to this image? Also, tweak on FUR: the image identifies the organization in the infobox, it doesn't "identify the organization Infobox". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume the McCotter campaign owns the copyright if one exists, but it's probably too unoriginal to even be copyrighted. I'll let someone with a better knowledge of copyright to make that determination.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I inquired at WP:NFR, and it seems the logo is too unoriginal to be copyrighted. I have changed the summary and license on image page accordingly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * "first received presidential speculation in April 2011 on Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld"—is this ok, receiving speculation?
 * Rephrased as "was first speculated as a potential presidential candidate on an April 2011 episode of Fox News' Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld." --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "and used the slogan Seize Freedom!, which derived from the title of his 2011 book"—I'd be happpier with "which was derived from" or ", derived from".
 * Applied the second phrasing removing the unnecessary "which".--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled with the en.WN links—and three of them? Why are the privileged over the ref list? Why can't we link to a reliable source, like the ones that the WN articles emblazoned are based on. WN itself isn't a reliable source. Rather than the boxes, it would be less visually disruptive to link to WN in the See also section. The first source link in the first WN link (Detroit News) appears to be dead. Tony   (talk)  09:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to the external links section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- I'm sorry this hasn't attracted more attention, and after remaining open alsmost six weeks I can't see it generating consensus to promote any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.