Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Betty Roberts/1

Betty Roberts

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action/Endorse fail. GAR closed per nominator request, with some agreement that the article does not meet the criteria at present. Geometry guy 21:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

During the GA nomination the editor doing the review and I as nominator have had a variety of disagreements over content and NPOV. It was finally failed, but I don't think the rationale given was proper: Ultimately, this may not be GA at the moment, but there was far too much acrimony for this to receive a fair review in the end. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewer said that it is self evident that the Oregon Supreme Court is the highest court in the state shows they made an assumption, one of many I think were brought to this review. Why is it self evident that the Oregon Supreme Court is the top court in the state? The New York Supreme Court (and this occurs in a handful of states) is not the highest court in that state, the New York Court of Appeals is the highest in that state. Further, we write for a global audience, who many may not know that.
 * Other assumptions were she was controversial and that she was a feminist. That's a nice opinion, but the sources that were used did not state this, so we can't exactly add it. Maybe if I search for her name and add those terms I might find something, but I don't think we should be seeking out specific things like those in articles.
 * With the point about tenure, Jacob Tanzer was appointed two year before her and lasted two whole years. Again, the info for when she served was there, and I don't think how long someone served is a positive or a negative, so if the reader cared they could total it up pretty easily.
 * As to the resignation, the reviewer takes her word on the husband issue, but not the rest, not to mention the theories the reviewer apparently wants introduced are nice, but that would be original research if we added that to the article. Either we take her word or we don't.
 * With the info about the legislature, that is what breadth is, covering the aspect that she was in the legislature. If this was FA, I would agree more is needed, but this is not FA.
 * The next two points about the abortion issue and the need for her co-author were only now raised, plus, again, that her opinion on abortion is seen as controversial by the reviewer is a POV. Not to mention I'm loathe to use that source anyway as being a primary source, and I've only used it so far where it was requested or for minor details about where she lived and what schools she taught at. Not that the info can't go in, but it's a little late in the game to be bringing this up.
 * With the multiple sources, that was because two were not enough for the reviewer, so more were added to ensure the point was adequately covered to avoid more questions on the issue.
 * As to the rest, minor points, and nothing that should prevent a GA. Again, if it was FA, maybe this isn't up to "professional", but repeated sentence structure does not mean it is poorly written. Also, the specific sentences listed during the review were addressed, so again, if these were problems before, it should have been addressed during the review.
 * On a side note, her middle initial is R, (I'm assuming Rice from her first marriage), Cantrell is her maiden name.
 * Much of this could have been dealt with via the second opinion, which was requested.
 * Question. Several newspaper articles make reference to Roberts' prominent role as a feminist. This article in The Oregonian refers to her careeer as a "liberal feminist", and this article in The Portland Tribune refers to her as "a leader in Oregon’s feminist movement". Why does the article not directly address these aspects of her beliefs and her career? Majoreditor (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, their is not a Portland Tribune article, it is the much less respected Gresham Outlook owned by the same company, but it doesn't call her a feminist (you can make the inference, but it only says she was a leader of the movement in Oregon), and that word is used once. The Oregonian is a book review, not an article on her, and the term is used twice (plus following the label it says "That's not entirely true" in regards to being a liberal feminist, indicating the author of the article does not believe she was a feminist). Keeping in mind BLP, do you think those are sufficient. I'm not saying some people may consider her one, but based on those sources, should Wikipedia make that controversial labeling decision. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of points. Firstly, you may be misinterpreting what the review in The Oregonian says. The author of the review doesn't say that Roberts isn't a feminist; rather, the author asserts that she wasn't always looking to advance the cause of women:
 * "With Grit and by Grace," written with Gail Wells, describes Roberts' career as a liberal feminist, always looking to advance the cause of women. That's not entirely true. As a legislator Roberts was considered solid, well-versed on all political issues. Only in editing was her book reduced to one-third its original size, making it appear the feminist fire in the belly was her only driving force. (Book Review: "With Grit and by Grace". Douglas Yocom, "The Oregonian", May 15, 2008)
 * Secondly, I would suggest that this doesn't involve NPOV or BLP issues. Rather, it concerns GA criterion 3a: addressing the main aspects of the topic. The current article seems incomplete without directly addressing her role as a feminist. Several sources appear to discuss this matter. Why would the article shy away from it? Majoreditor (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the source is talking about her not being a liberal feminist, as it continues with what you quoted: "Only in editing was her book reduced to one-third its original size, making it appear the feminist fire in the belly was her only driving force". That is the book makes it look like she is a liberal feminist due to the editing of the book, and not referring to the part about advancing the cause of women. I think the author thinks she is a bit of a feminist, but not quite the one she has been made out to be by the book. But in general, the sources do not label her as a feminist. A search of the major news outlets (better than a Google search as these normally pass RS) comes up with around 540 hits for her (or at least people with the same name and Oregon, so obviously fewer are her) while adding feminist to the title reduces it to about 40, and again not all are her or are referring to her as the feminist in the article. Even the six part 100+ pages from the oral history in the external links section has the word a total of one time, and it is in reference to labeling someone else, not her. So, yes this is a NPOV, see the WP:UNDUE section about tiny-minority viewpoints. And even if it should be in there (as some may think the ratio is only a small minority and not tiny), do to the relative minority viewpoint it enjoys, it would be one sentence to the effect that "[insert person's name here] thinks/labels Roberts as a feminist".
 * Regardless, this part about feminism was not left in the review and not asked to be added to the article by the reviewer. It was only brought up to show there were some assumptions made by the reviewer that may not apply to this article. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And as to your second point, its Main aspects as you note, thus a minority viewpoint such as this would not be Main aspect of the topic, at least in my opinion. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is perfectly possible to discuss Roberts' contribution to the feminist movement without labeling her a feminist, liberal or otherwise. It is clearly not a minority viewpoint that she contributed considerably, and it is utterly clear from her career that she did. This has nothing to do with NPOV. An article without any analytical coverage from reliable sources, when such exists, is not broad, but bland. Geometry guy 10:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and they are discussed, except not labeled as feminist (or any thing else, as I "let the facts speak for themselves"). The problem is that its been labeled as feminist by some sources, whereas many others label it as pioneering. But they generally refer to the same things, such as the showdown with the newspaper over her name, the fact that she was the first woman in both appellate courts, and first woman to run as governor. With some of the other things (mainly legislation) most of those bills/laws were not mentioned in the early sources used to make the first draft, that is pre-her book. And even when they are now mentioned, there is little depth, mainly just mentioning it in passing (leaving out her book and the transcripts of her interview as we need independent sources for claims such as the leader of passing such and such legislation). So I have some reservations about using sources so close to her to portray her as this heroic figure of women's rights who passed all these bills. But I have a serious problem with "without any analytical coverage" as that would suggest we are to analyze the coverage, and we cannot do that. But in general, these would be added (with the proper sources) for the depth needed for FA, not GA, and that's where much of the disagreement comes from. And as to the part you tagged, it is in the 4th and 3rd paragraphs from the bottom of the article portion of the source, it uses "accepted", which to avoid plagiarism/copyright I changed to respected. And with that, I'm pulling this down. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are preaching to the converted, Aboutmovies: I'm a big fan of letting the facts speak for themselves and the analytical coverage I am talking about is coverage by reliable sources, not of reliable sources (notice the word "from" above). You seem to be terrified of anything which is not a "fact". Let me remind you that an opinion is a fact as soon as you say whose opinion it is. It is called attribution, or qualification. The article has none, not a single quotation (apart from a court ruling) and not a single attributed response or opinion of any aspect of her life. Her autobiography must be a gold mine of useful material, but it is not used as a source because it is "too close to her". Well, then quote her! Attribute the analysis to her autobiography! You are terrorizing yourself with your own rhetoric. Stop attacking the sources as "labeling her" as a feminist or pioneering. That is their description and opinion, and whichever term they use, it ties together a bunch of related facts in a way which is helpful to the reader. The Wikipedia article should not "portray her" as heroic figure or otherwise; instead it should say how other sources describe her, including her own autobiography.
 * By avoiding any opinion at all, you are actually engaging in original research and analysis: you are deciding what is fact and what is opinion, and excluding the latter. Worse, you are passing off opinion as fact. The sentence I tagged ("In time, she won the respect of her colleagues on the court after proving she could do the same work as the men.") is an example. I can find nothing like this in source 6 (not in the third and fourth paragraphs from the bottom either) but even if I could, it is still an opinion that she proved she could do the same work as the men, and that opinion needs to be attributed, not simply cited.
 * With this complete lack of anything remotely analogous to the "reception" of a movie, the article manifestly fails to be broad per the GA criteria. Geometry guy 08:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but its not original research. Maybe you could make case its an NPOV issue. Source 6: "I patiently waited for the men to learn that I worked the same way they did and that…at all times" (emphasis added) "As time progressed Justice Roberts became accepted as a member of the court" (emphasis added, and see prior comment on wording). So, those two back to back sentences tells me she was able to be accepted (again I used respected) by doing the same work as them, but since I only added it to appease the GA reviewer, I'll simply remove it, cause I really don't care, which is why this was removed from GAR. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Roberts herself, and the book reviewer, so it must be attributed. Anyway, I will close up the GAR per your request. Geometry guy 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)