Talk:Lenore Romney/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 04:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll do this review. Comments to follow in the next day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Images
 * No problems: one fair use, looks Ok, others are free. I asked someone to double check my work here, and they pointed out a couple reasons that File:George and Lenore Romney in 1962.gif could be unfree, it's nominated for deletion now, may want to remove it.
 * I was skeptical about this when it was added. But I won't remove it lest that editor, Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden, wants to mount a defense at Commons.  If it does deleted, a bot will remove it from articles that use it.


 * Links
 * No dabs or dead links, repeated links don't seem to be an issue.


 * Lead
 * Not seeing any issues at first glance, although, of course, I won't know if it summarizes the article until I read the rest.


 * Early life and education
 * "financial failure and debt.[5][10][6]" The numbers of the references should be in ascending order, i.e. "financial failure and debt.[5][6][10]" It looks like there are a few of these throughout the article, (it's tricky because you can't tell until you hit save)
 * There's a bot that comes around and fixes the ordering. It's hard to do manually, especially when the article is being revised and material is being added/taken out/moved around.  (As an aside, I've never liked the numerical ordering requirement in the first place, because I try to position them in same order as the facts they cite in the sentence.)


 * Not sure if you should put Salt Lake City, Utah or if Salt Lake City is fine.
 * My theory is that if the article is located at Salt Lake City rather than at Salt Lake City, Utah, it's a 'major' city that doesn't need a state. Also, the Associated Press Style Guide lists Salt Lake City as one of the 30 cities that do not need the name of its state to follow.


 * Acting career
 * "A 5-foot-6-inch (1.68 m) slender woman with porcelain skin and naturally curly chesnut colored hair,[4][20][21][22][23][24]" With that many citations, you should probably WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * Citebundling usually doesn't work for me because all of these cites are used in other places too. But I went over these and actually, three of them can cover all the material being sourced, so I reduced it down to that.


 * Marriage and family
 * "The couple quarreled so much as a result that their grandchildren would later nickname them "the Bickersons"," This reads a bit awkwardly, is there a good way to rephrase?
 * Hmm, I've read over it several times but it flows okay to me. "Their"/"them" consistently refers to George and Lenore.  What seems awkward about it?
 * Is the "as a result" necessary, or is that clear from the context?
 * I've removed those words. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the review, I'll respond to other items as they are raised. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm satisfied with the fixes/explanations thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First Lady of Michigan
 * You use "useful" to describe her a couple times in this section, is there a better word to use?
 * I changed one reference to "productive", but the other one seemed apt.


 * "On the issue of the LDS Church policy of the time that did not allow black people in its lay clergy," Maybe shorten this link?
 * Done.


 * In the last paragraph the sentence about Project HOPE kind of stands out as a short one in the midst of long sentences.
 * The problem here is I have only vague dating on all these charitable/volunteer activities of hers (a problem I've had in other articles as well). So I indicate a bounding date by saying "staring in year X" or "by year Y".  The "She had also held ..." wording is also meant to show inclusion with the previous "By 1970 ...".  But for Project HOPE and the two classical music positions, the first cite I have is from 1976, but I think it's very likely she was doing them during the 1960s like these other ones.  So that's why I included them in this section, but as separate sentences so as not to imply any date association.


 * I don't know if you're thinking of going to FAC with this, but if you are, you might want to cut down on the amount of quotes in the section. (pretty minor issue though).
 * No plans at this time. Was trying to capture her own voice as well as what newspapers wrote about her at the time (as opposed to now, through the Mitt filter).
 * Alright, I guess that makes sense. If Mitt wins the presidency we can probably count on more sources about his upbringing being published. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 1970 U.S. Senate campaign
 * "On March 7, she won 92 percent of state delegates in gaining the "preferred candidate" slot in the primary, and talk of George running ended." A little explanation of how the preferred candidate/state delegate system worked might be helpful here. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prodding on this ... I was never fully sure I described this correctly, so I went back and read a few more news stories and discovered I hadn't. A revised explanation is now in the article that I have more confidence in, see if that is clearer.
 * Ok, sounds good, these state systems can be pretty complicated.


 * Later years
 * "interviews during her son Mitt's 1994 campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts." Again, might want to shorten this link.
 * Done.


 * Awards and honors
 * In the first paragraph you start three consecutive sentences with "She...", is there a good way to avoid that?
 * Got rid of one of them.


 * Alright, finished my read through, looks like a very good article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that I was fine with most of your copyedits, and thanks for doing them, but I took out a 'However' (implied causality not there) and restored 'magazine' after Look (probably not well known these days).  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I probably am more familiar with American magazines than the average reader, and I've been spoken to about overusing "however" in the past. The rest of the fixes and explanations look good. I'll take a look at the references later today and then probably pass this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright everything looks fine, now passing. Good job on this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)