Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1

Mitt Romney

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Mitt_Romney/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review

Result: kept hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that activity at the article over the last several months may have dropped a number of crieria. Main concerns are focus, scope, nuetrality, references (which need checking after months of additions), a pamphlet like formating, undue weight issues, some possible image use problems. Unstable. Reverts and possible edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I wonder if it might be possible to put this GAR request on hold, as there is already a pending peer review. Thanks.198.228.201.153 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that peer review is for FA, if it doesn't pass GA it cannot pass FA. The two are seperate and GA is required to even be nominated for FA. I feel this review is needed before the peer review. Perhaps you should ask that to be held off until after GA reassement.
 * There is no set ladder of progression. Sometimes people ask for peer reviews before going for GA, sometimes before going for FA.  Sometimes articles go straight to FA without ever being GA first.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the GAR, as primary author of the article I believe that it still meets the GA criteria. I believe its focus and scope and weighting are appropriate for the topic and mirror how the main biographical sources on Romney treat his life and career. I believe the article is neutral – it covers the full Romney, good bad or indifferent. The "pamphlet-like formatting" is an allusion to the article's use of box quotes, which I have now removed. I do not believe it has any image use problems in terms of licensing. The images could be better quality, of course, and it would be nice to have one of the subject before age 55, and it would be nice to have a formal portrait as top photo, but this is Wikipedia and you take what you can get. I believe the references are all correctly placed and formatted - I keep a close eye on them. I run 'checklinks' periodically and I see just now there are four deadlinks that come up; I'll address those.

As for stability, have there been reverts and edit warring? Yes, how could there not be with a topic like this? Since the article became GA, a lot of editors have arrived who care only about content, often a particular piece of content. They don't care about MoS conformance or cite formatting or consistent levels of detail or recentism. But I've been dealing with that and I believe I have been successful at keeping the article at a GA/FA level. If you look at the article in the middle of the day when I'm at work, will you see a bare url cite? Yes, it's possible, but if the content stays in, I'll fix up the cite. And so forth. Again, an article like this at a time like this is never going to be the perfect model of stability - but the Obama and McCain articles were both FA during the 2008 campaign, despite undergoing similar levels of editor activity, and I certainly believe this one can be GA/FA during this campaign.

Anyway, I always welcome feedback, and especially from the GAR community. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a few concerns with images, but I am fixing them. I could have done this as an individual reassesment but the last time I did that it was made into a community reassesment. Maybe this one should be turned into an individual reassesment? At any rate i will mark off all the concerns above as fixed to move this along as quickly as possible. You show a great desire to keep the criteria at GA and you could use a little help. As soon as everything is marked off again it should be able to be closed. The only major image issue is the licensing on the 1968 Romney campaign poster that I have doubts is public domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Image removal
Yes, upon a re-look I agree, the public domain claim on that image is somewhat dubious. Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden added several under the 'published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice' rationale, but that's a hard negative to prove and some of the others have already been thrown out. In this case, who's to know what the copyright status is on that photograph? This image is also used in George Romney presidential campaign, 1968 article, but there it would qualify as legitimate fair use, but not here.


 * As for the type of GAR, that's entirely your choice. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one else chimes in...it pretty much is just you and me anyway. I'll finish up quickly. My main concerns have been addressed and only a few things to check. The writing itself doesn't seem to have been effected in quality from what I am reading.
 * I went and looked at the image page at Wikimedia Commons, and I see nothing suspect there. No one has tagged this image, or raised any questions about it.  Mad Scientist started a discussion about it at the Wikipedia Village Pump here, but the response indicates that the image is perfectly okay for us to use.  Please restore it.  I also would like to mention that the predecessor image at the Mitt Romney article, was, in my opinion, not NPOV.  Of all the images of his father, one was selected that very prominently featured Richard Nixon in the same picture; Mitt Romney has very little connection with Nixon, who is one of the most disliked and disgraced persons in American history (and a person whom George Romney attempted to defeat).  The removed poster image does not have that problem, and it goes very well with the image of a button from Mitt Romney's mother's campaign.71.88.58.198 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That Village Pump discussion was about whether this public domain consideration applies to the U.S. But more fundamental is whether the photograph had a copyright.  Another of Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden's additions from that time, File:George and Lenore Romney in 1962.gif, recently got deleted from Commons on the grounds of "No clear evidence that the pamphlet didn't bear a copyright notice", see Commons:Deletion requests/File:George and Lenore Romney in 1962.gif.  Anyway, I never liked the Nixon cabinet photo being here either.  For now I have replaced the one in question with a George Romney for President bumper sticker which is more clearly PD under the 'only simple shapes and text' clause. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the poster had no copyright notice, it should be fine. Even if the photo previously had a copyright, lack of notice on the poster would have ended it.  Notice had to be on *all* copies, not just the first ones.  The only way it would be preserved is if the photo itself was used on the poster without permission, as copies without notice which were copyright violations themselves wouldn't have counted as a true publication.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved. A call to the Library of congress was not enough to state no notice, however this link shows clearly that there was no copyright notice on the poster. The 1968 "Romney great in 68" poster is public domain.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment at the article talk page, to resolve the matter. Thanks. 64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)(also IP 71.88)
 * The discussion there is content based. The image has been cleared for use . I went out of my way to rescue that image with clear proof it could be used. Now it is just a matter of whether editors want it returned. It isn't going to effect GA either way.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The image in the poster may be the copyright of Alan Band and is located here.. Not clear if this effects the copyright use of the poster.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job tracking this down. Seems to me that copyright is still active, and makes the poster not public domain.  So the poster image can still be used in George Romney presidential campaign, 1968 based on fair use (just like any photograph-based album cover image can be used in the article about that album), but not here under either fair use or public domain.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The poster is very clearly in the public domain. See this discussion at the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump.  The official un-cropped portrait by Alan Band is not public domain, but the cropped image was released in 1968 when the poster was published without a copyright notice.  There is no ambiguity about it.24.181.178.157 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(Also 64.134.98.120)
 * Yeah, there is nothing clear about copyright in this situation becuase of one small detail. And that is whether the original image was published BEFORE the poster. So this is still not cleared up as we do know who the photographer was and the image appears to be a portrait while in office, but not a work of the US government.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of copyright law is very clearly incorrect. Whether it was BEFORE or AFTER makes no difference whatsoever.  If the original image was published BEFORE the poster was published, then the owner of copyright in the original image had every right to subsequently release part of that work into the public domain.  Conversely, if the original image was published with a copyright notice AFTER the poster, then that established copyright in the original image with the exception of the cropped portion used for the poster.63.119.36.186 (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Dog note
I don't think that "Note 10" in the article is at all necessary, and it seems contrary to WP:Summary style. The note details the dog incident in 1983, but the main text already wlinks to the pertinent sub-article, Mitt Romney dog incident.71.88.58.198 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're as obsessed about this Note as Gail Collins is about the story itself. Alright, I've removed it.  But I do not accept your reasoning that this kind of Note is necessarily a violation of summary style.  I have Notes on the governorship and the 2008 campaign that I intend to keep in the article, even though there are subarticles on those periods.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA This article still appears to meet all the GA criteria to me and is currently undergoing a refining PR on its way to another FAC. Kudos to WTR for his tireless efforts in helping the article continue to meet the criteria despite a highly visible and evolving subject. —Eustress talk 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Eutress, but this isn't about removing the article from a GA listing or I would have just delisted it.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what is this reassessment for? WP:GAR explains that a community reassessment is for determining whether an article still meets the good article criteria. —Eustress talk 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A GA reassesment is no more about delisting then the peer review. It is about improving the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recommend speedy close as "keep"

 * Per the discussion above, it appears the nominator's motive here is general improvement to the article, which is more appropriately addressed on the article's talk page and via the peer review that is currently open. This article clearly still meets the GA criteria, so I recommend this GAR be closed immediately as keep. —Eustress talk 14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore public domain poster of George Romney in 1968. I support speedy closure.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Recommend continued evaluation as GA
This article, by omission, presents a strong subjective impression: For example, regarding Romney's education, "...at first did not excel academically... During his final year at Cranbook, he improved academically, but was still not a star pupil." would be significantly improved if the negative "did not excel" was specifically a quotation of a report card, or his ranking among his class, and the second sentence in my quotation is really meaningless, but implies achievement. Again, a negative "still not a star pupil" which could mean he graduated (like me) 498th out of 503. My next issue is with this: "In February 2010, Romney had a minor altercation with LMFAO member Skyler Gordy, known as Sky Blu, on an airplane flight." Here, the adjective, minor, is the problem. I would contend that no altercation on an airplane is "minor" and compounding that, one of the antagonists is a candidate for President of the United States. This event, if it is to be reported in the article at all, should be detailed. The same is true of "many pranks." Since the article also says that Mr. Romney lately appologized for the pranks it seems that specifics are in order. IMO this is not GA and certainly not FA. Anewcharliega (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These objections are not persuasive. Regarding Romney's academic performance in high school, this Wikipedia article accurately conveys what the sources say.  The cited article by Neil Swidey says: "His report cards tell the story of a bright boy who had yet to feel the urge to apply himself fully. ('He can do a lot better.... He wastes much time in class')....In his final years at Cranbrook, Mitt emerged a more serious student."  Likewise, the cited article by Scott Greenberger says, "The future governor did well academically at Cranbrook, but he wasn't a star."  One has to work with what one has, and in this instance the thrust of the cited sources is honestly summarized by the BLP.  Moreover, a reader does not need to know Romney's precise class rank or precise grades in order to understand this stuff.
 * Likewise, the objection about Sky Blu is not persuasive either. For readers who want details about the incident, it is detailed in a note: "After having attended the 2010 Winter Olympics, Romney and wife were on board an Air Canada plane waiting to take off on a flight from Vancouver to Los Angeles when he got into a physical altercation with Sky Blu, sitting in front of him, over Sky Blu's seat not being in the upright position. Romney said that Sky Blu became physically violent and that he did not retaliate, while Sky Blu said that Romney gave him a "Vulcan grip" first and that he responded physically to that. Sky Blu was escorted off the aircraft by Canadian police but Romney did not press charges and Sky Blu was released.[275][276][277]"  If that doesn't qualify as a minor altercation, it's hard to imagine what might.
 * Like the mistaken copyright objection about the poster, these objections too are not persuasive, and certainly not grounds for delisting as a good article.63.119.36.186 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)(also 64.134.98.120 and 24.181.178.157)

Now you are just making stuff up. I encourage you to register an account so that further communication is done in a consistant manner...and brush up on copyright. You know very little about it or at least don't seem keen on making accurate statements about such. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing as kept
I am responding to the request from Eustress on the GAR talk page, that an uninvolved user take a look at this. I am closing this as kept. I think everyone involved here has shown constructive interest in improving the article, and there has been some useful discussion and action. I remind editors of a principle behind GAR: "GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not." It appears to me that the article meets GA criteria. It is certainly not perfect, and i am sure it will benefit from review, such as at PR. Howev=er, it meets GA criteria. I also note from the edit history that it is being actively improved by experienced editors (esp. Wasted Time R), in which case it would be best simply to raise suggestions or concerns on the article talk page. Thank you to everyone involved for taking an interest in the article and a constructive approach to the discussion. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copying further explanation, initially provided in response to a query at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment:
 * It appears to me to be well-written, its lead appears consistent with MOS. It is abundantly referenced. Some may think it over-referenced, but given the potentially contentious nature of the subject, particularly at the moment, I think it's fine. I haven't been through it line by line, but I'm not seeing evidence on the talk page or the edit history to suggest any WP:OR problems. It is broad in its coverage, addressing personal life and education, business career, state political career, and presidential candidacies, as well as some separate discussion of key aspects of his views. If this were a candidate at FAC, I would be considering any possible duplication between the penultimate section and the body text, but I don't see it as an issue at GA since, even if there duplication, it is limited in scope. Individuals will seldom agree on the neutrality of articles about living partisan political players (IMO), but the careful referencing, the neutral language, and the watchful eyes of experienced editors all suggest to me that it is sound. Likewise, articles such as this are not always very stable in terms of vandalism, but I don't see edit wars or disputes on a scale that should prevent it being GA. Finally, images are generally OK; I am aware there is a live debate about one image that relates to one of the GA criteria ("images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"), but there is a sensible discussion going on, and I don't think editors are trying to keep an image in the article that is clearly against the criteria.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some further explanation: I reviewed comments on the talk. I noted the arguments of experienced editor (and previous GA nominator) Wasted Time R as to why the article was still at GA, and also that Wasted Time responded to suggestions with improvements; the view of Eustress and of an IP that it remained at GA; and also the IP's rebuttal of the (previously uninvolved, and mostly inactive) editor Anewcharliega. I reviewed the article against the criteria (see above) and reached the same conclusion as Wasted Time R and others. It appeared clear to me that the article simply doesn't need to be at GAR in order to deal with any issues. I regret not leaving a message to that effect on the talk page of the editor who established the review page; that was a mistake on my part. I appreciate (as I indicated elsewhere) Amadscientist's work on improving the piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)