Talk:On the campaign trail, July 2012

Summary
Paragraph 1: Paragraph 2: Paragraph 3: Paragraph 4:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Polling rules restrict and fuel third party campaigns
Paragraph 1: Paragraph 2: Paragraph 3: Paragraph 4: Paragraph 5: Paragraph 6:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Scoop: "Correspondence with Alyssa Brown"
 * 
 * 
 * Scoop: "Correspondence with John Zogby"
 * 
 * 
 * Scoop: "Correspondence with Russ Verney"
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Ballot access denied in Illinois
Paragraph 1: Paragraph 2: Paragraph 3: Paragraph 4: Paragraph 5: Paragraph 6: Paragraph 7:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Scoop - "Correspondence with Virgil Goode"
 * Scoop - "Correspondence with Rocky Anderson"
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - Comment #1 by Richard Winger
 * Scoop - "Correspondence with Rocky Anderson"
 * 
 * 

Wikinews interviews newly-selected Justice Party VP nominee

 * 
 * 
 * Scoop - "Correspondence with Luis Rodriguez"

Progress report
So far, I've verified two out of four sections (summary and third-party, leaving Illinois and interview). I'd like to note that information that's hard to find takes up a hugely disproportionate amount of the time. One fact in the article that isn't in the cited sources for that paragraph (since there are usually too many sources to check the ones not specifically associated with a paragraph) can balloon the time for that paragraph by a half hour or more. An especially time-consuming case was the last sentence of the third-party section, because I was baffled by how, or if at all, the two sources (both OpenSecrets) could justify the claim that Johnson was raising more money than Barr. It wouldn't have taken nearly as long if I'd been able to make enough sense of the data to be sure the information wasn't there. Eventually I came up with a half-baked explanation for how it might conceivably be construed from the data shown, but I'm not sure I did it right, I'm not even 100% convinced it's true he's raising more, and it's still bothering me a lot. --Pi zero (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Verified third section. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the Summary, this verifies the Romney outsourcing explanation. For some reason, I thought the story I had linked verified this, but on second look, I now see that it did not. On the polling section, it is hard to make the comparison using the data I supplied since it shows the campaigns at two very different times, so it really needed a more definitive source and I am glad you removed it and retained the bit about federal funding. Also on the polling section, you removed the poorly-worded statement "Perhaps another kind of poll will assist that goal." I think something is needed there for a transition, so how about: "Another kind of poll may assist that goal." ?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of President Obama in hospital
The picture showing the United States President visiting a victim of the should be removed because it was a dedicated visit similar to his visits to  and  after their disasters, and this had nothing to do with the election campaign. The inclusion of the picture implies wrongly that the visit was only a campaign photo opportunity. O&#39;Dea (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, for several reasons. The main would be that it would be a breach of WN:ARCHIVE; if I agreed with you, at best, I could issue a correction. But it happens I don't agree with you anyway, as the article clarly mentions the shooting's relevance to campaigning, and paints a much different picture than the one you claim it does: it describes not a cessation of campaign rhetoric. "Following the July 20 Aurora shooting, both Obama and Romney suspended campaign rhetoric out of respect to the victims." Accordingly, the relevance is clear. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)