Talk:Ann Romney/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

No effort, not even one edit has been done since the last review. Therefore, this article fails as a GA. No good faith effort or even cursory effort to improve the article. TeacherA (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this community GAR, the article has been renominated to obtain an independent review, and this is the reason no further edits have been made. Therefore, this nomination remains open until a reviewer other than TeacherA reviews it. Geometry guy 00:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer:

I will review this; but I might not be for another couple of days, as I have two reviews On Hold and one to start before this one. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and this article should make GA this time (well probably last time as well). I've spotted some grammar that I don't like, but that will be covered later.

I'm now starting the detailed review. I'll be doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I'm also doing another WP:GAN in parallel. At this point I will be concentrating on "problems" if any, although I might fix them my self. If I don't comment on a particular section here, that probably means that I think it is OK; but I will be providing an overall summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to your comments. As an aside, I don't think you need to spend effort on sorting cites manually, as you started to do in the first section (and I haven't tried to keep them sorted). There are a couple of bots and AWB scripts that do that regularly, and right now the cite order might be volatile anyway as changes or rearrangements to the article are made during the review process. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Really!!! Depending on which I complete first, this will either be my 299th or 300th GAN review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offense. I've only done about 30, so I'm definitely impressed. Reviewers are definitely the unsung heroes of WP. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

None taken. This review will probably be completed first, as the other article is much longer. Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Marriage and children -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC) - The final sentence in this section claims; "Her personality as a political wife was viewed as superficial and a detriment to her husband's losing effort in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.[16]". What ref 16 states (I've just selected a couple of statements) "Mrs. Romney was derided as superficial, pampered and too deferential to him" "“She definitely hurt him in that race,”...". Well superfical seems to be confirmed, but did someone misread "deferential" as "detriment"?

• No, this was referring to the "“She definitely hurt him in that race,”..." part. The wording wasn't the best; I've now changed it to: "Her personality as a political wife was viewed as superficial and was a detrimental factor in her husband's eventually losing effort in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts.[16]"

• First Lady of Massachusetts and charitable work -

• The final sentence in the first paragraph states: "Characterized her as "largely invisible" within the state.[22]". Ref 22 does state: "Ann Romney, though largely invisible back home in Massachusetts,...."; but the statement used in the article is hardly an accurate summary of what the The Boston Globe reports. Its almost a misrepresentation. The rest of this section appears to confirm that the statement is a misrepresentation.

• I respectfully disagree. The 'hook' of the Boston Globe story is that while she had been largely invisible within the state, she was becoming more visible outside the state, due to her appearances at political events in preparation for her husband's likely presidential run. The Globe story reiterates their opening assertion partway through: "In the more than three years her husband has been governor of Massachusetts, Ann Romney has mostly kept a low profile." I found this out for myself when trying to find news sources on her time as First Lady; other than these few Globe stories, there was very little, including for instance zero stories in the New York Times. I have included those things that she did do during her first lady tenure, but I don't think they contradict these characterizations. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• By all means disagree (respectfully). I will be assessing against WP:WIAGA and especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've now finished my Initial review and I going to return to the point above: The first paragraph in First Lady of Massachusetts and charitable work is all about invisibility in the state, whilst all the other paragraphs are about visibility. Paraphrasing the comment above: The 'hook' of the Boston Globe story is that while she had been largely invisible within the state, she was becoming more visible outside the state, due to her appearances at political events in preparation for her husband's likely presidential run. Well that point needs to be added to this section - its not there at present.

• I'm putting the review On Hold, so that this can be addressed. I regard this is a minor change to one section, so when I'm happy the article will be awarded GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been real busy for several days and haven't been on WP. Anyway, I've now added an explanatory note in the First Lady section about the inside/outside-the-state visibility difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)