Talk:Arizona Green Party

message: Given the propensity for discussions of politics to be cloaked in biased language, I was impressed that the majority of this article's language was unbiased, except for the part of the lead section concerning immigrant deaths(which also needs sourcing), which could easily be changed. The primary results are unofficial though and the percentages in the table do not add to 100, the results could use some clarifying. The results for earlier primaries are not present and I'm sure there is more information that can be added about the structure of the party locally and it's relation to Arizona Politics. Additionally, the ballot access section is somewhat confusing in its language, perhaps a table of ballot access would be helpful, but either way the language needs refining. The largest problem that I see with this article is a lack of adequate sourcing, which may be due to its unclear citation style. Diego Huerta (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: The article does a good job of providing neutral coverage on the subject except for in certain cases where it suffers from a lack of citations. The campaigns section in particular contains no clear sourcing at all which is an area for improvement, and could provide more details. The percentage for Jill Stein in the primary don't match that of the table. Pj2.71828 (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: There is immense opportunity for growth in this article. Potential additions include: information on the current status of the party, which areas of Arizona participate the most in Green party politics, state primary elections in years past, and more information on running platforms. Also noted that the percentages in the March 22, 2016 Primary table add up to 102% and thus require editing/more accurate sourcing. The Ballot access section contains a lot of numbers that might confuse the reader without more efficient organization. Overall I think that there is a consistency to grammar and unbiased opinion. I think the main desire here is just for more content and proper sourcing. Chris Hatley (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I believe that the tone of this article could be made more neutral. This is especially notable in the second and third paragraphs of the introduction. In addition, calling the people in the photo in the lower right of the page "activists" has a positive tone - perhaps label them as "members" of the Green Party? The tone of the rest of this article seems to be neutral. In addition, 7 out of 11 references come from the same site (ballot-access.org). I would recommend finding more diverse sources. Overall, good work! Eric112358 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I think this topic is really interesting! I do believe that this article is neutral for the most part, but in some cases has an obvious appreciation for the Green Party which comes across. There should be more citations, and a larger number of references used in order to validate the information presented and be considered a reliable article. The lead section was quite informative but could include a little more information. I would suggest maybe expanding upon the "Campaigns" section and making it a little more organized instead of just listing prominent Green Party leaders. I would also suggest adding history to the title of the ballot access section heading. This is a really good start, but I think this article can be expanded upon and have a little more organized structure. Sakthikumar arizona (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The formulation of this topic as a Wikipedia Article is a well-needed one. However, I agree with other users that the point of view of the article sides a little too closely with a pro-Green Party standpoint than a more neutral one, which is what all wikipedia articles should ideally strive for. Additionally, since a lot of the Green Party debate relates to the recent election cycle, one recommendation would be to include recent campaign battles and ideas more than simply statistics and facts in the "Campaigns" section of the article.
Jayatisharma (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: This article does a good job of remaining impartial. It does sound encyclopedic in nature, and presents the history of the party. If you were to add anything, I think maybe some more specifics on party platforms might enhance the article further. There are also some tense issues in the "Ballot Access" section which should be fixed. Otherwise, great job! Smahmic (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: There should definitely be more information on how the more recent elections contributed to the overall success or failure of the party in Arizona.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbesinaiz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Reading through the article, it does obtain information about the party and its affiliates. It provides a summary of the party's accomplishments and an overall description of what it does. The article does need more citation and some additions to the descriptions to have the readers be more informed on the sections provided.  There is not much to add to the article since information is very limited, however, like the rest of my peers have mentioned, we can add more information to the campaign section. Melissamg96 (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: The article is starting to look very good. I quickly got an idea about what the green party is and what it has done so the article is fulfilling its purpose well. I especially like the two tables that are used. The tables are a clear way of showing data. I would like to do something similar in my article. Rafaorozco (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review