I was typing the response when you visited the talk page.  It is the nature of Wikipedia to make a choose between users and so my comments were eliminated.  What I basically stated is that the material probably should NOT be in the article, the reasoning against her nomination needs to presented in a balanced NPOV manner.  Having its own section with each point starred is not NPOV.  Also, there must an attempt to provide the reasons FOR her nomination also, that was not present.  Also, the comments were conclusionary, they did not provide the reasoning.  For example, the LA Times quote stated that she is bad.  Whoa!  That's an elementary school argument.  There was no explanation on WHY JRB is so "bad."  that is NOT a NPOV presentation.  So go ahead provide the arguments and thinking against JRB, but provide the arguments and thinking FOR JRB also.  And conclusionary statments just don't cut it.  Your contracts professor wants to hear 'why' the contract is void, he/she does not just want to hear you say the contract is void. Best,