Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1

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

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a great start for a good article but needs work before it reaches that point. Go through the article with a fine tooth comb and make it better.

Romney may be running against Obama. Obama is a FA. Romney is referred to as a "politician" in the introduction but not Obama. This is probably an oversight. Insert non-formatted text here


 * Actually, several editors spent a lot of time working out the first paragraph of the lead; see Talk:Mitt Romney. I think "politician" is used more in the case, like this one, where the person is no longer holding the office; looking at three other recent ex-governors, George Pataki, Jon Corzine, and Bill Richardson, I see they all have "politician" in their first sentence.
 * Note that several FAs do use the word politician in the lead sentence (e.g., Wendell H. Ford, Terry Sanford, Sam Loxton, Richard Cordray)—shouldn't be an issue here. —Eustress talk 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been several changes to the article during the past couple days, to try and more fully address the comments at this page. One change is that the word "politician" is now removed from the first sentence.  Although the word is commonly used in Wikipedia articles, it is also commonly not used.  Since it's not essential, I don't see any harm in removing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Care must be used when writing. It is called the "affluent suburb of Bloomfield...". Without saying it must stay or must go, be very careful when using that type of description. The same when saying his school was "elite". Obama's high school is extremely elite but it is not mentioned (maybe that's why it is a FA).


 * "Affluent suburb" is a direct paraphrase of the cited source: "... By the time Mitt settled on his preferred name in kindergarten, the family had moved from Detroit to the affluent suburb of Bloomfield Hills." It's always important in a biography to indicate what kind of economic environment a person grew up in, since they often shapes how they look at the world.  "Elite" is also directly from the source: "In the seventh grade, Mitt enrolled at Cranbrook School, an elite boys school with world-class sculptures sprinkled across its Bloomfield Hills campus. Surrounded by other sons of privilege, many of whom came from greater wealth and more established families, Mitt wasn't a standout."  I don't think you'll find many sources disagreeing that Cranbrook is an elite school.  I don't know why the Obama article doesn't characterize the Punahou School a little better.

Does things like "Mitt campaigned for him using loudspeakers at county fairs, exclaiming "You should vote for my father for Governor. He's a truly great person."[4]" belong. Think hard, again.


 * I used this because it illustrates the hero-worship he had for his father, which is one of the biographical themes that virtually every newspaper and magazine profile of Romney has emphasized. It also illustrates the sort of early 1960s, clean-cut, 'gee whiz' type personality that Mitt had (and still has, to a large degree).

There is much text devoted to the car accident. Think hard if it belongs. These are the type of questions you have to ask. Actually, some of the details are entertaining to read, like it was a Citroen.


 * I did think about this, as I did about everything else in the article. This was a critical event in Mitt's life, for several pretty obvious reasons.  The very good Boston Globe seven-part series on Romney devoted a good amount of attention to it, as well as an entire long sidebar to one of the parts.  It doesn't get that much weight here, but I think it is deserving of a solid treatment.

"Leveraged buyouts such as those Bain Capital did sometimes led to layoffs.[31][38] Of these, Romney later said, "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient." What is this trying to say.  It would be like saying the President of Exxon didn't do anything for some employment cases, causing some terminated employees a long legal battle.  Again, think hard about this and other paragraphs.  Unlike the car accident, consider toning this down or taking it out.


 * This can't be taken out. Next to when he was governor, Romney affected more peoples' lives (whether for the better or the worse) when he was conducting leveraged buyouts with his private equity business than at any other time.  The effect of corporate raiders, private equity, buyouts, etc. was a much-debated aspect of American capitalism back in the 1980s, and the specific effects of Romney's actions have been argued during his political career, especially during the Senate race against Kennedy.  The Boston Globe series devotes a lot of attention to this issue, as does a long New York Times story.  As for the specific quote being used, this is part of how Romney expressed the need for initial pain in order for businesses to recover and eventually have a chance to succeed.  It's only fair for the article to let Romney express something like this in his own words.  As for your Exxon analogy, I'm afraid I didn't quite follow that.

"During his years in business, Romney did not neglect his religious duties. He tithed constantly, giving millions of dollars to the LDS Church.[" This is commentary. It is conversational, but be very careful. There are many statements like this in the article. "Romney came from behind to win the Massachusetts Republican Party's nomination for U.S. Senate after advertising on television heavily," is another example. Say "Bob Dole advertised a lot on TV" and is that good?


 * I'm not sure whether you're concerned about the tone or the content on the first case; could you clarify? As for the second case, the article is simply trying to describe how he defeated Larkian for the nomination.  While having more money to spend on television ads doesn't always help a candidate win, in a lot of cases it does.  I'm not sure what your Dole analogy is about – are you referring to his win of the 1996 Republican nomination or his loss to Clinton in the general election?

Be very careful when you describe his governorship.


 * I was.

Huckabee attacked Romney for failing to eat the chicken skin of a fried chicken thigh. Did you know that?! There is a CNN reference. I am not telling you that it should be in the article. This is just a factoid that I know.


 * Yes, I know that. It was even advocated for inclusion in the article once, by, see Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 7.  What do you think of that?

Ask Mitt Anything has two photos. Undue weight?


 * Good point. I've removed one of them, that is already included in two other articles.

Be very careful about political positions. The Obama article had a discussion and it was decided to remove it. Political positions before or now? If now, is that a political advertisement? Think hard but I will not use that as a reason for or against GA. Just make sure it's written well.


 * I did remove the "old" Political positions section, which was 2007-centric, and replaced it with the current one, that covers his whole career in more general terms. See Talk:Mitt Romney.

The use of the notes at the end is very entertaining but thing hard if things like the Vulcan grip should be in a GA.


 * Some other editors were adamant that the Sky Blu episode be included, so the eventual resolution has most of it in a note. That seems okay to me.  And a little levity isn't a bad thing in WP articles, which tend to be very dry.

In short, I have commented on editorial content. Making sure all the references are in the same format is important but we shouldn't have articles as FA or GA just because the t's are crossed.


 * Just in case you see any references that are not in the same format, point them out and I'll fix them.

Good luck! TeacherA (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My responses to your review are interspersed above. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the school, perhaps "prestigious" instead of "elite"? The word "elite" may have negative connotations in this context, as in Mitt's an elitist snob.  Not that that was intended, but the word "prestigious" might be just as accurate without the baggage.  Regarding "advertising on television heavily" maybe it might be more generous to say something like "buying substantial television time to get out his message." Regarding his religious duties, it does sound slightly odd to hear the voice of Wikipedia announcing that he had certain duties; maybe instead say that he did not neglect his "traditional" religious duties so we're more clear where the duties come from.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed "elite"; between the other text and the picture, the idea should get across. I've used the suggested language for the TV ads.  I've removed the whole "did not neglect his religious duties" phrase; the rest of the text in that paragraph should convey that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the standard template in External links for Governors. There's a note in the EL section which simply isn't true, and should be removed. References, External links and Further reading each have their own purpose. Flatterworld (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with most of your changes, but I've removed the External links you added for IMDB and Charlie Rose. IMDB is a good source for actors and movie, but it's lousy for politicians.  Their entries are riddled with omissions and recentism.  If you go to FAC with IMDB as a source for a political BLP, it will get flagged as non-RS.  As for Charlie Rose, there's no reason to promote his show in WP articles ahead of all the other interview shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, O'Reilly Factor, etc etc) that politicians go on.  If you can get Rose added to the Template:GovLinks standard template, like C-SPAN is, then it will appear here by inclusion, but I don't see any rational for adding it on a special basis here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Looks like a good article to me. Well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasted Time R is quite polite in responding. An "A" for effort. However, there are quite a few excuses indicating refusal to improve the article.

Mr. Time R mentioned about why the Obama article doesn't go into Punahou. The probable reason is that it is a FA and if there is change, people will resist (funny, Obama is the politician who won because of promised change). With Romney running for president (ok, he won't admit it yet), if this is a GA, there will be much resistance to any change so, as Jimbo Wales said, we must get it right.

I didn't mention it earlier, but his official portrait as governor should be used. Is Massachusetts a public domain state, like the United States federal government's public domain policy for photos?

I will give him plenty of time to work on this as I am not on a mission to give people an "F". No good teacher would do that. TeacherA (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TeacherA, you objected to describing Punahou as "elite". So, that word has been removed, and some other changes were made in response to your comments.  Maybe it would be useful if you would list what your top concerns are at this point.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding governors and public domain images, per WP:PD, state and local governments do retain copyright on their works and thus, unlike federal government works, are not in the public domain. That is why the infobox images for governors such as Deval Patrick, William Weld, Sean Parnell, Chris Christie, Jack Markell, Bobby Jindal, and so on, are not the official governor photos.  When there is an official-looking photo, such as for Paul Cellucci or Mike Leavitt, it's because the person also held some federal position such as ambassador or cabinet member and it's that image that's being used.  However, note that the Mitt Romney section does include the official portrait painting of Romney.  That's because the painter gave specific permission for his work to be used in WP; see Image:Romney portrait.jpg.  Is your suggestion that this portrait be moved to the top image?  I'm not sure how other editors would respond to that, but the possibility could be raised.  Otherwise, I think this article does as good as it can do in this respect.


 * Regarding my "excuses indicating refusal to improve the article", it is typical in GA reviews for nominators to respond to reviewer comments and further explain why they made certain choices that they did in writing the article. Reviewers can then further elaborate upon their concerns, and so forth.  This does not indicate a refusal to do anything; it is the normal give-and-take of the editorial process.  As Anythingyouwant indicates, a number of changes have already been made to the article; it would be helpful if you could be specific about the remaining issues you have and say more precisely what changes should be made in response to them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a GA. This is not to say you put in effort or it is bad (opposite of good). The editorial decisions need improvement and merely fulfilling the technical criteria is not enough. Believe me, I have read thousands of essays as a teacher. This would be first rate for a third grader but not a GA for an adult. Sorry. TeacherA (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This article, despite lots of effort fails. Rather than fight and resist, step back for a while and retry.