Talk:Chuck Baldwin 2008 presidential campaign/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This is a generally excellent article, but it has a few issues which I'd like cleared up before passing it.

Firstly, there's a couple of things here which I'm not quite clear about:

• "Baldwin announced that he would use the Internet as Ron Paul "to circumvent the media," which he deemed responsible for holding back the possible prospects of third party candidates." - Is there a typo here? This doesn't quite make sense.
• "On June 6, the media reported that internal conflict had erupted inside the campaign stemming from a comment made by campaign manager Anita Andrews that the campaign was uniquely Baldwin's and not Ron Paul's. It was later revealed that only one campaign member was disgruntled, Ron Paul grassroots organizer Tyler Simms. Sources from within the campaign stated that Andrews had commented that the campaign needed to focus on former Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson supporters along with Paul supporters. [14] This came as sources from inside the campaign revealed that the anonymous "Ron Paul billionaire" had joined the campaign and was willing to give $2 to $3 million. The existence of a "Ron Paul billionaire" was questioned." - This sounds very interesting, but to an outsider it's really not very clear what's happening here - this paragraph really needs a rewrite.

Secondly, I'm a little bit concerned about some of the sourcing here. There's a number of links to a Blogspot blog, and a number of other sources that seem somewhat fringeish. I realise this is somewhat unavoidable considering the nature of the subject, but it's stretching into problematic territory. Rebecca (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I clarified the two paragraphs above. As for the sourcing, the only reference to blogspot is [1], however, I have found this particular page to be reliable for its interviews with multiple candidates (some by radio), none of which have been contested by the candidates. In fact, the generally well-written article on Jerome Corsi, includes a reference to the site. Since it is in his own words, the blog should be acceptable as a reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Passing it now. Rebecca (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the review. Thank you very much. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)