Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitt Romney/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 GrahamColm 23:20, 12 May 2012.

Mitt Romney

 * Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2012 U.S. presidential election currently taking place. In case you're wondering if it's a good idea to promote a BLP of a high-profile, active candidate like this, there is strong precedent for it. In 2008, the Barack Obama article was FA through the campaign, and the John McCain article became FA during his time as presumptive nominee (and both remain FA to this day). Indeed, on the night of the November 4, 2008, general election, they went up together as dual featured articles on the main page. It was seen as a testament to WP's ability to present current and potentially controversial subject matter at the highest level, and it's a worthy goal to be able to do that again. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments As some initial comments, a few of the photos have somewhat stilted captions: in the photo in the 2002 Winter Olympics section he's 'speaking' rather than "offering remarks", and in the second photo he has his mouth closed and is waving, so isn't "giving an interview". In the first photo in the Political positions and public perceptions section, was he speaking to the Values Voter Summit or an event which took place prior to this? Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your lengthy and detailed comments. Regarding the photo captions, I have adjusted all three of these.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's my full review. As background, I'm an Australian who doesn't know all that much about Romney or US politics. As an overall assessment, the article seems quite good, though it would obviously benefit from comments from people with a greater familiarity with this topic. The length is appropriate, the subjects covered and the weight given to them seems generally OK and most of the prose is well written and neutral. The main things to watch out for are the use of buzzwords and PR-speak in some parts of the text, some minor issues with non-neutral wording and some lengthy and/or unclear sentences. My full comments are:
 * "The son of George W. Romney (the former Governor of Michigan)" - was his dad the Governor before he was born?
 * I've removed "former".


 * "He received his undergraduate degree" - replace 'his' with 'a' as he could have hardly received someone elses ;)
 * Done.


 * "Romney organized and steered" - 'steered' is a bit awkard. Can you just say 'Romney headed the Salt Lake Organizing Committee which organized the 2002 Winter Olympics' or similar?
 * Done.


 * "He presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated an up to $1.5 billion deficit." - why the lack of precision? The article later says that taxes went up under his administration, so 'fees' might not be the appropriate term (and one man's 'fee' is another man's 'tax', I guess)
 * The lack of precision is because of differing sources and differing ways of looking at the budget. Fees went up as a direct result of his administration, while local taxes went up as a side effect (but we don't want to get too heavily involved in describing this in the lead section).  Taxes and fees are different because the latter directly charge those using a service, while the former tend to spread the cost out among a larger population.


 * "The results of the caucuses and primaries have placed him as the clear leader and in April 2012 the Republican National Committee declared him the presumptive nominee." - this seems a bit strong given his poor showing in the initial primaries
 * There have been ups and downs for him in the early months, but he's clearly the presumptive nominee now. It's hard to summarize the campaign tersely in the lead, because there were so many anti-Romney leaders who then faded.


 * Where's Bloomfield Hills? (is this a suburb of Detroit?)
 * Yes, and that's stated in the article body, but I don't think it's necessary in the lead.


 * "and then from seventh grade on" - the 'then' is unnecessary
 * Done.


 * "did not excel at academics" - should be 'did not excel academically'
 * Done.


 * "While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan" - what year was this?
 * 1962, added.


 * What's the relevance of the sports Romney took part in at high school?
 * General biographical background.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "with the nominally Catholic but secular, wine-loving French people proving especially resistant to a religion that prohibits alcohol." - this sounds like a stereotype, and is going a bit beyond the topic of the article. I think that the French were still fairly religious in the 1960s.
 * Not according to the source used; if there are other ones relevant here, I would welcome seeing them. I'm not trying to promote a stereotype, but instead give some perspective on the task a missionary faced.  If you're trying to convince a certain group of people to switch from religion A to religion B, some description of how attached they are to religion A seems in order.


 * "In Nantes, Romney was bruised defending two female missionaries against a horde of local rugby players." - was there really a "horde" (which suggests a huge number), and what do you mean by "was bruised by"? Can you just say that he got into a fight with rugby players who were aggressively trying to pick up two female missionaries, or whatever the situation was?
 * Now reworded to "In Nantes, Romney suffered a bruised jaw while defending two female missionaries who were being bothered by a group of local rugby players."


 * "The experience in the country also changed him. It instilled in him a belief that life is fragile and that he needed seriousness of purpose. He gained organizational experience and a record of accomplishments that he had theretofore lacked." - this reads like something from Romney's campaign material. Most people's first serious job and serious life experiences have this kind of effect on them.
 * Yes, but it's important to point out what those experiences are in a biography. Before this he was an underachieving student, after an overachiever; that's got to count for something.  I've shortened the text to "The experience in the country instilled in him a belief that life is fragile and that he needed seriousness of purpose."  See if you think that is more acceptable.


 * "He had a different social experience from most of his classmates, since he lived in a Belmont, Massachusetts, house with Ann and two children; he was non-ideological and did not involve himself in the political or social issues of the day" - this sentence is rather awkward, and seems that he was non-ideological and political because he lived in the suburbs
 * I've split it into two sentences at the semi-colon, so now I don't think there's any implied connection.


 * What does "heavily recruited" mean?
 * Changed to "was recruited by several firms".


 * "With Bain & Company, Romney learned the "Bain way", which consisted of immersing the firm in each client's business,[48][57] and not simply to issue recommendations, but to stay with the company until they were changed for the better." - this also reads like PR material
 * I changed the last part to "... until changes were put into place", but otherwise I don't know how else to word this. Describing the Bain way is important because it became part of his way of looking at things.


 * "With a record of helping clients such as the Monsanto Company, Outboard Marine Corporation, Burlington Industries, and Corning Incorporated, Romney became a vice president of the firm in 1978 and within a few years one of its best consultants and one sought after by clients over more senior partners." - this is a bit award - it might be best to split it into two sentences
 * Now restructed.


 * "Romney became a believer in Bain's methods" - did he doubt them at first? If so, why did he join the company?
 * I removed this – it comes back at the end of the article anyway.


 * "The idea that consultancies should not measure themselves by the thickness of their reports, or even the elegance of their writing, but rather by whether or not the report was effectively implemented was an inflection point in the history of consulting." - this sounds really dubious. Was the entire consulting industry, and their clients, up to this time really paying no attention to implementing recommendations? A more neutral source is needed for this to be retained.
 * I've removed it. It really belongs in a different article, and better sourced like you say.


 * "rather than the hostile takeovers practiced in other leverage buyout scenarios" - what does this mean?
 * Some leveraged buyouts involve hostile takeovers, but Bain Capital's didn't.


 * "Much of this profit was earned from a relatively small number of deals, with Bain Capital's overall success–to–failure ratio being about even." - yet the article only names the successful deals. What companies did Bain purchase and lose money on?
 * Hmm. The sources, and this article, generally discuss two kinds of deals by name – those where the company became successful and Bain Capital made a lot of money, and those where the company failed but Bain Capital still made a lot in fees anyway.  The third kind, where the company went nowhere and Bain Capital lost its money, are described in aggregate in the sources but not individually.  So I'm not sure there's much I can do on this one.


 * "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts" - when did he move the money into blind trusts? - presumably this was when he went into politics
 * Year (2003) added. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "He stepped down from his position at Bain Capital, and from his church leadership role, during the run." - 'the run' is awkward - how about 'the campaign'
 * Done.


 * "Romney came from behind to win the Massachusetts Republican Party's nomination for U.S. Senate after buying substantial television time to get out his message and gaining overwhelming support in the state party convention" - the second half of this sentence is a bit awkward
 * I revised and expanded this text, with added sources from the time. See what you think.


 * "the smallest margin in Kennedy's eight re-election campaigns for the Senate." - needs a reference
 * It's clearly true if you look at Electoral history of Ted Kennedy, but I've never been able to find a source that says as much, so I've commented it out.


 * "she found in Park City, Utah (where the couple had built a vacation home) a mixture of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that gave her a lifestyle mostly without limitations" - this sounds like PR material for this place
 * I changed the wording to "... she found while living in Park City, Utah ..." to make clear that the place was only one factor.


 * "He admitted past problems, listened to local critics, and rallied Utah's citizenry with a sense of optimism" - how? "rallied Utah's citizenry with a sense of optimism" is pretty vague and PR-like.
 * I changed the last part to "and appealed to Utah's citizenry with a message of optimism", which is closer to what the source says.


 * Did Romney really 'ignore' people who wanted the Olympics cancelled due to security concerns? (which suggests that he either dismissed their views or paid them no attention at all). Surely he gave some consideration to this idea but decided against it if it was being put forward from notable sources. If the people calling for this weren't influential, it shouldn't be in the article.
 * I don't think there was ever a real chance this would happen, so I've removed it. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Material on how and why Romney decided to run for governor is needed given that this is provided for his previous high-profile jobs
 * It was already there at the end of the Olympics section, but I've added some text in the 2002 campaign section about why he picked Massachusetts over his other opportunities.


 * "Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase" - how could this be 'unexpected', and why the range of figures? Surely the Massachusetts Government could track what legislation was in place and later generate accurate reports on the amount of report revenue received.
 * Tax revenue is unpredictable in the sense that it rises and falls with general economic prosperity, and in the U.S. states often face a sudden drop in revenue as a result – this is happened a lot during the Great Recession, for example. Capital gains tax changes can be even harder to predict because they also dependent on where the stock market is.  Regarding the range, let me look at that again.


 * "Romney did so from a sense of rectitude" - more PR wording
 * Removed.


 * "The cuts in state spending put added pressure on local property taxes; the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent." - how did this add pressure to local property taxes? My reading is that it increased town and city government's reliance on this source of income. Did they then go onto increase the rates?
 * Yes in many cases. I've tried to clarify the wording on this.


 * "Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state, after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people[140][141][142] and after the federal government, due to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services." - this is a rather long sentence. Also, is it really unusual for state governors to be "at the forefront" of major policy reforms?
 * I've shortened the start to "Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage ..." but I think the rest of the sentence can stand as it is.


 * "After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from different political backgrounds that beginning in late 2004 came up with a set of innovative proposals more ambitious than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax" - this sentence is also a bit too long, and is vague. The word 'innovative' in particular.
 * I've split the sentence in two and dropped 'innovative'.


 * "Romney dealt with a crisis of confidence in Boston's Big Dig project – that followed a fatal ceiling collapse in 2006 – by wresting control of the project from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and helping ensure it would eventually complete" - how did he help ensure this?
 * Not really in the source, so I've dropped that part.


 * "Midway through his term, Romney decided that he wanted to stage a full-time run for president,[161] and on December 14, 2005, Romney announced that he would not seek re-election for a second term as governor" - no need to repeat 'Romney' in the same sentence
 * Fixed.


 * What's a PAC?
 * Now expanded out.


 * "A network of former staff and supporters around the nation were eager for him to run again" - what's meant by a 'network' here? Was this an organised group?
 * Changed to 'informal network'.


 * "The San Diego location was also ideal for Ann Romney's multiple sclerosis therapies and for recovering from her late 2008 diagnosis and lumpectomy for mammary ductal carcinoma in situ" - why was it ideal? (presumably it had good health care and a pleasant climate, etc)
 * Clarified as "location and climate".


 * "Romney stood to possibly gain from the Republican electorate's tendency to nominate candidates who had previously run for president and appeared to be "next in line" to be chosen.[214][238][241][242][243][244]" - does this simple sentence really need six references? The "stood to possibly gain" part is rather passive.
 * Now down to three cites, and 'possibly' removed.


 * "Perhaps his greatest hurdle in gaining the Republican nomination was party opposition to the Massachusetts health care reform law that he had signed five years earlier." - the article says that he did much more than just sign this
 * Changed 'signed' to 'shepherded'.


 * " Michele Bachmann staged a brief surge, then by September 2011, Romney's chief rival in polls was a recent entrant, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and the two exchanged sharp criticisms of each other during a series of debates among the Republican candidates" - this is a bit unclear
 * Split into two sentences and clarified, with cite added.


 * "Perry faded due to poor performances in those debates, while Herman Cain staged a long-shot surge until allegations of sexual misconduct derailed him." - references needed
 * Now added.


 * "Romney decidedly won the New Hampshire primary" - do you mean 'decisively' rather than 'decidedly'?
 * I'm not sure what I was going for, but switched to 'decisively'.


 * "Romney's admitted bad week" - is 'admitted' needed here?
 * Yes, to show that Romney conceded it was one of his worst stretches during the campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "He followed national politics avidly in college,[31] and the circumstances of his father's presidential campaign loss would grate on him for decades" - the article generally presents him as being disinterested in politics as a young adult, and says that he had no interest in politics while he was studying at Harvard
 * Hmm, good catch. I've changed it to "He had kept track of national politics while in college", meaning he followed what his father was doing, but was not directly involved in campus political issues.


 * "Romney again generally operated in the mold established by Weld and followed by Weld's two other Republican successors, Paul Cellucci and Jane Swift: restrain spending and taxing" - the article says that taxes went up while he was governor, so this doesn't seem accurate
 * Romney didn't raise state taxes, which is what is at issue here.


 * "He also displayed aggressiveness on foreign policy matters such as wanting to double the number of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp" - 'aggressiveness' is rather non-neutral in this context
 * The source says "blustery", this seems less pejorative than that.


 * "The hostile attention it held among Republicans" - this wording is a bit awkward and unclear
 * Changed to "The antipathy Republicans felt for it ..."


 * "Romney believes the Bain approach is not only effective in the business realm but also in running for office and, once there, in solving political conundrums such as proper Pentagon spending levels and the future of Social Security." - has he explained what this means? It's rather unclear here. As a president, would he really go through spreadsheets himself?
 * Well, this is what he's said. Like all positions, we won't know for real unless he wins.


 * "In 2006, he received the Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award, the highest recognition given by the U.S. Government to employers for their support of their employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." - is this really an award given to him as a person? It seems that he was presented with it as the head of the state government on behalf of the government.
 * Good point – another editor moved this down to the Awards section but I've now gone back to the previous state – no text, and photo and cite are in Governorship section.


 * The number and extent of notes at the end of the article seems excessive, especially for the subjects which have dedicated sub-articles. I haven't read through these, and I suspect that few people ever will. The FAs on Obama and McCain don't have any notes.
 * I tend to like the notes, but then again, I use a lot of notes in my articles too. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Notes are valuable in that they allow for some extra detail without derailing the flow of the main text. And most of them are in sections that don't have dedicated subarticles.  Whether readers look at them or not is up to them, just as it is for everything else in the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting removing all the notes (I normally include a few in articles I develop to FA level); I just think that the current number here is excessive. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is File:Bain Capital logo.png really public domain? One of its tags at Commons says its PD while the other says it may be trademarked. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the two things are independent in this context? I'll let the FAC image experts rule on it when they appear.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: Will try to do a full review soon, I copyedited this article a bit over the winter, so I'm fairly familiar with it. And, for once, I actually do know a bit about the subject of the article.
 * Thanks very much for your comments (again).


 * Watch for consistency with locations in the references, I see "Deseret News (Salt Lake City)." as ref 332, but just "Deseret News" for a few other refs.
 * I've added SLC for the places where it's a main cite, but not for the places where it's an alternate link for Boston Globe paywall articles, because that seems like overkill.
 * Ok, as long as no one else objects that's ok with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It could be because I was just reading about her, but it might be nice to note that his mother was an actress turned homemaker in the sentence that you mention his father's occupation.
 * Done.


 * "He became president of, and an innovative fundraiser for, the all-male Cougar Club and showed a new-found discipline in his studies." What did the Cougar Club do? Also, I'm not sure about the easter egg link to Booster club here.
 * Restructured to give booster club link separately as an in-text explanation.


 * "and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class." Should "top five" be hyphenated?
 * I don't think so. I did a Google Books search of "top ten percent" and didn't see any publishers hyphenating it.
 * Ok, fine with me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few instances of refs out of numerical order "French people proving especially resistant to a religion that prohibits alcohol.[15][31][9][29]" I'll try to pick a few off as I go through.
 * Okay thanks, but there may be more of those generated as text is moved around due to comments here. Hopefully the bot that fixes these is still running.


 * Any sources about his opinion of the May '68 strike in France? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, now added. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixes thus far look good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph of "Management consulting" you start three consecutive sentences with "Romney", I suggest rephrasing at least one.
 * I replaced the latter two with "He".


 * "Romney later said that the years spent as pastor gave him direct exposure to people struggling in economically difficult circumstances different from his own affluent upbringing, and empathy for those going through problematic family situations." This sentence reads a bit wordy to me (mainly the "people struggling in economically difficult circumstances different from his own affluent upbringing" part). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "different from his own affluent upbringing" part, since it's pretty much implicit given that we're mentioning this at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, have been a bit busy/distracted this week, hope to finish my review soon.
 * "The Romneys sold their main home in Belmont and their ski house in Utah, leaving them an estate along Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and an oceanfront home in the La Jolla district of San Diego, California, which they had bought the year before." When did they sell their Belmont home?
 * In 2009, now added. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Both locations were near some of the Romneys' grandchildren" I see what you mean here, but the previous sentence mentioned more than two locations, so you might want to make it clear.
 * Now clarified as part of reordering two sentences and tweaking wording.


 * "Beginning in early 2011, Romney presented a more relaxed visual image." A little more detail might be helpful, was it that his dress was more casual? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now modified to say "including rarely wearing a necktie". The other part was leaving a few strands of hair slightly uncombed, but this seems a bit detailed to get into ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, yeah, probably don't need to go that far.

I'll go over the rest of the sources later, but that's enough for now. — GabeMc (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The section on the Winter Olympics looks good to me, the only thing I can note is that it doesn't really say why he was chosen for the role or who was behind the selection, just that the "offer came for Romney to take over".
 * Also, you use "Romney" a lot in the last paragraph of the section. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the "Romney sought to bring..." paragraph is pretty long, could probably be broken up.
 * " Romney formed a team of consultants from different political backgrounds" Different from Romney, or different from each other? Maybe use "diverse" here.
 * "but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts." I dimly recall that some town clerks may not have followed this order, if this was the case it might be good to note. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Romney rebounded to win the January 15 Michigan primary over McCain by a solid margin, capitalizing on his childhood ties to the state and his vow to bring back lost automotive industry jobs which was seen by several commentators as unrealistic." Might want to break this sentence up a bit.
 * 2008 campaign section looks pretty good, the only thing I feel might be left out is how Huckabee and Romney split the religious right vote to some extent, preventing either of them from mounting an effective challenge to McCain.
 * I see there's a reference to an "Ask Mitt Anything" session in a caption, is that significant enough to get a mention in the article?
 * In the fourth paragraph of "Political positions and public perceptions" there are a few sentences in a row that start with "He...", is there a good way to avoid this.
 * I made some tweaks to the political positions section, might want to double check my work there.
 * Alright, finished my read through, article is looking pretty good. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the "2012 presidential campaign" you mention that the Mass health care law was a hurdle, but you might want to explain why that was such a big deal. (i.e. the party had launched a full-scale attack on Obama's similar plan). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * General Comments ~ 1) Numerous, if not most of the cites to online sources lack accessdates, 2) Per WP:ISBN, "Use 13-digit ISBNs, if available, as these are now standard as of January 1, 2007 and issued to new book", some of your refs use 10-digit, other 13, this should be made consistant throughout 3) Several statements are supported by four cites, WP:CITEBUNDLE suggests grouping these into one for ease of reading (see also Citation overkill. 4) Consider using a harv or sfn tmeplate to clean up your sourcing for works cited to numerous times.
 * Specific comments on sourcing ~ Currently these need to be fixed, (isbn, publisher, location, date), or linked to the source in the bibliography via a harv or sfn template or something like that.
 * Cites #4, 19, 32 are to "Mahoney, The Story of George Romney, pp. 52, 70." * Cites #12, 53, 94, 104, 124, 127 is to "Kranish; Helman, The Real Romney, pp. 14–15." Ditto.
 * Cites #33, 45, 56, 72 are to "Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House?, p. 82." Ditto.
 * Cites #84, 90, 98, 101 are to "Hersh, The Shadow President, p. 123." Ditto.
 * Cites #90, 95 are to "Clymer, Edward M. Kennedy, p. 549." Ditto.
 * Cites #117, 129, 131, 160, 166 are to "Barone and Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics 2004, p. 772." Ditto.
 * Cite #26 is to "newsmax.com", is this a WP:RS?
 * Cite #133 is to "factcheck.org", ditto.
 * Cite #155 is to "findlaw.com", ditto


 * Thanks very much for the comments.
 * Regarding book cites, I'm using the original "last name, main title" short form footnotes inline, with the full book citation details in the Bibliography, as described in WP:CITESHORT. I and other editors have used that on many FA and GA articles over the years.  I realize that some people use harv or sfn, but personally I think it's an example of overlinking – after you've clicked through once to see the full cite, why would you click through on any of the following footnotes to the same book?  It's easy to find the full cite from the short form just by looking through the bibliography, and on a lengthy article like this I think the added templates, and thus added load time, of harv/sfn is not worth it.
 * Its incorrect to claim that sfn would increase the length and load time of the article, in fact, the opposite is true. Currently Hewitt is included in the refs list as *, all you would need to do is add, |ref=harv to the template. Further, your cites to Hewitt currently require, , 59 bytes (109 if you used the full title, as I think you should) and they render as "Hewitt, A Mormon in the White House?, p. 51.", 44 bytes (100 with full title). If you used sfn, the code would require this,  , for 24 bytes, and would render this "Hewitt, 2007 p.51.", for 18 bytes. So really, sfn would reduce the overall article size, and load time, while making it easier for readers to quickly identify sources.  — GabeMc (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that the template processing takes longer in and of itself and that the resultant HTML is more complex since there's an additional internal link. Can I prove this drives up the overall load time?  No, that's kind of a black art.  But in any case, I think what kind of short form citation style to use is one of those things that is in the discretion of the main editor/nominator, and in this case I choose not to use harv or sfn.  I've gotten articles to GA and FA using the basic form.  Other editors can go the other way and I wouldn't object to it on their GANs/FACs.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding accessdates, the recent trend has been to do away with them – I've even seen some bots that comment them out. They just add visual clutter to the references and make it easier for the reader to get confused about when the story was published.  Per WP:CITEHOW, it's only necessary now to include retrieval dates if there is no publication date, and I follow that in this article.
 * I strongly disagree on accessdates, they provide spot-checkers with important info, also, I don't think readers are confused by dates versus accessdates. — GabeMc (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is another thing that falls into the discretion category. I've gotten a bunch of articles to GA or FA with minimal use of them, and passed GA articles that use them throughout.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding ISBN, I agree they should be consistent, will do.
 * They are all now ISBN-13. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding more than three cites, cite bundling doesn't work for me because typically my cites are used in multiple places, but Nick-D had a similar comment and I'll try to get them all down to three.
 * Well, I do suggest removing as many redundant or unhelpful cites as possible, because as it stands now, its very difficult to discern which cite sources which clause in any given sentence, and its way past the point of WP:OVERCITE.  — GabeMc (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now gone through the article and gotten all the four or more cite clusters down to three. There are only two exceptions, the 'why the French wouldn't convert to Mormonism' explanation and the 'Romney looks like president' description, which I kept at four because experience has shown those are the two statements that readers most want to see sourcing for.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One or two high quality source can do the work of four low quality ones. The issue here is more of, if you have three independant clauses in your sentence, and four cites, then it take a reader/editor/fact checker much longer is some cases to verify that the sentence is backed by reliable sourcing. Three cites can also be confusing to readers, especially when a statement is straight forward. — GabeMc (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Newsmax, I think all uses of this are redundant or replaceable, will work on it. That may also be true of Findlaw.  However, Factcheck I think does qualify as RS.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Factcheck is Ealdgyth approved. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsmax and Findlaw are now gone, and either replaced or confirmed redundant. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

By 2010 and 2011, Romney and his wife were receiving about $21 million a year from investment income, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code) and about $3.5 million to charity,[77][78] of which about $2 million was to the LDS Church.[78]
 * I have a concern about the following sentence:
 * It seems that the parenthetical clause "based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment..." is alluding to the fact that the relatively low tax rate Romney paid generated some controversy in light of the ongoing discussion about taxes (c.f. the Buffett Rule). At the very least, we should include his effective tax rate as a percentage (the Washington Post gives it at 13.9%, since percentages are generally what people use when discussing tax rates. We should probably also explain exactly what "the beneficial rate" means: that it is 15% for investments versus 35% for "ordinary" income at the top bracket. We might discuss the context here - that this was seen by some critics as an example of a general problem where the very wealthy end up paying a lower tax rate than some upper middle-class people, but I don't want to give undue weight to the issue. GabrielF (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with GabrielF, also, after a quick look at the sources I can find no mention of "the beneficial rate accorded investment income", its called capital gains, we should call it that here. To omit his 13.9% effective rate is misleading. — GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the sources you cite (Reuters, Wash Post) use figures for two years, here you have divided the figures to apply to a yearly average which is original research. You should report it as the sources say, not estimate and average. — GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have decided to simplify this by only giving the 2010 numbers. The 2011 numbers so far are still only estimates (Romney got an extension on his returns) and don't change the basic picture presented by the 2010 return.  I have added the 13.9 percent figure.  I have kept in the "beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code" language because it isn't just capital gains, it's dividends and carried interest too.  The underlink is to the Capital gains tax in the United States article because it discusses dividends also and because I couldn't find a better article that discusses the rates for investment income.  If there is one, I'll be happy to switch the link to that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Further Sourcing Comments ~ I question the reliability of the following sources used in the article: newsmeat.com, pbwiki.com, mcclatchydc.com, opensecrets.org , realclearpolitics.com, highbeem.com, mediamatters.org, and newsbank.com . These sources appear dubious to me, and some link to potential copyvios. — GabeMc (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Highbeam and Newsbank are fine, they basically just archive publications, more or less like Jstor. In fact, HighBeam is officially encouraged. McClatchy is fine too, it runs a well-regarded newswire, like the Associated Press. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Mark, what do you think about the other five I mentioned? — GabeMc (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see, I'm not familiar with Newsmeat, there are a couple threads on WP:RSN that tend to make me think it's not a high quality RS. I think PBwiki is probably unrelaible too. OpenSecrets is run by the Center for Responsive Politics and I think it is reliable (not 100% sure). RealClearPolitics would depend on its use, I think it is trusted for polling data, but they host op-eds and columns that aren't necessarily reliable. MediaMatters is a highly partisan source, so I'd be very careful about citing them. I'd tend to accept them for some non-controversial facts (not 100% sure though). This is my basic appraisal of these sources, not the final word though. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsmeat and pbwiki only appear in the External links section, where they aren't intended to be RS per se, just places for extra information (Campaign contributions, press releases). But I've removed them.  Opensecrets was used once as a cite, but I've removed that as redundant.  The other use is in a common template that this article has no control over.  RealClearPolitics is used once for a primaries vote total, the thing they are best at, and another time that I've removed as redundant.  MediaMatters is used only once to collect some media opinions about Romney looking like a president, they are reliable for that kind of collection (there's no opinion mongering in this particular story).  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

* Suggestion - You should add, Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth to his writings. — GabeMc (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's credited to "Romney for President, Inc." as the author. The only thing he's credited for is a five-page "Introduction: Letter from Mitt Romney".  So I don't think it qualifies as one of his writings.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: When I saw the extent of comment quickly generated by this nomination, my first thought was that the nomination was maybe premature and that the article was still under development. The article became a GA over a year ago, and its only formal peer review was six years back since when it has changed out of all recognition. My feelings about the unreadiness of the article for FAC were somewhat confirmed when I took one section at random ("2012 presidential campaign"), and found the following:-
 * Several instances of unnecessary multiple citation strings for simple statements
 * You're the third commenter to raise this, and yes my style is to pile on citations, especially in an article like this where even the mildest statements get challenged. But I will make a pass through and try to reduce these.


 * A non-encyclopedic speculative statement: "Perhaps his greatest hurdle in gaining the Republican nomination..." etc
 * This is just shorthand for "One of his hurdles in gaining the Republican nomination that observers though most serious was ..." I don't see it as non-encyclopedic, and clearly from the battering that he took over Romneycare in some of the debates, it was a hurdle.


 * An uncited statement related to the "derailing" of Herman Cain (I see refs have been added here)
 * Already fixed, as you saw. I think there were only one or two uncited statements in the whole article.


 * "flip-flopping" is a hyphenated term (I have never seen it otherwise)
 * Now fixed.


 * Over-repetition of the term "surge" or "surging". The language needs to be varied if it is to meet the excellent prose criterion
 * You're right, it was used way too much, my bad. Now fixed with varied wordings.


 * "decidedly" should probabaly be "decisively"
 * Someone earlier said that, but I looked it up, and "decidedly" is correct here: decided — "Without doubt or question; definite; a decided success. —decidedly adv.  The problem with "decisively" is that it implies it ended the nomination contest, which it didn't.


 * "However, during two debates, Romney fumbled questions about releasing his income tax returns, while Gingrich surged with audience-rousing attacks on the debate moderators." Gingrich "surged" during a debate? And surely, it is support levels, rather than candidates, that surge?
 * Now changed to "Gingrich gained support with ...".


 * Clunking prose: "Combined with the delayed loss in Iowa, Romney's admitted bad week resulted in a previous double-digit lead in polls – and chance to end the race early – turning into a 13-point loss to Gingrich in the January 21 primary and a decision afterward to release his returns quickly". Needs substantial rephrasing.
 * Now split into two sentences and restructured. See what you think.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

These points are not particularly significant individually, but collectively they tend to confirm the impression of an article still in the drafting stages. I can understand the desire to have this article promoted as soon as possible, but I don't think it shou;ld be done this way. FAC should not be a forum for article building. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments. Just to address your general point, the article had a troubled history back in 2007–2008 during Romney's first campaign.  Staring in March 2010, it was almost completely rewritten and significantly expanded.  In March 2011, it became GA.  And now it's at FAC.  As the main author since the rewrite/expansion began, I do indeed think the article is "done" (modulo expected campaign developments such as the convention and veep pick) and not still under development.  And note that very few of the comments so far have addressed structural or content issues; it's almost all been wording improvements and clarifications and referencing fine points.  Yes, some of these I should have spotted myself, but as you know after you look at an article a zillion times, you start missing things other people readily see.  But I respect your point of view as well on this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment ~ As it stands now, the article's load time is ridiculous, and not conducive to editor involvement, making very small improvements takes way too much time. Please find a way to decrease load time. Also, WP:OVERCITE is an issue for me, as it stands now, there are way too many cites and verifiability is actually decreased. I would consider opposing based on the cite overkill alone. — GabeMc (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that the load time is worst for us editors, because we're looking at it right around the time we or other editors are making changes and the caches have all been invalidated at that point. For regular readers just arriving at the article at any random time, I think it's better.  Regarding reducing load time, I've never been completely sure what it's a function of.  I've heard number of images, number of templates, complexity of templates, double columns in footnotes, etc.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments ~ Per: "In July 1966, Romney left for 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary."[13][27][28] 1) Why do we need three cites to verify this uncontentious claim? Is there info in cites [27] and [28] that is not in [13]? Surely this simple sentence could be sourced to one cite. This is one of the ways the article could be made easier to read/verify, while reducing its overall size/loadtime. 2) According to the Chicago Manual of Style, and our wiki essay on the matter, "If you’re writing just a month and year (without a day), don’t separate them with a comma. And don’t include a comma after the year." E.g., "Her daughter April may return in June 2009 for the reunion." I see this date/comma issue throughout the article. — GabeMc (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the commas, I think there are three different usages here. "In June 2009, a whole family gathered for the reunion" needs a comma due to separation of dependent from independent clauses.  "Her daughter may return in June 2009 for the reunion" is a different sentence structure that doesn't involve separate clauses and doesn't need a comma.  "Her daughter may return on June 3, 2009, for the reunion" does need a second comma due to the style guidelines for month day year dates.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:OVERCITE ~ Here are a few other relatively simple sentences that do not seem to require multiple citations to source. — GabeMc (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Romney is of primarily English descent, and also has more distant Scottish and German ancestry.[4][5][6]"
 * "Romney idolized his father, read automotive trade magazines, kept abreast of automotive developments, and aspired to be an executive in the industry.[13][15][16]"
 * "Initially a manager for the ice hockey team and a member of the pep squad and various school clubs,[1][18][20] during his final year at Cranbook, Romney joined the cross country running team[12] and improved academically, but was still not a star pupil.[13][19]" Does this sentence really need six cites?
 * "He was promoted to zone leader in Bordeaux in early 1968, then in the spring of that year became assistant to the mission president in Paris, the highest position for a missionary.[28][9][32]"
 * "The experience in the country instilled in him a belief that life is fragile and that he needed seriousness of purpose.[13][31][9]"
 * "The couple were married on March 21, 1969, in a civil ceremony at Ann's family's home in Bloomfield Hills that was presided over by a church elder.[40][41][42]"
 * "At culturally conservative BYU, Romney continued to be separated from much of the upheaval of the era, and did not join in those protests that did occur against the war or the LDS Church's policy at the time of denying full membership to blacks.[16][28][37]"
 * "The Romneys' first son, Tagg, was born in 1970[40] while the Romneys were undergraduates at Brigham Young[46] and living in a basement apartment.[28][37]" Does this really need four cites?
 * "Romney initially refrained from accepting the offer, and Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney.[48][57][60]"
 * "In the face of skepticism from potential investors, Bain and Romney spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation, which had fewer than ten employees.[52][57][61]" — GabeMc (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In many of these of these cases, the contents of a sentence does indeed come from multiple sources. One might supply the date, another might give the main substance, and a third might support another aspect of it.  It has nothing to do with how simple the sentence might appear or how non-controversial the material might be.  If there is a fact presented, people want a cite for it, especially at the GA/FA level.  Look for example at this review, where both you and another editor wanted a cite for "Perry faded due to poor performances in those debates, while Herman Cain staged a long-shot surge until allegations of sexual misconduct derailed him."  Now anybody who was awake at all during the campaign last year knows this to be true.  Yet you both wanted this sentence cited, and because I couldn't find a single source that said both things, I had to add two additional cites to the article.  And so it goes.


 * In a few cases, the multiple sourcing is done to additionally confirm something that might be contentious or disbelieved or challenged. In your list, the "The experience in the country ..." and "At culturally conservative BYU ..." and "Romney initially refrained from accepting the offer ..." statements would fall into this category.  In fact as a general rule in these political BLPs, which I've done a bunch of, I won't put in anything contentious unless I can double cite it.


 * Finally, I'd ask, what is the problem here? Most readers of WP probably end up visually ignoring the footnotes when they are reading an article, just like you visually ignore ads when you reading a magazine page.  And if you can ignore one, you can ignore two or three.  For those who are interested in verifying the sources, if you think a statement is verified after just checking one of its footnotes, fine, you can skip the rest.   Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not against multiple cites for multiple clauses, but if you are going to use them, they should be clear and understandable. Look at WP:CITEBUNDLE. For example, from the article: "Romney is of primarily English descent, and also has more distant Scottish and German ancestry."[4][5][6] This should appear as [4], and it should render as: 4 ^ For Romney's English ancestry, see [4]. For Romney's German ancestry, see [5]. For Romney's Scottish ancestry, see [6]. This would be much cleaner and easier to understand. 2) When did I ask for additional citations? I think you have me mixed up with someone else. 3) Why do you need to double cite CBS, CNN, or Politico? If you have one reliable source that verifies the text that is enough, there is no need whatsoever to have three RSs for one claim. A triple cite here and there is fine, but they should be bundled and made clearer to the reader which cites verify which clauses, as WP:CITEBUNDLE explains. 4) I know FAC can be frustrating, but try not to bite the heads off commentors, we are just trying to help. Afterall, we could just support or oppose without offering any suggestions at all, so try to appreciate the time that goes into offering suggestions, and checking the article so as to help you pass FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, Nick-D and Brianboulton were the two editors who asked for the Perry/Cain cite, I should have double-checked, my bad. As for the FAC process, I don't think I've bitten anyone (and I certainly haven't intended to), and no, I don't find this process frustrating.  As for the bundled cite approach, I agree that it can work for some articles, but I don't think it's a good fit for this one.  The key sources here are all used multiple times, which means per the example in WP:CITEBUNDLE that there could be ten different clonings of "Brown, Rebecca. 'Size of the Moon,' Scientific American, 51(78):46." with url's and everything.  That would make cite maintenance (after a checklinks run, say) a real nightmare.  Also, all the added explanatory text in the footnotes would drive the article size and load time further up.  Again, I think this is one of those 'architectural' decisions that some editors will do one way and some another way.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment ~ Based on recent activity at the article's talk page, I cannot help wonder if this article is stable per Featured article criteria 1(e), considering many of the discussion comments there are not in response to the FAC process here. — GabeMc (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no edit wars, and the article has not changed significantly. This brouhaha is good for one--two news cycles at best. Noone cares what Mitt did in high school. This is just an example of the mainstream media doing everything it can to avoid talking about the economy. Let's get back to work on this FAC. – Lionel (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A flurry of activity when something like the bullying story comes out is inevitable for an article like this, and to me does not indicate instability, unless it's still in churn a couple of weeks later when the dust should have settled. (I disagree with Lionelt's assessment, but that's being discussed on the article talk page.)  The other instability has been with the top image, largely because none of the existing possibilities is a good choice.  Other than that, the article has been very stable.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * Comments ~ A few more suggestions for improvement. — GabeMc (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "He received an undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University" ~ In what?
 * "His wealth helped fund most of his future political campaigns." Too vague.
 * "Active in his church, he served as ward bishop and later stake president in his area." Does Romney own a church? Why not mention LDS here, if you are already mentioning his religious involvement?
 * "losing to long-time incumbent Ted Kennedy." I believe Ted was a five term senator in 1994, so "five-term incumbent" may sound better, and be more informative than "long-time incumbent".
 * "Romney headed the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" I think "president and CEO" is better than "headed".
 * "He presided over a series of spending cuts and increases in fees that eliminated an up to $1.5 billion deficit." "an up to" is awkward here, how about "an estimated"?
 * "During the course of his political career, his positions or rhetorical emphasis have shifted more towards American conservatism in several areas." Vague, what does "rhetorical emphasis" mean? What's "American conservatism"? Euphemisms? If so for what? If his politics have shifted toward conservatism, then one may assume his politics were once non-conservative, please clarify this, was he middle of the road, liberal, or other?
 * "In June 2011, he announced that he would seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination." Maybe this is a better example of the comma misuse in the article.
 * "The results of the caucuses and primaries have placed him as the clear leader and in April 2012 the Republican National Committee declared him the presumptive nominee." I think "indicated him" would be better here than "placed him", results indicate trends, they don't place people. — GabeMc (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment ~ The article should make clear Romneys relative wealth compared to other US politicians, indeed he is richer than the last eight presidents combined, and would be among the richest ever elected. Unless I missed it, the article does not cover this well. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comments
 * This is turning into a complex peer review. Clearly, many problems still remain and these should be discussed (and fixed) on the article's discussion page. FAC is not the place for extensive article improvement. I suggest sorting out these issues off-piste and renominating when a consensus for FA readiness is agreed on the talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.