# Talk:Arizona Libertarian Party

The image Image:Libertarian Party.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the website listed, there is <http://www.lpaz.org/>. James thirteen (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
{{requested:edit}}
The official name is the Arizona Libertarian Party. -> http://ecorp.azcc.gov/Details/Corp?corpId=%2008328991
-- Michael Kielsky :-) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Kielsky

@Kielsky: Do you have a reliable source to support that? —C.Fred (talk)
https://ecorp.azcc.gov/PublicBusinessSearch/PublicBusinessInfo?entityNumber=08328991  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielsky (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC) 

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Arizona Libertarian Party Logo.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Arizona Libertarian Party Logo.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arizona Libertarian Party/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:


#### Result
@Chris troutman: Thank you for the quick review during this backlog drive. I have fixed all of the "Verifiable with no original research" problems and will get to the "Well written" problem sometime within the week. Jon698 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Hey I got some time to fix the article today due to a class being cancelled. I think I have fixed the problems you had so could you review the changes I made and see if the article meets the criteria to become a GA?
@Jon698: You have one run-on sentence to fix and we're good. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Thank you for the great review. I have fixed the runoff sentence by turning it into two sentences. Jon698 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


#### Discussion