Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009.

Geraldine Ferraro

 * Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the first woman to be a major-party nominee for national office in the United States. She had a meteoric political career that never quite fulfilled its apparent promise. There is also involvement (and interesting parallels for the reader to see) with the 2008 presidential campaign. The article has been GA since January, and has now been gone over and supplemented with a few aspects I hadn't gotten to then. I think it is ready for FA, and there is a possible TFA angle with July 19 being the 25th anniversary of her vice-presidential nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment OurCampaigns is not a reliable source. Could you please find primary sources for the electoral history, such as the NY Secretary of State? Reywas92 Talk 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought OurCampaigns had been blessed by a prior FAC, but going back I now see I was thinking of Peer review/John McCain/archive1, which didn't end conclusively ... and that article avoided the issue by yanking the electoral history into subarticle that no one cares about.  I'll ponder what's the best course here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well don't fork it off like them as an excuse to ignore it. There are not as many elections for Ferraro in the first place to require a split. Perhaps Ourcampaigns has some sources that you can just take. Otherwise, federal election results shouldn't be too hard to find. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OurCampaigns is now gone, everything replaced (and in a couple of cases, results numbers tweaked) by reliable sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg is listed as being self-created by you, which it obviously isn't. I assume that it's under copyright, and so you'll need to make a case for fair use in this article. The rest of the images look good, though note that per WP:CAPTION image captions that are complete sentences, as most of the ones in this article are, require a full stop. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've recreated the flyer image with a low-resolution scan and have recast the image description with a fair use rationale. I was aware of the WP:CAPTION requirement but thought that the "this house" and similar references in the captions might make them viewed as not fully standalone, self-supporting sentences.  But I'd rather have them with periods, so I've changed them accordingly and reworded a couple to make them even more full-sentence-like.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on your rationale, I don't think this meets WP:NFCC #8. I'd welcome other views, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NFCC #8 is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is the only picture the article has of Ferraro during the vice-presidential campaign, which is the thing she's most famous for, and the only picture the article has of her with Mondale.  The Sarah Palin article has three photos of her on her veep campaign, including one with McCain.  The Joe Biden article has two photos of him on his veep campaign, including one with Obama.  So clearly in other contexts, pictures of vice-presidential candidates and their presidential ticket partners are viewed as significant.  Given that we don't have any free ones here that anyone has come forward with, I see no reason not to use this fair use one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg satisfies NFCC #8. However, this image is still too-high resolution (I suggest keeping it under 100,000 pixels). Also, it's a pretty bad image. A much better one can be found at http://photos.america.gov/galleries/amgov/4110/women_gov_fr/electoral10.jpg (this image is published for free by the U.S. State Dept., so it's not like AP Images will care if we claim fair use). Also, the State Dept. image is 90,000 pixels so it better satisfies the low-resolution requirement. The State Dept. image is page 8 of "Des pionnières de la vie politique aux États-Unis". Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a new version of File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg that's 30Kb, which should meet anyone's definition of low resolution. As for the america.gov image, it's marked as "copyright AP Images".  I believe that copyright still holds even if the image is on a federal government site.  If you look at the upload text for a federal government image, it says "This form should be used to upload an image that is a creation of the United States federal government that is in the public domain. Note that this does not apply to works of state or local governments. State government have other, different, laws applying to their works. Also note that images on government or government agency websites are not necessarily public domain and not necessarily works of the government itself; always look for copyright notices."  That's the case here, and I don't believe we can use it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear. File:FerraroMondaleFlyer.jpg and (a low resolution version of) the AP photo are equally objectionable on copyright grounds. We couldn't use either one, were it not for the fair-use exception. The AP photo is much better, though, so if we're going to claim fair-use, why not use the better image? Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they are on equal footing with respect to fair use. The flyer use rationale is based on it being an event poster, and posters, book covers, album covers, etc. have special roles in fair use.  On the other hand, the image you point to is a stand-alone photo.  Per WP:Non-free content #6, unacceptable use includes "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" (which it isn't in this case).  So I do not think we can use the AP photo.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by William S. Saturn

 * Good work on the article. I see a few problems.
 * Thanks very much for the comments, I'll start work on responding to/addressing them. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've now responded to everything. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Again, good job on the article. All my concerns have been addressed. I support promotion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much and thanks again for your detailed comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall

 * There is too much use of "In...", it gets repetitive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A number of of "In...," constructs have been been redone or replaced. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The same words are repeated in close proximity like "won" and "her."--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some 'won's and many 'her's have now been eliminated. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Early life and education

 * "So Ferraro attended Marymount Manhattan College with a scholarship"
 * Why is it necessary to use "so"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'so' was just to indicate causality, that that Ferraro's going to college was largely a consequence of her mothers's determination, which overrode cultural forces. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "so" seems out of place since it follows the information about her uncle. Did she do this to spite him? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've removed the 'So'.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

House of Representatives

 * "Her Italian heritage also benefited her"
 * How?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the district was ethnic in composition (established earlier) and she was an ethnic too. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The district is 71% caucasian. Asians seem to make up a large percentage as well. I am assuming Italians are included among the caucasian count. Is there a source that states the electorate was more apt to vote for her because she was Italian? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworded it a bit to "Her Italian heritage also appealed to ethnic residents in the district.[23]". The source discusses several factors that worked for and against her candidacy, then says "... and her Italian heritage in a district with ethnic neighborhoods gave Ms. Ferraro a running start."   Yes, in NYC, Italian, Irish, and Jewish are big ethnic groups and all are considered "caucasian".  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Male colleagues viewed her with respect as someone who was tough and ambitious"
 * Who?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other members of the House. Germond didn't name any specific names, from what I can remember.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "an anti-busing amendment to the Constitution"
 * I would like to view this passage's source, or for it to be replaced by an online source, because this is somewhat hard to believe and controversial.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can see the cite in question in Google Books here. (Since this book source is 'full view' in Google Books, I have now linked to it.)  You can see other book mentions of it in this Google Book search result; although they're all snippet views, you can see enough to verify this.  School busing was the wedge issue of the day back then, and Ferraro's stance on it fit in with the "'small c' conservative" side of her political persona.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

1984 Vice-Presidential candidacy

 * This is the best section, very good work, its only problem is that there is no source at end.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added an instance of an existing cite for Palin being the second woman. That she lost is hopefully once of those "Paris is the capital of France" type statements that doesn't need citing ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First Senate run and ambassadorship

 * "The evidence against Zaccaro was weak"
 * WP:NPOV. I oppose the use of "weak." Describe the fact of the case that led you to label it as "weak," rather than using the label.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "weak" with some particulars of the case. There are more, but I don't want to go into too much detail on this because it was him on trial, not her.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Commentator and second Senate run

 * "Her New York accent still intact"
 * What is the significance of this?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows that she was successful on national TV being herself, and didn't try to soften her personality for greater general appeal. Is there better wording to get this across?  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems out of place. It reads as if her accent caused her to fit in better. What about something similar to what you just said above: "She kept her New York accent for the show and did not try to soften her personality." --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rereading the source, I've reworded and expanded this to: "She kept her brassy, rapid-fire speech and New York accent intact, and her trial experience from her prosecutor days was a good fit for the program's format.[125]" Wasted Time R (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

2008 presidential campaign involvement

 * "And if he was a woman (of any color)"
 * Where does it state in the context of her quote that she was referring to women "of any color"?--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The " ... (of any color) ..." is part of her quote in the interview, not an explanatory aside by us (that would be indicated by different syntax: "... [of any color] ..."). You can see this in the first cite given, or in this LAT story, or a bunch of others you can verify on the web.  How did she happen to speak in parentheses?  Not sure, but it could have been a pause in her cadence.  But in any case, that's how the interview was written up.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Books authored

 * No references for the bottom two, seems like a list. I would like to see this as prose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I 'inherited' this section and never liked it much. I have removed it and dispersed its contents into the appropriate chrono parts of the mainline text.  I have added cites for the second and third books.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could we avoid all the level-4 and level-5 headers please? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No because it makes it easier to comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed them anyway. Please see FAC instructions. Use horizontal dividers or semicolons if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Oppose . This article is looking good overall, but has a few small problems to deal with before becoming an FA. I am particularly concerned about the section on the 2008 Presidential campaign, which smacks of recentism by spending a lot of time talking about material that is only marginally important.  Including so many qutoes in this section makes it read like a newspaper account as opposed to an encyclopedia article and goes against the requirement for summary style.  Furthermore, including her comments about Sarah Palin adds nothing to the article since this is just a matter of her own personal opinion with no indication that her views were influential.  I am sure just about every pundit and politician had a view on Palin, so singling hers out does not seem necessary.  I attempted to make changes to the article to rectify these issues before posting here, but was summarily reverted.  Indrian (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments on Palin are particularly notable considering that Ferraro was the first female Vice Presidential nominee and Palin was second.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, because they constituted one person's opinion either way. If her comments influenced the outcome, then absolutely they would be important, but as they stand it is merely x said y about z.  No controversy, no major story, just one more pundit giving an opinion.  Anyway, give me a reliable source that states these comments were important and I will drop that particular objection. Indrian (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just wait for Wasted Time's reply. Geraldine Ferraro did receive alot of media coverage during the campaign, and her opinion of Palin is notable given that she was in the same position as Palin. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are mistaking unique insight with importance. As the only other major party female vice presidential candidate, Ferraro was able during the election to provide commentary from a unique perspective as a news show pundit.  That does not mean these comments actually matter enough to appear in a retrospective of her life.  This requires the comments to have some influence, and I have yet to see a reliable source presented that indicates such influence. Her Obama comments make the grade because the controversy was great enough that she had to resign a position on the Clinton campaign staff, the Palin comments, not so much. Indrian (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the dangers of recentism. When I first got seriously involved in this article last year, it was dominated by the 2008 campaign fracas.  I subsequently trimmed and improved that part and greatly expanded the rest of the article.  But Ferraro's involvement in the 2008 presidential campaign is quite important to her biographically, and to the themes of this article.  (The section header has the word "involvement" in it because normally, "YYYY presidential campaign" sections in our BLPs indicate the subject was a candidate, which is not the case here.)  2008 was both the first year that any female presidential candidate had a realistic chance of winning, and the first time since Ferraro that any female was on a major-party national ticket.  Ferraro's statements about Obama and race were important to the campaign, as this was a historic contest between two "firsts" where race ended up playing an (unfortunate) role; see these Google News Archive hits as a reminder of how much coverage her remarks got.  And Ferraro's statements are quite important biographically because (a) they illustrate her outspoken nature and (b) they resulted in many people who would otherwise support her, actively disliking her – it's a year later and you can still read blog comments that trash her for what she said.  It may well be that this episode tarnishes her forever in many people's minds.  Given that, BLP guidelines and normal biographical practice indicate that it's only fair to exactly quote what she said, not just quickly paraphrase it as your edit did.  And when she says "This has been the worst three weeks of my life," it's good to quote that too, especially given the other press and public ordeals she went through earlier in her life.  Reflective quotes of this nature are sprinkled throughout the article, and not appear just in this section; they help liven up otherwise potentially dry narrative.  The coverage of Palin in the section is less (one paragraph compared to three) but warranted.  Ferraro at one point seemed to be leaning towards supporting Palin, both because she was ticked off at Obama supporters and because she had a natural sympathy for what Palin was trying to do (and soon would be going through).  In the end she supported the Democrats, but her viewpoint on seeing the first female national candidate in the 24 years since her is notable biographically.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do agree with some of what you say here, but we are still a ways apart and at this point probably need to work towards a middle ground compromise. I certainly agree that Ferraro's Obama comments are important to her and her image as you say, but I think we can trim some of this still to make it less like journalism and more like an encyclopedia article.  If you really believe BLP requires some quoting, I will compromise on that point, but I still think the amount of quoting can be trimmed.  The Palin stuff, however, I am pretty adamant about being useless fluff.  Ferraro is not a kingmaker, and so her opinions here really do not matter.  Ferraro probably had opinions on every presidential and vice presidential candidate that has appeared in the last 25 years, and it would not suprise me that if we went into the archives deeply enough we could find those views and put every last one in the article, but I think we both agree that this would be excessive fluff.  Our disagreement on this one point seems to stem from your belief that because she was a female vice presidential candidate, every thing she says about other female vice presidential candidates is notable.  I disagree.  I will drop this objection if you can show me reliable sources stating her comments on Palin were important.  This is different from news coverage, obviously, which she certainly received.  Her Obama comments may have permanently tarnished her image as you say, but can you show similar impact from her Palin comments? Anyway, I will take a stab at rewording the Obama stuff again if you do not mind, to see if we can create something mutually acceptable on that front. Indrian (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see from your user page essay that you don't like long, heavily detailed articles, and this may appear to be a long, heavily detailed article. But be assured that I know and found out a lot about Ferraro that I didn't include in this article; each of her senate primary campaigns could be a lot longer, for just one example, and her 1984 finances problems had a couple of further complications regarding Zaccaro that I didn't include here, as I didn't want to lose the narrative momentum.  Your essay says "Wikipedia will never be more than a collection of indiscriminate facts, which is ironically something that wikipedia is not supposed to be according to policy. Eventually, nearly every article will be subject to this extended treatment. Many users will pride themselves on how much data they were able to collect on a subject; the wiser users will just wonder what the point is of the article or its subject."  I also worry about this, and so I've tried to organize this article along a few recurring themes, with gender and ethnic background and Ferraro's tough personality being the primary ones.  I agree completely that her views on Edwards, Kerry, Gore, Lieberman etc. are completely undeserving of inclusion here.  But her view on the 2008 general election – wavering about supporting Obama, still resentful of what happened to Hillary, and intrigued by Palin, the first to follow her in 24 years – provides a nice recap point specific to the themes of the article.  It kind of gives the reader a sense of history looping back on itself.  And none of the other readers or editors or reviewers of this article have objected to the Palin paragraph being here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I may have to tweak that rant I wrote several years ago if that is what you got out of it. I have nothing against long, heavily detailed articles that highlight important points and synthezise material that supports these points.  I believe the majority of this article covers the subject well, though stylistically, I think it could use an overhaul to reduce the number of short, choppy sentences.  Indeed, the one paragraph I take serious issue with would, if removed, not really make the article less long or less heavily detailed, so I do not see how this perceived bias would play into my objection.  My issues is that Ferraro's views on one candidate in one elction have been singled out.  Doing so, it seems to me, requires making sure that these comments are worthy of such attention.  If they had an impact on her life, like the Obama quotes clearly did, then that would certainly be sufficient, but no evidence of this has been presented.  In absence of significant impact on Ferraro, therefore, I believe at the very least it should be shown these comments had significant impact elsewhere.  This has not been proven either.  I might be able to buy your argument that the quotes "provide a nice recap point specific to the themes of the article" and give "a sense of history looping back on itself," but as currently written, I do not think the paragraph really does that.  If it could be rewritten to actually accomplish those goals, my opinion might change as well. Indrian (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for your request of reliable sources that aren't news coverage stating her comments on Palin were important ... that's kind of contradictory. The news covers things it thinks are important.  Likely no one called Ferraro to find out what she thought of John Edwards or Dick Cheney, but many did on this.  Just taking one of her quotes, "it is wonderful ...", there are some 3,000 hits on media outlets and blogs etc that use it.  The acid test for biographical importance is to see what other, real biographers do ... this works well for someone like Hillary or Ted Kennedy or John McCain, who have had multiple biographies published about them, and I've often 'polled' those biographies to figure out what or what not to include in their articles.  But Ferraro doesn't have any book biographies of her (someday for sure there will be one), and the kind of long biographical retrospectives you can find in newspapers or magazines about her predate the 2008 campaign.  So I'm not sure what kind of 'proof' you are looking for here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The news does not cover things it thinks are important; it covers things it thinks will interest the public. Newspaper articles that merely record events and reactions are primary sources unsuited for establishing importance for an encyclopedia.  News analysis, on the other hand, may be useful.  If relevant campaign analysis can attest to the importance of Ferraro's comments on Palin, that will be sufficient for me.  With all the retrospective material already available on the course of the campaign, it should not be overly difficult to do if the comments do indeed warrant attention. Obviously, there would need to be evidence of some consensus as to this importance as well (not unanimous, but more than just one random article), as any individual journalist, author, or scholar can establish a position, but it takes more than that to establish the notability of said position. As for a lack of biographical material, encyclopedia articles, as tertiary sources, are really not supposed to be drawn from primary sources at all, though wikipedia's unique ability to record events as they happen does tend to blur this distinction much of the time.  If no good analysis exists, then it is ususally best for wikipedia to stick to the bare facts as much as possible and not attempt to imbelish with material such as the Palin comments.  Indrian (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right in your comment above that the Palin material didn't wrap the themes as much as it should have. I've added a statement about Ferraro seeing parallels in the media treatment of Palin's family and background to her own treatment (I mistakenly thought this was already in there) and added an academic study that also found media treatment similar.  I've added several references to this long Newsweek cover story about Palin and the evolution of how women are perceived as candidates for major office; I believe it's the kind of news analysis (rather than news reporting) that you're looking for, and it both begins and ends (click through to page 5) with quotes from Ferraro and by framing Palin's run again Ferraro's experiences.  I've removed the Ferraro bit about liking Hillary as Secretary of State (not very remarkable, and two recent SecStates have also been women) and finished the section with a Ferraro quote from the Newsweek analysis piece that reflects both 2008 and 1984. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your other comment above that "stylistically, I think it could use an overhaul to reduce the number of short, choppy sentences", I've tried to vary the sentence (and paragraph) length to keep the pace changing for better readability. If you could point out a few of the ones that you think are too short or that don't flow smoothly, that would help.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still not entirely happy with how that paragraph plays out, but I agree that it now serves a function in the article and will drop that objection. I thank you for working with me to fix things up. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Since the last section got so long related to one point, I have struck through my oppose above and put a new one here. Content-wise, I feel the article is ready to go, but stylistically, there are a lot of short, choppy sentences. I will try to go through the article later today and fix some of this myself. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll be away for a bit but will check back on this late in the day tomorrow.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems Nice article but has problems. The article has some biases which disqualify the article unless they are fixed. If some biases have made their way into the article, someone who knows who this lady is could probably find more examples of bias. For example, the family, lawyer, prosecutor section says she worked on pro bono work. However, this seems like cherry picking because the other sections hint that she did far more other work. That would be like saying Hitler was the head of state and once helped a little boy who had fallen in the mud instead of saying Hitler, as head of state, killed Jews. Note that Ferraro is not Hitler.
 * I've added "some" in front of the pro-bono work (the previous "occasionally" was meant to cover this as well, but that may not have been clear). While she was raising the children she didn't work full-time at anything, but instead dabbled in different areas; we're mentioning all of those areas. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, in that section, first major political job? What was the very first minor political job?
 * I've changed "major" to "full-time". Her other political involvements are described in the previous paragraph.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It says that she was one of the rare women but she was appointed by her relative. Nepotism? Was there a controversy? Or just chance?
 * There was a minor controversy re nepotism, which I've been on the fence about including but I've now added it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that she was fair. Was she fair? Is the reference just a sympathetic supporter? The fair part and the refused to give cases to the prosecution is disjointed.
 * I've clarified that the "fair" is in reference to plea bargain negotiations. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the congressional section, the fictional All in the Family has nothing to do with the lady. It would be like saying Obama attended a college located in a bad neighborhood and scene of the movie,.
 * I strongly disagree on this one. Many sources talk about her district being where All in the Family was set, as a capsule way of describing the nature of the district in terms of the ethnicity and conservative views of its residents.  Also, it makes the section more interesting to read, which is an FAC criteria ("engaging").  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Was she a Democrat or a Liberal? In NY, the party names are different, like MN.
 * It's clear that she was a Democrat, as their primary is talked about. She never had the Liberal Party line, although her Republican opponent sometimes had the Conservative Party line.  This is given in the "Electoral history" section, but I didn't think it important enough to mention in the mainline narrative, as it might be a puzzle to readers not familiar with New York State politics and (unlike, say, for Giuliani's elections for mayor) it didn't have a real impact on the elections.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Was supporting the Pershing II a break with the party???? Some German thought the US was evil.
 * She supported some defense programs of the time and opposed others, so I don't think her stance was a major break with the party (and least a new Time magazine source I've added doesn't indicate this). I've expanded this description a bit.  However the support for the anti-busing amendment was a break with her party, and I've added that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1984 election should have a financial subsection since is a major part of the section. Strong performance is opinion.
 * I was trying to avoid subsections in the article, and our campaign sections rarely have them. A number of sources talk about the strong performance in that press conference; she answered questions for two hours until reporters were exhausted.  I've added a bit on this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of 0.8% net gain by her is shaky math. Better to leave out speculation, even if you can find a single source.
 * I strongly disagree on this one. Many assessments of whether a vice presidential candidate helped or hurt the ticket are based on pundit guesses.  Here, there are actually polls and studies that calculate it, and we should include that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying Palin lost could be subtle bias to say that women ruin the ticket. Best to leave it out.
 * It's just a simple fact, and the article needs to make clear that no woman has yet won an election on a national ticket. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 post office is just trivia and should be left out.
 * I've commented it out for now. If it actually happens, it can be restored then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you put her official photo at the top of the article? That would be better.
 * This is the most official photo there is. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Red childhood home needs a citation to prevent any bozo from taking a picture of an old house.
 * It closely matches the description given in her memoir Framing a Life. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for her Forest Garden house. How do we know it was not Son of Sam's house? References, please! Let's not be sloppy!
 * It matches the description given in several sources. I also made sure to include the street number in the photo for verification when I took the picture; you can find this address on the web, but I didn't want to include the full address in the article out of privacy concerns for the current residents there.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Newletter photo is fluff. Fix the caption. Otherwise, you could take a photo of feces and say "like all members of congress, they excrete this". Fixing the caption is easy and would improve the article.
 * I agree it's not a great image, but there are very few images of Ferraro that are available under WP's image use rules, so I was using whatever I had. It's not clear to me what your objection to the caption is; foreign readers, for example, may not know that Representatives issue regular newsletters to their constituents.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ferraro's picture with the other women should be replaced by a photo taken when she was in congress or running for vice president. That would be more relevant to the article.
 * This shows what she looks like in the 2000s, so it belongs in the article. Would love to include the others you mention, but none are available to us under WP image use rules.  At least not that I've been able to find, looking through all the recommended public domain sites.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The intro paragraph doesn't do a good job. There's no mention of the financial troubles, which is a significant point that may have caused the election loss. Also fix that paragraph which makes her (with some browsers) look like she was the UN ambassador. She wasn't. She was the ambassador to a commission.
 * I've been on the fence about adding the finances to the lead, but I've made a brief mention of them now. Note however that this did not cause the election loss, as Mondale was going to lose to Reagan no matter what.  I've added a non-breaking space in the lead between "United Nations" and "Commission on Human Rights" to try to solve your layout issue; beyond that there isn't much more that can be done.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

References need a lot of fixing. Not the same style. Missing retrieved dates. Please fix this before considering it to be featured!!!!!
 * I'm not aware of style differences, they are intended to be all consistent in style. Please point out a few examples of "not the same style".  Retrieval dates are not needed on newspaper sources that refer to the pre-web-stories-era; see WP:CITE.  In other words, a 1984 New York Times story is a fixed, known piece of content, that is available in library microfilm archives and the like as well as online.  Adding a retrieved date to a cite of that story is pointless clutter that makes it harder for the reader to see the real date of publication.  A 2008 New York Times story is a different matter, since the online version sometimes varies over time and against the print version; for those I do include a retrieved date.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External links should be rewritten to show she was the Democratic nominee for VP.
 * Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You can do it if you just fix some stuff. Happy writing. Amthernandez (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your detailed comments. I believe I've now responded to all points.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The references still have problems. Look at 56 and 61. No retrieved dates. If the references are online and are cited as online with a link, they should have a date. If they are in print, they should be like the standard volume, number, date and not be written like a online link.Amthernandez (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * still problems
 * I respectfully disagree. See WP:CITE – for a newspaper cite (which 1984 editions of Time and US News & World Report are equivalent to, as newsmagazines), retrieval date is not required. What purpose would it serve?  The July 30, 1984 issue of Time magazine (fn 56) is fixed in content; you can go to a library's bound stacks and read a paper copy of it.  The online version is identical to that.  Retrieval dates are mostly intended for sources which have changing content over time, such as a company history page at a corporate web site.   Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the criteria: It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * I think it is not quite there, but more than half way there.
 * You have to give some examples of what is "not quite there" for this to be useful. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
 * See under "still problems" a few lines higher.
 * See my response above. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible,
 * It seems like original research to include the two houses, let's make sure that they are not hoaxes. 95% chance they are legimate, I would guess.  There doesn't seem to be enough photos for a contemporary person.
 * I took the second one, and so I'm sure it's not a hoax. That address is readily found on the web, and anyone can go to that address and verify that the house in the photo is the right one.  Wikipedia has many photos of buildings, landmarks, etc. that aren't "cited" per se; the check is similar, you can go there and verify it.  I didn't take the first one, but I checked the description of it in her memoir and it matches closely.  As for not enough photos, I agree, but that's a chronic problem in many WP articles and I don't believe it's a disqualifying condition for FAC.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think this is not yet featured quality and not quite meeting the featured criteria. However, if the policy is to allow slack so the authors of this article will not feel bad, I would not be too opposed to grade inflation if it is done with other articles, too.  Maybe a temporary featured status for 3 months will make the authors happy yet not cause permanent grade inflation. Amthernandez (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about here. There is no slack, no grade inflation, no temporary FA's.  The majority of FAC's end in failure.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Infobox image and File:Pelosi_clinton_graves_ferraro.jpg need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both now added (one was there but done wrongly, one was an oversight). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that was quick! Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment/Oppose The non-free campaign photo is really quite unnecessary. Do people need to see what she looked like standing next to Mondale? The infobox photo gives a good idea of what she looked like at that time period, if that's even necessary at all. You should contact the author of this photo on flickr to see if he'll remove the NC restriction so it's usable. (He probably will - many of his photos are just "by" anyways.) I agree that the newsletter photo is unhelpful and if anything detracts from the article. There are many recent photos of Ferraro on flickr. Why don't you get permission for one of these, so you can move her old photo down to her congressional service? It doesn't make sense to have the old photo up top when she's still active. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We disagree on the first point; I think it is important to see the presidential and vice presidential candidates (and officeholders, if the ticket gets elected) together, as that's invariably the "frame" that the public views them in. We also disagree on your last point; looking around at articles of living people who were national candidates in that era, the large majority of articles use "prime of career" photos, such as Michael Dukakis, Howard Baker, John Glenn, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Dick Gephardt, and Alexander Haig.  Walter Mondale uses a photo from his ambassador days rather than vice president.  But I didn't see any examples of photos being used of people when they were in their seventies and semi-retired, which is what Ferraro is in those flickr photos.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.