Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ann Romney/1

Ann Romney

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: The article is now under review by Pyrotec per discussion below. Geometry guy 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has had two GAN reviews, both times by User:TeacherA. The first review was cursory, and while it identified one legitimate article weakness, it should have been a "hold" not a "fail" since I was able to address that weakness in a few hours of research and writing work. The second review is longer, but rambling and to my eyes somewhat incoherent. Some examples:
 * The opening argument about the article not establishing notability is silly in my view; the amount of mainstream press exposure that Ann Romney has gotten for all the activities in her life (some related to her husband, some not) should make her notability unquestioned.
 * Some of the later comments by TeacherA leave me no way to respond, such as "It is too focused on Planned Parenthood and being mixed." There is only one sentence on Planned Parenthood in the entire article, and I have no idea what "being mixed" means.
 * Other comments, such as the one saying the article doesn't cover her educational background, are just plain false; the article talks about her high school, about attending BYU, about attending University of Grenoble, and later about attending Harvard.
 * I greatly expanded the "First Lady" section since the first review, but now get the comment "The First Lady section is the key to her notability. If this section is written like a good article, then half the battle is won. So focus on major revamping of this section." That tells me nothing concrete, and I'm not even sure TeacherA reread the article before doing the second review.  And so on.

I've brought over 25 articles to GA status and have reviewed more than that, so I know what a normal GAN review looks like. This article should have been given at worse a "hold" this time as well, not another "fail". The community is welcome to look at TeacherA's other GA reviews, which to my eye are all cursory and inept as well.

So I am requesting a) that someone else from the community give this article a review; there's no point in my resubmitting it again, as TeacherA will just see that and fail it again; and b) that sometime other than me give TeacherA some notice about poor GA reviewing practices being unacceptable. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. I agree with the concern. This article should be reinserted on the GAN page, with the requirement that a new reviewer (other than TeacherA) is needed. This GAR can be closed on that basis, and linked from the GAN request. Geometry guy 21:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I shall boldly renominate it on behalf of Wasted Time R. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have done so with a link to this discussion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will leave this GAR open for a little longer in case there are any other comments or suggestions. Geometry guy 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now signed upto to do this at WP:GAN - /GA3, but it will probably be another couple of days before I make a start. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its now a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)