Talk:Atlantica Party

Article

"A party that purports to discard the old ideological silos of blue, red, orange and green in favour of a multi-hued grassland where every citizen votes his or her own conscience without fear of marginalization, party politics or government manipulation."

This is somewhat metaphorical and not neutral language. If it's a quote from some party document, it should be attributed to wherever this language came from.

The rest seems fine, and it certainly does cite an authoritative source, that being the party itself. So what is the source issue? Yes, a neutral journalists' opinion of where the Atlantica Party's platform differed from that of most other Atlantic Canadian parties would be useful. But, if there's no controversy raised with the current list, having what's there is better than nothing. Presumably in an election, any opponents of the party could and should point out any other attributes of the party's platform that it considers suspect or undesirable, so if this isn't attracting controversy, it's probably accurate.

Just slipping by on the assessment. Looks better than the comment page suggests, though not really a ton of info. Probably could pull off the reliable sources infobox assuming it checks out. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildas, you anonymous people you...) - Wmcduff (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)