Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ernie Fletcher/archive2

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 promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 15 October 2011 [1].

---

Ernie Fletcher

Ernie Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ernie Fletcher/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ernie Fletcher/archive2

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

After a failed attempt to become an astronaut, Fletcher went to medical school and became a doctor and a lay minister. He was elected to the Kentucky House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives, and as Governor of Kentucky. He was mentioned as a possible presidential nominee before a hiring scandal derailed his political career.

This is the article's second FA nomination. The first FA nomination closed with 1 support, no opposes, and all issues addressed, but did not garner enough reviews. The article is currently a GA and has undergone a peer review in which all concerns were addressed. Hoping for enough reviews for a promotion this time. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I supported the previous FAC after an extensive PR, and am glad to support it here. I also note that the images and refs (which were fine last time) have not been changed the last FAC, and so they should also be fine here. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image review: The image of Leno is free and correctly tagged. I believe the photos of congress members were legitimately created by U.S. government employees as claimed, though it's difficult to tell. If so, then they are also correctly tagged. Can someone confirm? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • All of the congressional pictures are from the various editions of the Congressional Pictorial Directory, which is published by the Joint Committee on Government Printing. Some are credited on Commons to the Biographical Directory, but ultimately, they can be found in the pictorial directory. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Reference spotcheck: Man, the Lexington Herald-Leader's online archives leave something to be desired, don't they? Without poring through microfiche I am unable to check most material in the article. I was, however, able to check footnotes 1 a-e, 7, 10, 25 a and d, 33 a and b, and 77 (of this version). In these cases, the information is found in the source, and there is no copyright violation or close paraphrasing found. (Cite 77 does not say Alton is based in Cincinnati, as cited... but this is a non-controversial statement, and not a problem in my opinion.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you have access to Newsbank through a local library, you can get at the LHL articles. That's where I got them. Our local community college subscribes. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Nitpick: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." In my opinion, the fact that he is married and has two children is not important enough to belong in the opening paragraph. (The lede is otherwise good.) (Complete review forthcoming.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Adding this was a suggestion by Ruhrfish in the peer review. I won't quibble either way; just noting my opinion. Looking forward to the full review. I may or may not get a chance to respond to it before Monday. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I think something about his family should be somewhere in the lead, but do not think it must be in the first paragraph. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, I've moved this down in the lead, both to address this concern and one raised by Brianboulton below. See how that works. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. After carefully reading the article and looking through the sources, I think this deserves promotion to Featured status. It's thorough, balanced, well-sourced, and well-written. Though I consistently opposed Fletcher when I was a Kentucky voter, and it feels a little odd "supporting" anything having to do with him, I have to give this one the thumbs up. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This makes me feel event better about the article, since I voted for Fletcher twice and thought the investigation by Stumbo was a political hit job for something every governor has done since time immemorial. If that didn't come through in the article, even when read by someone who probably had the opposite viewpoint, then I think we've arrived at a NPOV! :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I was not able to tell what your political biases were as I reviewed the article. So well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have skimmed the text and found a number of relatively minor issues for attention:-

• Lead, second para: close repetition of the phrase "a space mission" should be avoided
  • Done.
• It would make better sense if the sentence noting Fletcher's post-gubanatorial activities was placed at the end of the lead rather than being isolated in the first paragraph
  • Done.
• "The couple eventually had two children, Rachel and Ben, as well as four grandchildren". Oddly phrased: "eventually" seems redundant; "as well as" should be "and"; there is no real justification for naming the children. And how do we know the grandchild count will stop at four—is the fact that they have grandchildren necessary information? I would consider replacing the whole sentence with something like: "The couple had two childeen, a daughter and son born in 19xx and 19yy respectively".
  • I used eventually because it sounded weird to mention grandchildren right after their marriage, but I agree it's awkward. I always like to provide names when I have them, and I don't actually have their years of birth, so I can't rephrase as you suggested. I have rephrased to say "The couple had two children, Rachel and Ben, and four grandchildren." Is this OK?
• Can you be "ordained" as a lay minister? Surely, the concept of ordination means entry into the priesthood or formal ministry, and is not the appropriate term for a layman.
  • In my Southern Baptist church, we only ordain pastors and deacons, not lay ministers, but they may do it differently in the Primitive Baptist sect. I'm just going on what the source says.
• Legislative career: logically, the last sentence of the first paragraph should be the first sentence of the second.
  • Agreed, and done.
• "Fletcher tapped Steve Pence..." To my British sensibilities, "tapped" sounds like either slang or jargon; are you sure that this is an acceptable encyclopaedic term? In the UK, if you "tap" someone it means you are trying to get money from them.
  • It can mean that in the US, too, but it is also used as political jargon to mean "chose" (presumably as in, tapped on the shoulder to indicate one's pick, or something like that.) Still, you're right that it's jargon; I changed it to chose.
• "Chandler's campaign was further hampered by a sex scandal that ensnared sitting Democratic governor Paul Patton, as well as a predicted $710 million shortfall in the upcoming budget". Why would someone else's sex scandal hamper Chandler?
  • It was actually a sex-for-favors scandal. Patton was accused of helping the nursing home owned by his mistress pass government inspections, and then ordering inspectors to crack down on the nursing home when the affair ended. Without going into all that, I've tried to clarify that Fletcher promised to clean up the mess made by Democrats. He was actually the first Republican governor of the state since Louie B. Nunn in the 1960s, so there was a long history of one-party dominance in the governorship, which is not unusual for Kentucky.
    • I think the point is that the Democratic Party as a whole was hurt by association with their governor's peccadilloes. It might be possible to specify this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure. Take a look at my latest rewrite.
• The use of "In order to..." is always unnecessarily verbose. The first two words are redundant.
  • Done.
• Some clarification necessary as to what consitutes a legislative sesion. Otherwise it is not obvious why 2002 and 2004 are consecutive sessions.
  • There actually was a session in 2003. We have shorter sessions in odd numbered years, but the budget is only set in even-numbered years. I tried to clarify this by specifying that it is a biennial budget. The 2002 and 2004 sessions weren't consecutive, but they represented two consecutive sessions in which the General Assembly was supposed to pass a budget and didn't.
• The Leno and Northrup images are too large and overbearing given their relatively marginal importance in this article. Suggest you downsize by using "upright".
  • Agreed. I don't much understand what "upright" is supposed to mean, but it does seem to make the images less intrusive.
    • You've fixed Leno but not Northrup. And Baesler, too, is overly large. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I added "upright" to Baesler, but it was already there on Northup. Not sure what else to do.
• "On January 13, 2005, the Board of Medical Licensure ... opined..." To "opine" means to offer an opinion. In this case I think the Board was registering a decision.
  • In retrospect, you are right. I probably could have used "opined" instead of "found" earlier in the sentence (just because I like the word "opine") but in this context, you're right; "ruled" is better.

I will try and give the article more detailed attention later, but lease consider the above fixes meanwhile. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Will look forward to your more thorough review. Thanks for taking the time to give it a once-over. Acdixon (talk · contribs · count) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further comments
• "Through his ministry, Fletcher became acquainted with a group of religious social conservatives that gained control of the Fayette County Republican Party in 1990." First, I would say "church minstry" to avoid possible confusion.
  • Hadn't considered that it might be construed as his medical "ministry". I assume that's what you're getting at. Fixed.

• Then, the phrase "a group of religious social conservatives" reads rather judgementally, and I would prefer to see this changed to "a religious group".
  • As someone who holds religious, socially conservative views myself, I don't really find this judgemental. Al Cross, in Kentucky's Governors, calls them "socially conservative, religiously motivated Republicans". I'd be OK with dropping "religious" and just saying "social conservatives", but the religous aspect helps tie the connection back to his church ministry. "A religious group", to me, implies a sect or church, but I suspect this was an ecumenical (for lack of a better term) group from many different churches who happened to hold common socially conservative values.
    • OK, I was just expressing a personal view. Leave it as you have it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• It would be useful to know when Fletcher joined the Republican Party.
  • I haven't run across that information anywhere. If he'd previously been a part of another party, I'd think that would be noted somewhere, so I assume he has been a Republican for his entire political career.
• The parenthetical sentence beginning "Fayette County and the city of Lexington..." is in my view intrusive and unnecessary.
  • This was added as part of the peer review, at Ruhrfish's behest.
    • Much as I hate to disagree with Ruhrfisch, I found that this interrupted the flow for no good reason. But I won't make it a sticking point. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Also, Fletcher's membership of the Republican county committee should be dated.
  • Cross says that the social conservatives took control of the committee "around 1990" and subsequently put Fletcher on the committee. That's not a clear-cut indication that he was put on the committee in 1990, but I can add that date if you think it best.
• There is further paucity of dates in the second paragraph of this section. When, for example, did the redistricting take place? When was Fletcher defeated by Baesler? When did Fletcher defeat Scorsone, and when did he arrive in Washington?
  • Added the date of redistricting and Fletcher's loss to Baesler. His defeat of Scorsone was in the 1998 elections, but I thought this would be clear to the reader since he's running for Baesler's seat that he just resigned.
• "Fletcher resigned his seat in the House to become governor on December 8, 2003". Is that his date of resignation from Congress, the date he became governor, or both?
  • On second look, that's his resignation date. He became governor the next day. Clarified.
• "On May 19, 2005, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision stating that the General Assembly had acted unconstitutionally..." etc. It is not clear what consequences followed this decision. Were Fletcher's decisions reversed? Dis legislative chaos ensue? We are not told.
  • Fixed.
• I'd say "aircraft" rather than the colloquial "plane".
  • Fixed.
• "behavior" is a mass noun and should not be pluralised as "behaviors"
  • Fixed.
• "circumvented the state merit system in for hiring..."
  • Fixed.
• I found the article's ending rather abrupt. The final short paragraph on Fletcher's post-gubanatorial career does not significantly add to what's been said in the lead.
  • Not as abrupt as the end of his political career was. This state has a 2-to-1 voter registration advantage for Democrats, and the scandal was just what most of them needed to ride him out of town on a rail. I'd be surprised if 10% of the state's citizens know or care what he's doing now, and I'll be surprised if is ever in the news much again. I did a search on Newsbank during the peer review to see if I could turn up anything on what he's doing now, but I didn't find anything. Apparently, health care consulting isn't very newsworthy, even for a former governor.
    • Well, it might be worth making a point about his total disappearance from the political scene, as this seems to be a personal rather than a party eclipse; I note that both Kentucky senators are republicans as are four of the c ongressional seats. And the haevy preference for McCain... Just a thought, however. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look again from time to time to see if he resurfaces. It is odd how we do things in Kentucky; we do have a lot of Republicans at the national level, but at the state and local level, it's almost exclusively Democratic except for the southeastern part of the state and recently, Northern Kentucky. Only 2 governors have been Republican in the last 50 years. The state House of Representatives is solidly Democratic and has been for much of its existence; the Senate went Republican for the first time around the turn of the century, and has remained so since, but only by 2 or 3 seats.

I'll be happy to support when these are attended to (plus a couple of issues in my earlier comments) Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments. We may have a few loose ends to tie up here, but I'm confident we can do that in short order. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: I'm happy to support on the basis of your responses to my points. Any further tweaking is up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Appreciate your support and the fact that you seem to pretty consistently review the articles I put up at FAC. Getting reviews is like pulling teeth for me most of the time. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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