(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
The 2000s section needs cleanup. Beyond typos like dealth, you're failing to tell the story here. I think the sources show that there was a break between the Pima County (Tucson) group recognized by the national party and the splinter Maricopa County (Tempe) Gila River valley group, which somehow retained recognition by Arizona, which is easier that referring to "the party recognized" and "the party not recognized". It was the splinter group that then sought to end open primaries in Arizona so independents couldn't drive the LP platform in AZ. I would also revwrite the 2004 section as it's a run-on sentence. The party asserted that staff at ASU, who were employees of the State, should not have solicited donation for a primary excluding the LP candidate. You still have a run-on sentence: "Arizona continued its recognition of the rival faction when it gave the Libertarian presidential ballot access to author L. Neil Smith, who failed to win the national party's nomination, was supported by the rival group, which was upheld after a lawsuit filed by the national party and Harry Browne who would be forced to file as independents, but due to the short time frame were unable to appear on the ballot." That ought to be two or three sentences.
Pass
(b) (MoS)
The names of current LP office holders should not be bold.
The AZ Central piece (cite 53) does not quote Judge Cindy Jorgenson, so your quotation is actually of Howard Fischer who wrote the piece, who was perhaps paraphrasing what the judge said. Please fix.
I think you have an error of fact regarding Steiger's 1982 run. As I read the cited sources, the party gathered 5% of the vote statewide, but only fell short in Pima county, whereas your text claims they only met 5% in two counties, which you provide no citation to verify.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
COPYVIO detector says it's fine.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
Based upon the reliable sources, this covers the major aspects.
Pass
(b) (focused)
You can't say the article drifts from the subject.
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
I would worry that articles like this would be influenced by the party itself or partisans on their behalf. This articles sticks to what the sources say, so there's no issue of POV.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
No edit wars or content disputes in evidence.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
I'll wait seven days for the required fixes to be made.
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass