Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George W. Romney/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012.

George W. Romney

 * Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not the man currently running for U.S. president, but his father. George Romney was in turn a displaced person, a college dropout, a finder of an accidental career, a wartime industrial leader, a famous corporate CEO, a family man and a local civic and religious leader, a successful governor, a front-running but then dreadful presidential candidate, a quixotic cabinet secretary, and more. Article is GA, was at FAC two years ago but failed due to lack of feedback. It's been largely stable since then in terms of content, and hopefully this time around will earn sufficient support. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Brief initial comments: Fascinating stuff, and very timely. I may or may not have time to read through the entire article, so just a few comments to speed along the process: Good luck! María ( yllo submarine ) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency needed in "Bibliography": some sources do not include publication city, and Mollenhoff does not list publisher.
 * All images except this one checks out :
 * File:NixonAndRomneyInOffice.jpg: Source says "As stated in the book, this is an official White House photograph from the National Archives II, College Park, Maryland." What book?  Also, what does this mean: ..
 * This is very minor, but on my screen the image of the gravesite pushes the "Notes" off kilter. No big deal, but it grates on my anal-retentive sensibilities.


 * Thanks very much for your comments. I have added locations to all the Bibliography entries.  I have updated the Commons definition of that image with the full book source and fixed the formatting (I think it got messed up when it was auto-transferred to Commons from WP).  And I have added a 'clear' template to make sure the Notes section starts correctly.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: All images check out. Thanks for clarifying the source! María ( yllo  submarine ) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether locations are included for books
 * Done; all book cites now have locations.


 * Why is FN 181 linked and not FN 190?
 * Because the first footnote is to a free chapter on the publisher's website, and the second isn't. Is it preferable to remove the link anyway?


 * No citations to Angel, Plas, either Romney text
 * Yes, I deliberately included these full-length works about or by Romney for completeness. Is there a guideline against this?
 * Are they being used as references in the creation of the article, or simply to provide further information to the reader? If the latter, the creation of a "Further reading" section would be preferable, as it's generally frowned upon to include cited and uncited works in the same section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a "Writings" section for the two by Romney and a "Further reading" section for the other two. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What are the qualifications of the author of this source?
 * I know a couple of years ago, Wargs.com was not allowed as a source in FAC articles, only NEHGS. Is that still true?  (Another editor put this in, I'm willing to take it out.)
 * Unless the author has some particular qualifications on this topic, my inclination would be to remove the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at other review comments such as Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/archive2 and Peer review/John McCain/archive1 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91, Wargs.com is considered a self-published site and is not usable as a source at the highest levels of review. I've therefore removed it and the statement it was supporting.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FN 7 and similar: page(s)?
 * This work is more a pamphlet than a book and I didn't think page numbers were necessary – it's shorter than some of the news articles that are cited.
 * Generally if a work is more than about 3-4 pages, page numbers are preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the page number range used to that cite (now FN 6). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for newspapers/magazines
 * Done; no regular dated news or magazine articles now have visible retrieval dates, only undated websites.


 * FN 81, 145, 199: page?
 * Done; for 145, page numbers added, for the others, 'fee required' url added.


 * Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
 * Done; the short-form book cites now use the same semi-colon-separated form the news cites do.


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * Done; replaced with better source (website of the State of Michigan Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs).


 * FN 206: URL?
 * Done, with 'fee required' added.


 * Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Done.


 * Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
 * Done; all are now hyphenated.


 * Be consistent in how editions and editors are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done; editors now have "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" after the end of the name, while editions now have written out numbers such as "(Second ed.)" From the context I'm sure it's clear to the reader which is which.


 * Thank you very much for your detailed look, changes and responses are underway. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have finished my initial changes for this, and will change more depending upon a few of your responses here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, looks good now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is inconsistency/issues in the way some of the ref templates are being used. The issues I currently see are: (1) most references are using the "first"/"last" parameters, but some are using "author" instead; (2) there are instances where the "first"/"last" parameters are being used for editors, when the "editor-first"/"editor-last" parameters should be used for proper formatting; (3) the placement of "Jr." in people names in some references is not correct; (4) a link to http://web.archive.org/web/20070918090328/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680195540,00.html is being use when it should not be, since the article is available directly from the original source at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html ; (5) there is a "page" parameter in use that is including both a page number and a URL, instead of putting the url in it's own parameter; (6) using the parameter "work" to a magazine improperly formats it, where "journal" correctly italicizes it (however since the ref done this way is actually a collection of covers, and not the magazine itself, a better formatting of that ref moght be . Additionally, while not related to references: (1) there is a sentence with a simple list of three items that uses the word "and" twice, instead of using a comma in place of the first "and"; (2) the categories should be alphabetized. I have attempted to fix most of these issues (and was in the process of fixing the rest), but have been reverted, and that I needed to being the issue here. Being a wikignome, I would normally be happy to fix all of these minor issues, but I have apparently been forbidden to do so for some reason that is not clear to me, so I'll leave it up to others. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I reverted some changes made by 208... and asked him to bring up reference issues here, because I was afraid of changing formats after Nikkimaria's check had been done. If 208's changes are fine, please revert my reversion of him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume CZmarlin and 208.81.184.4 are one and the same? Why do you keep going back and forth between the two?  I mass reverted your original edits because you made some drastic changes that I strongly felt were undesirable, such as unlinking every author and every publisher.  That's a complete misread of WP:OVERLINK.  You also had mysterious edits such as "missing space" that were impossible to understand from the diffs.  And several of your changes undid things I had already done to respond to Nikkimaria's comments above.  After the reversion I tried to restore things I thought were worthwhile, but I missed some due the maze of diffs.  But to answer your specific points that you now raise:
 * 1) I've never understood how "last=L | first=F" produces anything different from "author=L, F" from the reader's perspective, but I have no objection to it being changed, it's just that you always make those changes intertwined with other ones that I do object to
 * 2) I've tried the "editor" parameters but they produce awful output in this case, "ed" with no period for a single editor and nothing at all with a double period for joint editors; look at your version here to see what I mean. So I went back to doing it by hand to satisfy one of Nikkimaria's comments.
 * 3) Is there a WP MoS guideline for where "Jr." goes in last, first order? But I'm okay with your ordering.  And I've now done the changes to make it so (since Chicago Manual of Style endorses it).
 * 4) The Mitt Romney article relies heavily upon the Boston Globe 7-part series, and both BG and Deseret News move individual entries in that series behind the paywall and back out again on a repeating basis. Therefore the editors there built this redundant layer of url's so that some copy somewhere of it would always be available.  I'm using the same layering here.  And what's the harm?
 * 5) The page with its own URL is because only part of that book is available for free, not the whole thing, and there's another reference to a page that isn't available.
 * 6) Actually, the cover part needs only a minimal citation; I've reworked this to flow better in the footnote, see FN 17 and see what you think.
 * NR1) You misread that one, it's not a series of three but a one and a pair.
 * NR2) WP:CATEGORY actually says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." That said, I have no objection if they are alphabetized, and I have restored that.
 * In sum, I realize you are putting a lot of effort into these gnomish edits, but in some cases there are reasons why things are the way they are, and in the FAC case it's better to talk and get agreement before mass editing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't know who CZmarlin is but that's not me. I haven't been making any effort to unlinking anything. It's not easy in the dif tool right now to see where missing space are added, so perhaps it would have been more clear with a different type of notation in the edit summary (will try that here):
 * A) Republican Partypolitician → Republican Party politician (dif)
 * B) electedstudent body president → elected student body president (dif)
 * C) The abject → The abject (dif)
 * D) newDetroit → new Detroit (dif)
 * E) theAmerican Automobile Manufacturers Association → the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (dif, by 128.8.65.2, not me)
 * F) (dif)
 * (1) National Press Club, the → National Press Club, the (fixing a spacing issue I accidentally introduced by putting a space before the coma)
 * (2) attack on Pearl Harborthat → attack on Pearl Harbor that
 * (3) firmNash-Kelvinator → firm Nash-Kelvinator
 * G) theInternational Labor Office → the International Labor Office (dif)
 * H) TheRambler brand → The Rambler brand (dif)
 * I) forLieutenant Governor of Michigan → for Lieutenant Governor of Michigan (dif)
 * J) afavorite son → a favorite son (dif)
 * K) CongressmanNeil Staebler → Congressman Neil Staebler (dif)
 * L) theMichigan National Guard → the Michigan National Guard (dif)
 * M) John Lindsayand → John Lindsay and (dif)
 * N) infamousPruitt–Igoe → infamous Pruitt–Igoe (dif)
 * Ah, I see what happened now on these. This big formatting edit by CZMarlin right before your edits somehow collapsed the space out between a word and a "[[" in a number of cases.  When I reverted the chain of edits starting with his and including yours, the problem went away, causing me to wonder what it was in the first place.  In any case, the article doesn't have any of these missing spaces now.

As for the numbered points above:
 * 1) "last=L | first=F" produces better meta-data than "author=L, F" on key parameters (the most important being surname)
 * Agreed, but is that meta-data exploited anywhere right now? I have no objection to this change being done, but it should be done first and with no other formatting changes in the same edits, so any discussions or disputes about the other changes don't put this one at risk of reversion.
 * 2) The editor parameters are critical in certain circumstances, such as...
 * ...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
 * ...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:


 * Unfortunately this is how it displays currently (after your revert)...
 * ...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
 * Notice with your preferred version that we never actually see the true contributor of this entry to that encyclopedia, instead only seeing the editors, since the first/last perimeters are used twice in that template. One way to take care of this, and include "(eds)", could be...
 * ...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
 * We could also try the citation template instead of cite book...
 * ...but this introduces it's own set if issues.
 * OK, you're right that I lost the author of the selection, I missed it (!?) and that's no good at all. But your top version is also problematic, because it doesn't indicate that Rucker and Upton are editors (I've seen volumes with primary authors and guest writers for chapters, so "eds" can't be assumed).  Also it only avoids a double period after "N" by your having magic knowledge to not put any period after the "N" in the coding.  So I've changed the article to use your middle alternative, thanks.
 * 3) Thanks, looks fine.
 * 4) The series in the Deseret News is not behind a paywall; the current URL just is different than what is used as the "original" in the citation. I don't see why we'd prefer to use a 3rd party archive instead of a link to the actual source material from the original publisher, since it's available at the updated URL I provided. Having the archive link is fine, but we really should include the working DN link in that citation as well.
 * OK, I've swapped the two urls and reworked the text in the cite, see if that's what you're looking for.
 * 5) Makes sense.
 * 6) The cover citation is fine the way you changed it.
 * NR1) The National Press Club is both a professional organization and a private social club; given that Romney was not a professional journalist, the focus of this sentence is that he joined three prominent private social clubs/organizations, making this a simple list of three items, where the double "and" is out of place.
 * Well, I understand your point but respectfully still disagree. He wasn't a journalist but he was a professional lobbyist and part of his job description would be to talk to reporters and columnists, since how an issue is framed in the press is an important part of convincing Congress to see it your way.  To me that's a different beast than country clubs, which are purely social, although of course politics and business are discussed within them too.  Furthermore your wording – "Romney joined the National Press Club, the Burning Tree and Congressional Country Clubs; ..." – seems wrong to me, as you either have one too many or one too few 'clubs'.
 * NR2) While by no means mandatory, or even preferred in some cases, alphabetical order of cats has the added benefit of making maintaining the cats much simpler, including making duplicate categories very obvious. I appreciate you restoring them to that order.
 * 5) Makes sense.
 * 6) The cover citation is fine the way you changed it.
 * NR1) The National Press Club is both a professional organization and a private social club; given that Romney was not a professional journalist, the focus of this sentence is that he joined three prominent private social clubs/organizations, making this a simple list of three items, where the double "and" is out of place.
 * Well, I understand your point but respectfully still disagree. He wasn't a journalist but he was a professional lobbyist and part of his job description would be to talk to reporters and columnists, since how an issue is framed in the press is an important part of convincing Congress to see it your way.  To me that's a different beast than country clubs, which are purely social, although of course politics and business are discussed within them too.  Furthermore your wording – "Romney joined the National Press Club, the Burning Tree and Congressional Country Clubs; ..." – seems wrong to me, as you either have one too many or one too few 'clubs'.
 * NR2) While by no means mandatory, or even preferred in some cases, alphabetical order of cats has the added benefit of making maintaining the cats much simpler, including making duplicate categories very obvious. I appreciate you restoring them to that order.

Thanks for responding in detail to these minor issues. I've tried to extend you the same courtesy, hoping to clarify my actions. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks very much for your responses and I'm sorry things got off on the wrong foot here. The major item remaining is doing the 'author to first,last' changes.  If you want to do it (again), go for it, as I said above.  Otherwise I'll try to fit it in at some point.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now gone ahead and done all the 'author to first, last' changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Mark Arsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs) 03:07, January 23, 2012
 * Alright, this looks like an interesting article. I'll be reviewing this for compliance with 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.
 * Thanks very much for your comments, I have started making changes in response to them.


 * The lead looks fine, just a few small comments:
 * "There he turned around the struggling firm by focusing all efforts on the smaller Rambler car." I think this could be revised a bit for clarity (smaller than?).
 * Done, by replacing "smaller" with "compact".


 * "Romney was a strong supporter of the American Civil Rights Movement while governor." Did he support it before/after his term or was this a just a political thing?
 * Done, by removing "while governor" (not just a political thing).


 * Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. That's a lot of blue, maybe shorten it a bit?
 * Done.


 * Maybe link volunteerism?
 * Seems like a common English word to me (certainly the root is common), and if I link that, it would be odd not to link "public service" right after that, but there is no useful article for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Early life and background
 * "They practiced monogamy." Was this the norm in their area at that time or were there polygamists around?
 * I've added that polygamy went into general decline among Mormons after the 1890 Manifesto (they married in 1895).


 * "The farm was not well located and failed when potato prices fell." What does it mean that it was not well located?
 * Changed to "not on good land".


 * "His family returned to Salt Lake in 1921" Do you mean they returned to Salt Lake City or just the vicinity of the Great Salt Lake?
 * Shorter form means the city too, but maybe it didn't back then, so have added "City".


 * "with their debts taking a dozen years to pay off." Maybe rephrase to avoid the with noun -ing construction.
 * Changed to "and having to take a dozen years to pay off their debts".


 * Is the Latter-day Saints High School he attended the same one we have an article on?
 * Yes, now linked (thought it was already).


 * Missionary work
 * "Three decades later, Romney said that his missionary time had meant more to him in his work than any other experience" I don't understand what is meant by "in his work" here.
 * Changed to "in developing his career". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Early career
 * "He followed LaFount to Washington, D.C., in fall 1929, after her father had accepted an appointment" should probably be more specific per WP:SEASON.
 * "With one of his brothers, Romney opened a dairy bar in nearby Virginia during this time." Maybe be a bit more specific about time here.
 * I never found a source with a more precise time on either of these events.


 * "Romney did not attend for long, or nor graduate from, any college in which he was enrolled" Should probably tweak that a bit.
 * Now changed to "Romney did not attend for long, or graduate from, any of the colleges in which he was enrolled; ...".


 * "instead he has been described as an autodidact." Can we say "he became an autodidact"? (I love that word)
 * I'm using this in a personality sense, and I think this was just something in Romney's nature (and in some other people like him) – at a certain point they don't respond that well to formal education and instead are eager to go out in the world and do things and learn along the way.


 * "LaFount had the opportunity to sign a $50,000, three-year contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, but Romney convinced her to return to Washington where he worked for Alcoa and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist." In the last sentence you had him as a salesman in LA, maybe note the transition? Also, is there a good way to note what the value of $50k was back then?
 * I've reworded the sentence to convey his transition. As for the value of $50K, there's a template somewhere which adds "(such-and-such today)", but I'm reluctant to use it here because then I'd have to use it in about eight or nine other places in the article where money amounts are mentioned.  And to give context I'd have to know how it compared to other studio offers at the time, which I don't.


 * "He was chosen by Pyke Johnson, a Denver newspaperman and automotive industry trade representative, whom he met at the Press Club, to join the newly-formed Trade Association Advisory Committee to the National Recovery Administration, whose work continued even after that agency was declared unconstitutional in 1935." This sentence seems a bit unclear to me.
 * I've reworded it and split it into two.


 * Pyke Johnson, worth a redlink?
 * Would be borderline as an article I think – NYT has several mentions of him but no obit, for example.


 * Automotive industry representative
 * "These included over 3 million motorized vehicles, 80 percent of all tanks and tank parts, 75 percent of all aircraft engines, half of all diesel engines, and a third of all machine guns." Maybe something a bit more specific than "These" here.
 * Changed "These" to "This", which makes it clear I think.


 * What is a "short complex contract-termination procedure"?
 * Changed "cut short" to "forgo".


 * "U.S. employer delegate" Should there be a hyphen here?
 * Reworded sentence to avoid issue.


 * American Motors Corporation CEO
 * I made a few copyedits here, as always, feel free to revert.
 * Only undid one ", and" to semi-colon.


 * "Though AMC was on the verge of being taken over by corporate raider Louis Wolfson, Romney was able to fend him off." When were they on the verge?
 * 1957, added.


 * "However, when he felt his salary and bonus was excessively high for a year, he gave the excess back to the company." When did this happen?
 * Changed to "whenever", as this was a general practice.


 * Local church and civic leadership
 * "preached occasional sermons" Would "occasionally preached sermons" be better or am I imagining things?
 * So changed.


 * "In 1959, he received the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith's Americanism award." What was this award in recognition of?
 * I don't know ... I've looked at a half-dozen of these awards and none say what it is for. But I found a 1962 story that also thought it important, so I added that as an additional cite.


 * "it made nearly 200 recommendations for economy and efficiency and for the need for better teacher pay and new infrastructure funding." Maybe add some punctuation here.
 * Shortened and punctuated.


 * "Romney helped a $90 million education-related bond issue and tax increase win an upset victory in an April 1959 referendum." Was this a state vote or a city vote?
 * Clarified as statewide.


 * "After a period of pained indecision and a two-day prayer fast," I suggest "two days of prayer and fasting".
 * To me that loses meaning, since the indecision went on for a while and the prayer and fasting were connected. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have been more clear, I meant to suggest "After a period of pained indecision and two days of prayer and fasting," Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Governor of Michigan
 * "were more likely to vote Republican than the heavily Democratic residents of the city itself." I'm not sure about the use of "the city itself". Maybe something like "the city's urban areas"
 * Clarified to indicate suburbs of Detroit.


 * "He almost always eschewed political activities on Sundays, the Mormon Sabbath." Sundays or Sunday? I'm not sure.
 * Change to Sunday.


 * "Whites and Negroes, in my opinion, have got to learn to know each other." Emphasis original, I presume?
 * Yes.


 * "In 1965, Romney visited South Vietnam for 31 days and said that he was continuing his strong support for U.S. military involvement there." Not a big deal, but is there a good place earlier in the article to note he supported the war?
 * Not really; I thought this was a compact way of saying that.


 * "George Romney helped Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies convert to Mormonism." In Mitt Romney you write that he "guided" her conversion. Maybe try use the same language in each? (or maybe I'm reading too much into this).
 * Changed to "George Romney guided Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies in her conversion to Mormonism".


 * "His share of the black vote rose to over 30 percent, a virtually unprecedented accomplishment for a Republican." That is impressive, do you know if any other Republican candidates have gotten that much?
 * Interesting question – I can think of a few possibilities, but would require some research.


 * "but got the state to where it had a surplus." Maybe something like "left office with a surplus"?
 * So changed.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1968 presidential campaign
 * "Romney announced an exploratory phase in February 1967, beginning with a visit to Alaska and the Rocky Mountain states." Might want to clarify that it was a political exploratory phrase (is there an article on that?), so it doesn't sound like he was going exploring the wilderness of Alaska.
 * So clarified. But I think the Exploratory committee structure came in later years, so I didn't link it.


 * Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
 * "moving blacks out of inner city ghettos" Should this be inner-city?
 * Yes, so changed.


 * "Based on his automotive industry experience, Romney thought that the cost of housing could be significantly reduced if in-factory modular construction techniques were used." was modular housing construction a novel idea then? Maybe note that if it was.
 * I see Google News Archive stories on this going back to the late 1940s and 1950s, so I'm not confident enough to state this.


 * "Wife Lenore Romney ended up running instead, losing badly to incumbent Democrat Philip A. Hart." I'm not sure we have to mention here that she was his wife, since it's clear from earlier.
 * "Wife" removed.


 * "assisted housing for low and moderate income families" Should there be hyphens here?
 * I've seen both forms, but more with hyphen, so changed it.


 * "and a local citizen's representative." Citizen's or citizens'?
 * The latter, changed.


 * "but in the end was unable to bring about meaningful alterations in American segregation patterns, with no equivalent effort having happened since then or likely to in the foreseeable future." Could you clarify the timing here (when this was said)?
 * Added 2008 context of statements.


 * Final years
 * "The Governor George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award is given annually in Michigan, to recognize citizens who have demonstrated a commitment to community involvement and volunteer service throughout their lifetimes." Who gives the award? The State of Michigan?
 * Yes, the state, so clarified. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all your useful comments!  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks for doing all this work. At this point I am confident that every issue I could find is satisfied, so I am more than willing to Support promotion to Featured Article. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg gives as a source File:GeroRomney2.jpg, which gives as a source...File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg
 * I've clarified the source descriptions on Commons; both of these are actually crops of File:Ford, Matthews, and Romney (1986).jpg.


 * File:George_and_Lenore_Romney_grave.JPG: what is the copyright status of the engraving on the grave? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote from Doctrine and Covenants is from Section 90, which dates back to the 1830s, so it shouldn't be an issue. What's written after that, "To many he was known ...", is specific to Romney and presumably was written by family members.  What the copyright status of that is, I don't know.  I looked around to see if such inscriptions are copyrightable, or if freedom of panorama is at play, but didn't find anything.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should've been more specific - I meant the engraving of his profile (I'm assuming), not the words. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it now. You're right, freedom of panorama does not cover photos of works of the visual arts in the U.S., so this has to go.  I've removed the image.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments Nice-looking article. I've got a few comments:
 * Last paragraph in "Early life and background": I'm not sure what "co-located" means.
 * Located at the same site as the high school of the same name.


 * I linked a few cities, it's a problem feel free to revert.
 * I unlinked London, which FAC reviewers are always taking out; we'll see about the others.


 * In "Early career," second paragraph: what is a dairy bar? Is it a tavern where one drinks milk?
 * I found a link for it and added it to the article.


 * Same section, last paragraph: I think "newly-formed" does not take a hyphen, but I may be wrong so I left it in.
 * You're right, per the MoS. I took it out.


 * In "Governor of Michigan", the last sentence: I don't think you have to say that Fine is "noted". That word always seems like a journalist's POV when I read it in a newspaper.  He has a Wikipedia article, so he's clearly notable (yes, sarcasm intended).
 * I might agree in general, but in this case he really was quite prominent and accomplished, and it's important to convey that to readers who don't click through. If there's an alternate adjective that can be used, I'm willing to change it.


 * In "1968 presidential campaign", first paragraph: I've gotten dinged for using "re-elected" instead of "reelected." Apparently, the former is British and the latter is American, though you and I are, I think, both Americans and we both seem to prefer the hyphen.
 * From what I gather, "re-elect" is the proper form due to awkward doubled vowels, and many sites say so. Except that the AP style guide makes an exception for very commonly seen words like this one and uses "reelect".  I've seen slow-motion edit wars over this question on other political articles.  I'll wait and see if there are additional opinions here before changing it.


 * That's it: I enjoyed the article, and I hope to see (and would be happy to help you with) his son's article nominated for FA before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the comments. I think I'm going to wait on Mitt until it's clear who's going to win the nomination.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, works for me. Good luck with the nomination!  --Coemgenus (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Items that were fixed, but because reverts now need attention (in my opinion)
 * The lack of consistency in reference template citation usage (first/last vs. author) as well as in the reference format for books that have editor(s).
 * Already addressed above in the response to your alter ego 208.81.184.4.


 * Note to Wasted Time R: I do NOT have an alter ego. Please note that the individual at User talk:208.81.184.4 appears to be "registered to Vangent Inc. and may be shared by multiple users." I have no clue as to that organization. CZmarlin (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK ... two of us made that assumption, understandable given that you showed up at the same time at the same article making a largely similar set of complaints about formatting issues ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverts that removed updated checks and now several online references have missing access dates.
 * This article never uses access dates unless it's a web only reference with no publication date. (I'm of the school that holds that access dates give no value to the reader and indeed add visual confusion to the publication date.)  This was already established in response to Nikkimaria's comments.


 * Improper formatting for "Jr." in the author’s name used in a reference (it would be correct if the "first=" and "last=" fields were not reverted back to "author=").
 * Already discussed in earlier response.


 * Why is there a need to Wiki link ‘’The New York Times’’ a total of 35 times in the Notes section? This newspaper is already linked in the first instance (out of the two times in appears) in the body of the article.
 * This overlinking is also in the case of the nine Wiki links to ‘’Time’’ magazine in the Notes section.
 * Reminder per WP guidelines: “Generally, a link should appear only once in an article” … thus it seems that 35 of them in the Notes section is exactly 35 too many.
 * WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, ...", so the footnote usage here is a permitted exception. That said, I acknowledge that there are three approaches people take to linking publishers in cites:  link every occurrence, link the first occurrence, link no occurrences.  The first is most convenient for the readers, but upsets blue sea worriers.  The second is very hard for editors to maintain on an ongoing basis, since the "first" reference can move, pop in, or pop out of an article.  The last gives no help to the reader who wants to see what a given publication is about, so I don't like it at all.  If link every occurrence is a deal breaker for you, I'll try and do the first reference one.  But I'm not going to take all the publisher links out, and I'm not going to take author links out.  Those are important for how the reader assesses the sources!


 * What is the purpose for red links to the ‘’Michigan Historical Review’’ and "Ashbrook Press" in the Notes section? They were removed, but these dead links are back again.
 * I'm a believer in WP:REDLINK ... someday somebody will be inspired to create an article or maybe a DYK about these publications.


 * Reminder per Wikipedia isbn guidelines: “Please use the 13-digit ISBN where possible”. Also, per reference guidelines the “Publisher (field) should not include corporate designation.”
 * I don't like 13-digit ISBN's for old topics like this; they seem anachronistic, since none of these books were published with them (many were published without any). Also, I made big effort to get all the ISBN's hyphenated per another of Nikkimaria's comments.  I believe this is one of those live-and-let-live deals; if you see an article with nicely formatted 10-digit numbers, don't churn the article by changing them.


 * Specific footnote problems include:
 * 29 - Why keep reverting to a dead link to the Boston Globe and to an archived version? This is a current url for the article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html
 * Addressed above.
 * 155 – Wrong author is listed for this article. Why was the correct author reverted?
 * Karen Tumulty wrote that article, I read it in the print magazine at the time. Jake Chessum is just the photographer credit for the top photo.


 * Lastly, the alt image description in the infobox does not show a “Tall, slim” man. Rather, it is just a face of the person and it is impossible to "see" from that picture that he is tall and slim. This was fixed, but why was this improper description put back?
 * Sorry, the top photo used to be the full standing image (that's present later in the article); I've fixed this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that per a response above, all of the "author" cite parameters are now changed to use "first" and

"last". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are the 208... IP that posted above, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your presumption is false. I have no clue who is that IP contributor. I log on with my account for all my edits in WP. CZmarlin (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)
 * "Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio more memorably said, "Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football."  - Humorous, but needs explanation:  What was the point of Rhodes?  (one source says he meant the campaign was inept).
 * It means he was trying to do something that by nature he was ill-equipped to do, and thus was doing it poorly. But I think the quote should speak for itself; it loses its effectiveness if it is 'explained'.
 * Hmmm. I hear what you are saying, but this is an encyclopedia, and sarcasm/facetious remarks within articles must be qualified/explained.  I'm pretty well read, yet I could not grasp what Rhodes' point was.   We, as authors, are not trying to prove to readers how clever we are :-)  I'd just reword it to something like "Rhodes felt that Romney's campaign was run poorly, and he commented  "Watching ... " ". --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've spent some time trying to find the original source of the quote, but I haven't found anything prior to the Teddy White book on the 1968 campaign, which is one of the cites I use. That's the one that other books footnote to, for instance.  In his book (page 54), White doesn't attempt to explain what Rhodes meant, and neither do the large majority of books and articles and sites I looked at that repeat it.  So to try to explain it might even be considered OR-ish on my part.  (But it doesn't mean that Romney's campaign was poorly run, it means that by his very nature Romney was ill-suited to run for the presidency.)  Given that many other sources use this quote without explicit explanation, including some that show up on Google Scholar, I'd like to continue to make the case that we can too.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Same Rhodes quote as above: Footnotes need to identify explicitly which source (book) the quote is from.
 * It's from both. I double-cited it to show that multiple authors considered it an apt portrayal of the campaign.


 * Prose quality is very good
 * Thanks!


 * " Romney resigned from AMC in 1962 to enter electoral politics .." It would be nice to know how that impacted AMC.  Was the transition to a successor smooth?  Was AMC adversely impacted?  What did the board think of the decision?
 * Regarding what happened to AMC, I originally wanted to cover that, but I gather it's a complicated story with no easy answer (AMC changed strategies a couple of years later and it didn't work, but that doesn't prove that sticking with the Romney approach would have worked either, since the Big Three were more directly competing with AMC). So instead I've put in a parenthetical link to his successor, Roy Abernethy, and the reader can explore what happened there (that article has a long description).  I've never read what the board reaction was but they can't have been surprised, because as the article says Romney was oft-mentioned for a political role from 1959 on.


 * " ... .saying he had reservations about Goldwater regarding civil rights and political extremism." - Too ambiguous.  Did he think Goldwater was too extreme? or not extreme enough?  Did he think Goldwater was too resistant to Civil Rights legislation?  Or too enthusiastic about it?
 * I thought this would be clear from the previous context, but I've changed it to "... saying he had reservations about Goldwater's lack of support for civil rights and the political extremism that Goldwater embodied."


 * "Romney's greatest weakness was a lack of foreign policy ..." - if that is the opinion of a single source, then source should probably be identified in the article. But if a unanimous opinion, okay to leave as is.
 * I added a second cite to this.


 * "The perception grew that Romney was gaffe-prone and an oaf; the campaign, beset by internal rivalries, soon went through the first of several reorganizations.".   A period might be more apt than a semicolon.
 * Done.


 * "... something Nixon did not forget." Would "... Nixon would later remember" be better?
 * Nixon was the type to never forget a slight and hold a grudge forever, so I think what I have gets that across a bit more.


 * Red link:  Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 - is that the same as National Urban Policy and New Community Development Act of 1970?
 * As I understand it, the latter was one part of the former. But I misread the importance of Romney's role in this in the source I had, and another source seemed to say something different and relatively minor about that role.  So I removed this mention.  However, I expanded the introduction into the FHA scandal that's later in that paragraph, in part because of this interesting NYT op-ed from the other day.  That professor's argument seemed a bit of a stretch, and as an op-ed I can't use it as a source, but I did want to tie in to the scandal description the fact that this came out of one of the earliest mortgage-backed securities efforts.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Missing "alt" text for several of the photos.
 * Now added (these images just came in during FAC).


 * Link Chihuahua needs to be disambiguated (see the "Disambig" link at upper right: it is a really handy tool).
 * Now done (I ran the dab tool before, but this link got added during FAC).


 * The "Ext links" tool (upper right of this window) shows that one external links is bogus, and one is suspicious:
 * As They Saw It: HUD's Secretaries Reminisce About Carrying Out the Mission (info) [huduser.org]
 * This one works, even thought reftools always flags it.
 * "Buildings Renamed G. Mennen Williams Building And George W. Romney Building" (info) [legislature.mi.gov],
 * This one often gives trouble, but User:208.81.184.4 has just changed it to something that seems to work.


 * "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" section is unusually long. Are there one or two logical portions that could be made into subsections?
 * Not really, it was pretty much all of one piece. And there is single-level sectioning for the whole article, I wouldn't want to subdivide just one section.  User:John Broughton came through last month and split many of my longer paragraphs into multiple ones, which to me loses some thematic coherence and makes this and other sections appear long than they are.  Take a look at this older version of the article to see if that section seems less long to you.

End Noleander comments [20:35, February 2, 2012‎ Noleander]
 * Outstanding article. Leaning towards Support, if the above are addressed.
 * Thanks very much for your kind words and comments. I will begin responding to them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First set of responses changes done, more to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now all changes and responses done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.