Talk:Charlie Baker/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I don't know why, but I seem to have a knack for doing GA reviews of relatively liberal Republicans (examples: Mark Hatfield, Charles Mathias, Ellen Roberts, Charlie Crist). Let's see how this one looks.

Update: Generally, it looks good. I've identified a few issues below that I think should be addressed, but it shouldn't be much work to get this to the GA level. For now I'm placing it on hold. Steve Smith (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?
It's in reasonably good shape. Some things I'd suggest improving:
 * Pet peeve of mine: overuse of the subject's name. For example, the eight sentence "Early career" section uses Baker's name eight times, and average of once per sentence.  Don't be afraid of pronouns! Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead could use another sentence or two: currently, it doesn't summarize the material in the "Return to politics" section at all. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "He served under two Massachusetts governors..." It might be worth noting that he served as a cabinet official. Otherwise, the phrase could mean so many things that it's near-useless. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baker became Secretary of Health and Human Services under Massachusetts Governor William Weld..." Maybe it's just me, but I'd suggest moving "Massachussetts" seven words to the left. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...later serving as Secretary of Administration and Finance..." I'd suggest changing to "...and later served as..."; the way it's worded now makes it look like an afterthought to his stint as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and shortly after was transferred to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care..." "Transferred" seems like an odd verb choice, and suggests that there was somebody with authority over both organizations who moved him from one to the other. The article's vague on the relationship between the two organizations, but wouldn't something like "hired as" be preferable? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...hired Baker as undersecretary of the state Health and Human Services department." Is it necessary to specify "state"?  The governor would hardly be appointing an undersecretary to the federal department, would he? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...secretary of Administration and Finance." I'm iffy on the capitalization (or lack thereof) of "secretary" here. Can you rationalize it for me? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...Cellucci offered Baker the position of lieutenant governor when the former ran for election in mid-1998." A couple of things here: first, I understand why you use "the former", but I'm not sure it's necessary.  If you replaced it with "he", it would be more concise, and I can't imagine anybody seriously thinking that "he" would refer to Baker.  Your call, though.  Second, to be technical, didn't Celucci offer him the lieutenant governor spot on his ticket, rather than the position itself? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baker left state government at the end of Cellucci's acting term..." "Acting term" sounds weird to me, but I can't think of a way to make it better. My first instinct would be "first term", but I suppose that could lead to confusion about whether we were discussing his first full term.  You could also say "at the end of Weld's term" (since that's the one Cellucci was completing), but that might be confusing as well.  Any ideas? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The company was suffering financially, losing $58 million in 1998, with predictions to lose over $90 million in 1999, and Baker immediately initiated a "dramatic restructuring" in the company's business method." I'd suggest splitting this sentence in two and rewording the "with predictions to" to something like "and was forecast to lose" or even "and was predicted to lose" if you prefer that verb. Steve Smith (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baker's turnaround plan included cutting the workforce by 90 people, increasing premiums, establishing new contracts with Massachusetts physicians, outsourcing the company's information technology to Perot Systems, and reassessing the company's financial structure through PricewaterhouseCoopers." I think "the company" is repeated too many times here, not least because every item on that list could be legitimately prefaced with it ("...cutting the company's workforce by 90 people, increasing the company's premiums...").  I'd suggest just eliminating occurrences of the phrase entirely, such that it's "outsourcing information technology to Perot Systems, and reassessing financial structure through PricewaterhouseCoopers." Steve Smith (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...the difficulty of Baker defeating her in the Republican primary." Awkward. How about "...the challenge Baker would face in defeating her in the Republican primary." or similar? Steve Smith (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baker's political activities were also hindered by ethics guidelines at Harvard Pilgrim." This seems like it could use elaboration. Steve Smith (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Baker was again rumored as a contender for the 2010 gubernatorial election..." Misplaced modifier: I assume this is the first time he'd been rumoured as a contender for the 2010 election. Steve Smith (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

All issues resolved here; pass. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
The article is pretty well-cited, and all sources used clear WP:RS. I haven't checked the offline references to make sure they accurately reflect the material they support (since that would cost me money), but the online sources seem pretty good. One exception: the article says he supports gay marriage, but the source says only that he is "liberal on such social issues as gay and abortion rights." In the American political context, I think it's possible to be considered liberal on gay rights without supporting gay marriage (Barack Obama probably being exhibit A). Steve Smith (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?
I'm going to pass this, but not without comment: this is a fairly short article, and just from examining the online sources I see plenty of information that could have been included in the article but wasn't. A couple of specific examples: As well, he's now been campaigning for the Republican nomination for three months; is there nothing to report on that front? Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some comment on the weird spectacle of a guy who'd been offered the lieutenant-governorship kick-starting his political career by running for the board of selectmen of a 14,000 person town is worth some comment.
 * Some more information on his personal life wouldn't hurt: his basketball career, where he met his wife, his relationship with his little brother, music fandom, etc.

Is it neutral?
Pass. No complaints at all. Steve Smith (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?
Pass. No substantive edits since August. Steve Smith (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
N/A. Obviously, it would be nice to find a free image, but I understand that none seem to be available. Steve Smith (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed everything. The article is a little shorter than I'd like, but I expect to see better biographies once the campaign begins in earnest (as far as I know, it's been little more than preliminary fundraising so far). —Designate (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work cleaning it up. I think all that's missing now is the issue I identified under "Accurate and verifiable"; sorry to hold it up over a single issue, but I think that's a big one, but easily fixed one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I found another reference for that. Thanks again. —Designate (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. This is now a good article—congrats and excellent work. Steve Smith (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)