Talk:George W. Romney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article, though it's likely to take a while (a week or so?), since it's long and I'm thorough. Steve Smith (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe two weeks. I'm very sorry for the delay on this; given my schedule these days, I probably shouldn't have signed up to review such a long article. Anyway, this should certainly get to GA status by the time we're finished, but does need a little work to get there. Wherever possible, I've made specific suggestions; the reasons I've framed these as suggestions rather than just implementing them are that i. many of them are subjective, and I want to extend to you the courtesy of having the chance to disagree with me without having to revert me, and ii. if I just went in and mucked about with the prose, before long I'd have rewritten half the article, whereupon I wouldn't have the detachment necessary for a GA reviewer. Steve Smith (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for your very detailed review. I've also gotten overextended with WP review commitments in the past, so I know what it's like and the delay is no problem. I'll start making changes and responses to your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?

It's pretty good—certainly one of the better GA candidates I've reviewed—but there's still lots of room for improvement. I'll start off with some general points, and then move to some specifics.

• Romney is identified by name far too often in this article. Don't fear pronouns!
• The phrases "Romney then" or "He then" are too frequent. Try to minimize the occurrences of "then". For example, in many parts of "Early life and career, marriage and family", events are identified by year. There is no need to inform the reader by use of "then" that an event that took place in 1930 took place after one in 1929.
• There are quite a few places where the writing is unnecessarily wordy. I'll identify quite a few of them below, but I'd encourage you to go through yourself and look for places where the wording can be tightened.
• "...was an American businessman and politician who was a member of the Republican Party." How about "...as an American businessman and Republican politician?"
• "He was chairman of American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962. He then served as the 43rd governor of Michigan for three terms from 1963 to 1969 and subsequently was the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973." What about "He was chairman of American Motors Corporation from 1954 to 1962, governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, and United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 1969 to 1973."?
• "He joined Nash-Kelvinator in 1948, then became chairman and CEO of American Motors Corporation in 1954. " This is an example of what I was talking about above: "then" could easily be replaced by "and" here. In isolation, there's nothing wrong with this sentence, but given the frequent repetition of the word "then", I'd suggest that you should look for opportunities to cut down on it, and that this one one.
• "...by increasingly larger margins in 1964 and 1966." "Increasingly larger" would suggest that (1966 margin - 1964 margin) > (1964 margin - 1962 margin). I suspect that what you actually mean is that (1966 margin) > (1964 margin) > (1962 margin), in which case the correct phrasing would be "increasingly large".
• "While in office, Romney worked towards overhauling the state's financial and revenue structure." I think you could lose all of the struck out text without sacrificing meaning.

More later. Steve Smith (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes to the lead corresponding to the last five points. Note that I think "Republican Party" should be kept rather than just "Republican" (the latter could be misunderstood by a non-American reader) and "financial and revenue structure" should be kept rather than just "financial structure" (the latter sometimes just means budget management or spending processes apart from taxation approaches).

As for being unnecessarily wordy in general, I know, this is a fault of mine. Alas, when reading my own writing I often don't "see" alternative, more compact phrasings, since the ones I used are those that naturally occur to me. But I'll try to give it another read-over. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first three points, I've made a copyediting run through most of the article, addressing these issues and others, and working off a printout to try and get better 'distance'. I'm sure there's still room for improvement ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• "He briefly represented moderate Republicans against conservative Republican Barry Goldwater during the 1964 U.S. presidential election. Governor Romney requested the intervention of federal troops during the 1967 Detroit riot." I think these sentences could be merged. I also have a bit of a bug up my ass about the use of superfluous titles, as in "Governor Romney" (we already know he's governor), so I'd recommend eliminating that as well (actually, I'd recommend just replacing with "he"), but it's up to you.

I don't like merging them, because they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I used 'Governor' because only that office can request federal troops, but I guess it isn't necessary and I've replaced it with 'He'.

• "...and he ended up withdrawing..." how about "and he withdrew"?

Done.

• "Once elected, President Nixon appointed Romney Secretary of Housing and Urban Development..." That title thing again. Maybe you could lowercase "president" and move the comma one word to the right, if you want to make it crystal clear that Nixon is president?

Done.

• Is it necessary to include the lifespans in parantheses for people who have their own articles? It looks odd to me, though perhaps the MOS speaks to the issue.

I can't find anything in an MoS on that. I've had past FA or GA reviewers who want that, as it clues the reader in as to who was living when, which otherwise can be confusing in this type of text.

• "Romney's uncle Rey L. Pratt (1878–1931) would in years to come play a major role in the preservation and expansion of the Mormon presence in Mexico and in its introduction to South America." The temporal situation is unclear here: when is it that he played this role? The use of the conditional tense suggests that it was after the reference time, but it's not clear what that reference time is.

I've changed this to say "in the 1920s" to clarify this.

• " Gaskell Romney was a prosperous carpenter, house builder, and farmer in the colony." Might this sentence be better moved to the previous paragraph, which deals with Gaskell?

This was intentional. The previous mention of Gaskell was just to establish his place in the family structure. This description needs to be here, after George is born, because it establishes the environment of his very early life.

• "The Mexican Revolution subsequently broke out" How about "The Mexican Revolution broke out in 1910"?

Done.

• "the Mormon colonies became endangered during 1911–1912 with raids" How about "te Mormon colonies were endangered in 1911-1912 by raids of marauders, including Pancho Villa"? The tense is a little more active, and the wording slightly tighter.

Agreed, and done.

• "From here on, George Romney grew up under humble circumstances." Not sure "From here on" is useful.

It's because in his very early years he grew up under prosperous circumstances.

• "The family subsisted with other Mormon refugees on government relief in El Paso, Texas for a few months. They then moved to Los Angeles, California, where Gaskell Romney worked as a carpenter." I'd suggest merging the sentences (changing "they then moved" to "before moving", or similar) and maybe changing "The family" to "His family". This last point is an issue a few other places in this paragraph as well.

Sentence merging done. I like "the family" because it's not ambiguous and it keeps the repetition of the he/his pronoun down.

• "...mocked Romney's national origin by calling him "Mex"." I think (but stand open to disagreement) that the reasons for the mockery would be clear enough if it was changed to "...mocked Romney by calling him..."

Well, presumably he didn't look Mexican, and he wasn't ethnically Mexican, so I think the clarity is worth the extra words.

• "The farm was not well located, potato prices fell, and the farm failed." Repeition of "the farm" is kind of awkward. Maybe reword to "The farm was not well located, and failed when potato prices fell" or similar?

Agreed and done.

• "...in an area growing due to..." "Due to" is an adjectival phrase that modifies nouns. Since this is modifying a verb, it should be "because of".

Done. Wasn't aware of that distinction, thanks.

I wasn't until quite recently either; I'm sure some of my FAs have errors of that type.

• "...and while his father resumed construction work, George became skilled at lath-and-plaster work." "Work" is a little repetative; maybe eliminate the first occurrence?

Agreed and done.

• "In all, George watched his parents go bankrupt twice in Idaho and Utah" Awkward and unclear. I assume this is twice total, and not twice in each state? How about just "George saw his parents go bankrupt in both Utah and Idaho, and seeing their struggles..."?

Done. And this is for the better, as one source says Gaskell went broke five times (not all of which may have been explicit bankruptcies).

• "Once living in Salt Lake, Romney attended Roosevelt Junior High School, followed by Latter-day Saints High School starting in 1922, while he worked to support himself." This is a little awkward, and the addition of the bit about supporting himself ruins the flow with the next sentence (which begins "Once there"). I'd suggest something like "In Salt Lake, Romney worked to support himself while attending Roosevelt Junior High School and, beginning in 1922, Latter-day Saints High School."

Yeah, this is a sentence I couldn't figure out how to get working. Now changed.

• "There he played football, basketball, and baseball with more persistence than talent; but in an effort to uphold the family tradition of athleticism, he earned varsity letters in all three sports." Following a semi-colon with "but" is as ugly as beginning a sentence with one. I'd suggest changing the semi-colon to a comma or changing "but" to "however". Alternatively, try something more aggressive.

Comma seems good, have changed to that.

• At this point, you fall into a trap that I know too well: semi-colon overuse. You have them in three consecutive sentences, which is excessive. This is an issue elsewhere in the article as well (e.g. first paragraph of the Presidential bid section).

Yeah, guilty as charged. One is gone here, but the other two still seem the best way of structuring that material. And I've chopped one out of the Presidential campaign section.

• "Partly to stay next to Lenore, whom he pursued with singlemindedness..." I think the wording here can be tightened by changing "next to" to near" and "with singlemindedness" to "singlemindedly".

Done.

• "Romney spent the next year as a junior college student at the co-located Latter-day Saints University..." I admit to having no idea what "co-located" means.

The high school and the college were on the same campus.

Merriam-Webster doesn't recognize it: [1] Is it in common use?

It's there but without the hyphen. I've taken the hyphen out of the text.

• "Having become an elder, Romney wanted to serve as a Mormon missionary and earned enough money working to fund himself." A little convoluted. Maybe "After becoming an elder, Romney earned enough money working to fund himself as a Mormom missionary"?

Done.

• "the abject poverty and hopelessness of the people he saw there affected him greatly." You could probably lose "of the people".

Done.

• "the latter's admonitions to live the strongest life each day..." The meaning of this is unclear.

I've reworked with a direct quote from Widtsoe, that hopefully will be clearer.

• "Romney experienced British sights and culture and was introduced to members of the peerage and the Oxford Group." I think you could lose the passive by changing "was introduced to" to "met" or similar. As well, I'm iffy on the choice of "experienced" as a verb here, which is very vague. Is it possible to tighten the beginning of the sentence in a way that it says more with fewer words?

I think 'being introduced to' conveys the sense of making connections in a formal society more than just "met". To be honest I don't see anything wrong with "experienced" here either.

• "In August 1928, Romney was made president of the Scottish district" Another passive. Maybe change "was made" to "became"? Also, the Scottish district of what?

Changed, and clarified that it was a missionary district.

• "to combat the difficulties of operating in a whisky-centric area, he developed a new, larger-sized "task force" approach to missionary work that drew local press attention." This is cumbersome and unclear. Though I'm not quite certain what is being said here, would something like "his "task force" model of missionary work, designed to overcome the difficulties of working in a whiskey-centric area, drew local press attention" capture the intended meaning?

I've tried to rework it differently, see what you think.

• "...from The Mound in Edinburgh, and from soap boxes at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park and a platform at Trafalgar Square in London..." Faulty parallelism. I'd suggest just " from The Mound in Edinburgh, soap boxes at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, a platform at Trafalgar Square" (Trafalgar square's location is going to be known to most of your readers, and the rest can click the wikilink. Arguably, you could also lose "Hyde Park", though I'm not going to make an issue of that.).

I've reworked the whole thing to make the parallelism sound. See what you think.

While the parallelism is proper now, I think "in London" really disrupts the flow. If you like it as-is, I'm not going to insist on anything, but I hope you'll take another look.

I've removed the "in London", although I suspect some editor down the road will put it back.

• "...which he would use throughout the rest of his career." I'd lose "the rest of".

Done.

• "...after her father had accepted an appointment..." Excessive pluperfect.

There was a lag between her father accepting and George moving, which I'm trying to reflect.

• "...first as a speedwriter..." Should this be "speechwriter"? If not, would "stenographer" be more appropriate? "Speedwriting" appears to refer to a method of writing, when I assume that the more relevant part of the job was what he was writing.

Well, there was a shorthand system called speedwriting, see the Speedwriting article linked to, that's what this is referring to.

Yeah, I saw that. But isn't it more relevant what he was writing than how he was writing it?

I've changed this to "as a stenographer using speedwriting" which gets across both what he was doing and how he was doing it.

• "...then when his abilities at that proved limited," This appears to be a parenthetical, in which case a comma is required after "then".

Done.

• "...the job was a turning point in his career and he gained a lifelong assurance in dealing with Congress." I'd suggest tightening to "and gave him confidence in dealing with Congress" or similar.

Done.

• "...he attended George Washington University at night for a while." Lose "for a while".

Done.

• "...and has been described instead as an autodidact." I'd get rid of "instead", and maybe also change to the active voice if you can attribute the description.

I like the 'instead', because it emphasizes that he had another route to knowledge and learning. The attribution is a 2007 New York Times profile on George and Mitt, but I don't think that really merits in-text attribution. If I find one of his biographers saying the same thing, then maybe.

• "...office in Los Angeles..." "Los Angeles office"?

Done.

• "He would consider his wooing of her his greatest sales achievement." I'd suggest moving this one or two sentences later.

The trouble is, later it comes after the chrono jump to list all the children. His wooing succeeded when she agreed to marry him, so I think it's better where it is.

Well, I did say "one or two"; in the first case, it would be after the marriage but before the kids. I still like it better there: first he gets her to marry him, then it mentions what an achievement he considered it. I'll leave it up to you, though (I'm only adding this note because your response suggested that you might have missed the "one" in "one or two").

I've looked at it again, including in "show preview" mode, but I still like it better where it is. It was his getting her to give up her acting career that was the most critical 'achievement', not the actual marriage itself. And moving it once sentence later means two "would" sentences would be right next to each other.

• "Romney frequently competed with the copper industry..." At what?

Now clarified.

• "In the early 1930s he also helped get..." I'd lose "also".

Done.

• "Lenore Romney's cultural refinement and role as a capable hostess aided him in his business life..." "Lenore's cultural refinement and hosting skills helped him in business, and the couple met..."?

Done.

• "After nine years with Alcoa, Romney's career had stagnated; there were many layers of executives and a promotion he had wanted was given to someone with more seniority." I'm not clear on how the layers of executives relate to this; if there are many layers of executives, shouldn't promotions be easier to come by than in a flatter bureaucracy?

There were many layers of execs to get through, and he missed out in particular on a promotion he wanted. I've tried to clarify.

• "He gained the attention of people in the automobile industry[19] and in 1939, he moved to Detroit with his wife and their two daughters to become the local manager of the Automobile Manufacturers Association." The beginning of the sentence is kind of ugly, and I'm not really sure it adds anything in any case (he could hardly have become local manager if nobody in the auto industry knew who he was, could he?). I'd suggest either eliminating or expanding to provide context (whose attention, how did he get it, etc.)

This is a key part of Romney's bio and what I had wasn't very good. I've reworked and expanded it (starting at the end of the previous section) and better sourced it. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• "An association study found Americans using their cars more for shorter trips..." Double comparitive - reword to either "...cars more for short trips" or "...cars for shorter trips" (I think the first better captures your intended meaning).

Did the first.

• "the trend was towards more functional, basic transportation." Unclear what this means (as opposed to elaborate, non-functional transportation?).

That is pretty much the phrase of the source (Time magazine cover story). As compared to design frills, a bigger engine than you need for around-the-town trips, etc.

• "... which worked to optimize the automotive industry's war output by setting up a cooperative arrangement in which companies should share in each others' production improvements." So many words! How about something like "...which helped companies share production improvements to maximize the industry's contribution to the war effort."?

Have reworded a different way, see what you think.

• "He also helped create the Automotive Committee for Air Defense as well as the Detroit Victory Council" You've got a double whammy here, with "also" and "as well as" (two of the most overused words/phrases on Wikipedia) in the same sentence. Definitely eliminate "as well as" in favour of "and", and consider whether the "also" is really necessary.

Got rid of the "as well as".

• "Romney became the chief spokesman of the automobile industry during World War II..." This whole paragraph is about World War II, so I don't think it's necessary to restate that here.

Done.

• "...often testifying in Congressional hearings as to war production methods as well as labor and management matters." "...often testifying before Congressional hearings about production, labor, and management issues."

Done.

• "...including tremendous numbers of motorized vehicles, tanks, engines, and other products for the Allied military forces." "Tremendous" is pretty POV. If it's straight from a source, quote it as being from that source. Otherwise (and possibly even not) lose it in favour of something a little more muted or, better yet, specific numbers.

Have switched to specific numbers.

• "Up to one-quarter of all U.S. wartime production may have been accounted for by the automotive industry." This is ripe for elaboration - "may have been"?

The source (an Oct 45 NYT story) says one quarter. This intuitively feels too high to me – what about shipbuilding? aircraft besides the engines? all other kinds of munitions? – so I hedged it a bit. I've consulted a couple of military history experts and am trying to locate a second source to confirm this kind of figure.

Update – we found a second source, one of the major books about the U.S. industrial mobilization effort during WWII, that says "This was the industry upon which the nation was to depend for some 20 per cent of its total war production." So I've revised the text to say "Between a fifth and a quarter ..." and given both sources. The error bar on this kind of calculation is fairly high (a third book we looked on the subject at gets into "standard 1945 munitions dollars" and "adjustments for seasonal variations and changes in the price level", to illustrate the complexity involved) so these sources aren't really in opposition to each other.

• "...of a "man in a hurry" nature, and he was considered a rising star in the industry." Awkward. "Giving the impression of a "man in a hurry"", maybe?

So changed.

• "Under the strategy of Mason, Nash-Kelvinator merged..." At minimum, replace "strategy of Mason" with "Mason's strategy". I'd prefer a more wide-randing reword, though, to something like "Mason initiated Nash-Kelvinator's merger with..." or something.

Reworded, and citing in this paragraph improved.

• "Romney elected to phase out..." "Romney phased out..."

Done.

• "...manufacturing compact cars exclusively." "...manufacturing only compact cars."

Done.

• "In contrast with the NASCAR racing success of the Hudson..." "In contrast with the Hudson's NASCAR racing success..."

Done.

• "Romney testified before the United States Congress frequently and was effective before them." Maybe "Romney was effective in his frequent appearances before Congress"?

Done.

• "He also discussed..." No reason for "also".

Removed.

• "...he also called for Congress breaking up the Big Three." Merge with the previous clause, eliminate "also", to get something like "and called on Congress to break up..."

Done.

• "As the other Big Three automakers introduced ever-larger models, AMC undertook..." This wording suggests that the AMC was a member of the Big Three, which it wasn't, was it?

Removed.

• "...using its CEO as its spokesperson in advertisements, public appearances, and commercials on the Disneyland television program." What's the difference between a commercial and an advertisement in this context? Also, could it be reworded to make Romney the sentence's subject (possibly by hiving off a new sentence)?

Clarified to say print advertisements (newspapers and magazines). Second clause reworded some.

• "...shirt-sleeved management style..." What does this mean?

This was a common metaphor for someone willing to dispense with formality, take off his suit jacket, and get down to the task at hand.

• "...was documented on the April 6, 1959, cover story of Time magazine..." in the cover story, surely?

Done. (Holdover from 'on the cover' before I added 'story'.)

• "...brought off singlehanded..." Are you sure that this is an accurate transcription? "Singlehandedly" seems more correct to me. Should a [sic] be placed there, if it is an accurate transcription?

It's accurate (see here and search for the phrase). It shows that Time magazine was ahead of the dubious curve in the decline of the -ly adverb. I wouldn't add [sic] on, that really jumps out at the reader like a sore thumb and I don't think the 'mistake' here is serious enough to warrant it.

• "In the earliest years of Rambler, the company had been on the verge of being taken over by corporate raider Louis Wolfson, but the company's resurgence made Romney a household name." Repetition of "the company". I'd suggest replacing the first occurrence with "AMC" and the second with "its", unless you think that would create ambiguity.

Changed to "AMC" and "the company", seemed best to me.

• "...Romney had made a fortune for himself." I don't think "for himself" adds anything.

I think it does, because it could otherwise be interpreted as making a fortune for the shareholders.

• "...benefited via a then-novel profit-sharing plan." "...benefitted from"?

Changed.

• "...by the time he was serving as President of American Motors..." "...by the time he was AMC President..."?

Changed to "AMC chief".

• "...preached sermons on occasion..." "...preached occasional sermons..."

Changed.

• "Due to the stake covering part of Canada..." "Because the stake covered..."

Changed.

• "Romney's rise to a leadership role in the church reflected the church's own journey..." I don't think "own" adds anything.

Removed.

• "...for the need for better teacher pay and new infrastructure funding." I don't think "the need for" adds anything.

I think without it, it could be interpreted as recommendations for how to increase teacher pay, rather than the need for increasing teacher pay.

• "Moreover, Citizens for Michigan built upon Romney's core notionbelief that assorted interest groups held too much influence and control in government, and that only the cooperation of informed citizens acting for the benefit of all could counter these forcesthem."

So changed, except I left in "the cooperation of", which I think is important.

• "Based on his fame and accomplishments in a state where automobile making was a central topic of conversation..." How about "Because of his accomplishments in Michigan's most important industry..."?

Disagree on this one. Someone can be very successful and business but not be visible to the public; fame in addition to that makes it easier to enter politics. And pharmaceuticals is New Jersey's most important industry, but not everyone talks about it all the time the way they do cars in Michigan or entertainment in California.

• "Romney first became directly involved in this area in 1959, when he became a key force in the petition drive calling for a state constitutional convention to rewrite the Michigan Constitution." I'd lose the second "became" and probably the word "state" before "constitutional convention" as well. Even then, this sentence bothers me, though I can't quite put my finger on why.

Did those two changes.

• "Romney's selling ability..." "sales skills"?

Changed.

• "...gained election to the convention himself." No need for "himself".

Not fully convinced (the reader won't be sure people are elected to the convention), but removed.

• "By early 1960, Michigan Republicans, who were fairly moribund within the state, were touting Romney as a possible candidate for governor, U.S. senator, or even U.S. vice president." A little bloated. Maybe "By early 1960, many in Michigan's moribund Republican Party were touting Romney..."?

So changed, but I added "somewhat" in front of moribund, so as not to overstate the case.

• "...but instead led, as one of its vice presidents, the Constitutional Convention." Maybe "but instead became a vice president of the Constitutional Convention." Also, capitalization of "Constitutional Convention" is inconsistent; my thought is that it shouldn't be capitalized, but I'll leave that up to you.

So changed, and it shouldn't be capitalized.

• "After considerable pained indecision and a 24-hour prayer fast, Romney decided to resign from AMC in 1962 and enter electoral politics." "After a period of indecision and a prayer fast, Romney resigned from AMC in 1962 to enter politics."

Changed, but left in "pained" (source makes this clear) and "electoral" (since Romney was already involved in politics the last few years before this).

• "His position as the leader of the moderate Republicans at the constitutional convention gained him the Republican nomination for Governor of Michigan." "As leader of the constitutional convention's moderate Republicans, he was nominated as the Republicans' candidate for Governor of Michigan."

Your wording makes it sound like it was automatic that one position led to the other. I kept my wording but changed "gained him" to "helped gain him", which gets the proper level of causation across.

• "Romney campaigned on revising the state's tax structure, increasing the state's appeal to businesses and to the general public, and getting Michigan "rolling again"." Parallelism could be much-improved here, to something like "Romney campaigned on revising the state's tax structure, increasing its appeal to businesses and the general public, and getting it "rolling again"."

So changed.

• "Romney decried both the large influence of labor unions within the Democratic Party and the similarly large influencethat of big business within the Republican Party."

I think this loses a bit of Romney's message, but so changed.

Well, if you really object to the change, go ahead and change it back (or change part of it back). To me, it looks like extra words, but where you and I have legitimate differences of opinion I'm pleased to let your view prevail in this article.

OK, I've returned to the old wording. The new one just didn't scan right for me in terms of Romney's intent.

• "The win was attributed in part to Romney's appeal to independent voters, as well as to the increasing influence of suburban Detroit voters, who by 1962 were more likely to vote Republican than the heavily Democratic city." Maybe something more like "Romney's win was attributed to his appeal to independent voters and to the increasingly influential suburban Detroit voters, who were more likely to vote Republican than the heavily Democratic residents of the city itself."? I don't know, there's probably room to improve on that too, but the sentence as is is more bloated than necessary.

So changed, except the "by 1962" was added back in.

• "Romney's early difficulties with the legislature helped undermine an attempted launch that year of Romney as a national political figure by former Richard Nixon associates." This could use some elaboration. We've already learned that he was considered a potential presidential candidate as a result of his election, so presumably this refers to something more specific.

Changed to "launch" to "push".

• "Romney denounced and campaigned against "moral decay"." This seems out of place in its paragraph. I'd also suggest halving the verbs in the sentence, and if possible elaborating on what he meant by the term and what, if anything, he tried to do about it.

Looking at the source again, this was referring to his 1968 presidential campaign. I've moved the cite there, to text that was already covering this.

• "Romney issued a proclamation in support of the event and sent two representatives to it on his behalf." "on his behalf" is redundant.

I don't think it is; it's the difference between sending two others and sending two others who say "Governor Romney is really sorry he couldn't be here today, but he stands in solidarity blah blah". This event got a lot of attention during Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, so I want to be clear on it.

• There are quite a few occurrences of pluperfect that could be streamlined to past tense without losing precision. Examples: "subsequent life experiences had given him", "after King had left", "the state budget had been".
• "Romney's advocacy of civil rights brought him criticism within his own church..." I'd suggest "from" instead of "within", unless the top official was not acting in an official capacity, in which case I'd go with something like "...from high-ranking LDS officials."

"Within" changed to "from". You clearly don't like "within" and "upon" :-)

There are specific cases in which they're preferable to "in" and "on", but you're correct that I find them somewhat overused. If I seem to be going no a crusade, feel free to ignore me.

In this case I think the "from" works just as well.

• "Goldwater represented a new wave of American conservatism, and the moderate Romney was not in ideological agreement with him." Can be tightened to something like "...of which the moderate Romney was not a part."

So changed.

I'm not sure why you bolded this entry ... the original suggested change was made.

I'm not sure either.

• "Romney also felt that Goldwater would be a drag on Republicans running in the all the other races that year, including himself" As written, this says that Romney thought that Goldwater would be a drag on Goldwater's campaign, which I gather isn't the intent.

Changed "himself" to "Romney's own".

• "the leaders were Jim Rhodes of Ohio, Nelson Rockefeller of New York" In an unusual instance of me recommending increasing character count, I'd suggest changing "the" to "their".

So changed.

• "(whose own campaign had just stalled out..." I'm not familiar with the term "stalled out"; "stalled" sounds more correct to me, but if you can assure me that this is a normal phrasing I have no problem with it.

Here are a lot of "stalled out" usages in books.

• "Romney appeared to seize the initiative by holding an unusual Sunday press conference..." I'd just say "Romney held and unusual...", since I don't think the extra words really add anything.

So changed.

• "...and he gained 41 delegates..." How about "won"? "Gained" sounds so relative. This is also an issue elsewhere.

Changed to "got the vote of". You don't really "win" delegates during a convention, only during earlier primaries or caucuses. Subsequent use changed to "garnered".

Good point. How would you feel about "received the votes of"? "Got" sounds colloquial, and it seems to me that there is more than one vote involved (unless "vote" is being used in its uncountable sense, as in "split the vote").

Now changed to "and he received the votes of 41 delegates in the roll call".

• "...who had an approach to civic responsibilities similar to Romney's." What's meant by "civic responsibilities" here?

Moderation in support of civic cohesiveness rather than ideological fervor, I think.

• "As the convention concluded, Romney neither endorsed nor repudiated Goldwater and vice presidential nominee William E. Miller, saying he had reservations about Goldwater regarding both civil rights and political extremism. For the fall elections, Romney cut himself off from the national ticket, refusing to even appear on the same stage with them." I think some verbiage can be trimmed, to something like "Romney neither endorsed nor repudiated Goldwater, about whom he said he had reservations on civil rights and political extremism issues. During the election, he refused to appear on stage with Goldwater or Vice Presidential nominee William E. Miller."

I think your version loses some nuance – when the non-endorsement happened (at the convention), when the non-appearances happened (in the fall, not before), the nature of the objection (political extremism isn't an 'issue' but rather description of a candidate or movement), and who he was not appearing with (I don't know if Miller was ever explicitly proposed to appear with Romney, I think it was more a general position that he wouldn't appear with either of them).

• "Romney was re-elected again in 1964..." Wasn't this his first re-election?

Oops, that was dumb. Fixed.

• "by an over 380,000 votes margin"

Your version might be interpreted that Romney received over 380,000 votes in his own vote count.

I don't agree; there seems to be a clear distinction between "with 380,000 votes" and "by 380,000 votes", but I'm not going to insist. Would you consider changing to "a margin of over 380,000 votes"?

Done.

• "...despite Goldwater being trounced in a national landslide that swept many other Republican candidates away." Maybe "...despite Goldwater's landslide defeat sweeping many other Republican candidates away"? Eliminates some words, and "trounced" is a little unencyclopaedic, to boot.

So changed.

• "Romney gained 15 percent of the black vote in the state, compared to 2 percent for Goldwater." "Romney won 15 percent of Michigan's black vote, compared to Goldwater's two percent."?

So changed.

• "George Romney facilitated the desire of Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies to convert to Mormonism." "...while son Mitt was away on missionary work, George Romney helped his fiancée Ann Davies convert to Mormonism."?

So changed.

• "...a virtually unprecedented accomplishment for a Republican." I'd prefer to see some precision here; was it unprecedented in the past X years? Was he only the second Republican to accomplish it? This seems unnecessarily vague.

The source (Teddy White) says "unprecedented for a Republican". I decided to back away from it a bit, because my gut feel is that someone somewhere did as well. I'll put it on the list of things to research more.

• "...a looming deficit provided the catalyst for the legislature to act on a tax overhaul, and a personal and corporate state income tax was finally created while business receipts and corporation franchise taxes were eliminated." Words! Maybe "a looming deficit prompted the legislature to overhaul Michigan's tax structure by creating personal and corporate income taxes and eliminating business receipts and corporate franchise taxes."?

I chopped it into two sentences and reworded it some, but still kept the passive voice.

• "...on the predawn hours..." "in", surely?

Changed to "during".

• "...loathe to do from fear that insurance companies would not cover losses due to the riot." "...loathe to do for fear that it would prevent insurance companies from covering losses due to the riot."?

It's not that a riot would prevent insurance companies from covering losses if they wanted to, it's that most insurance policies explicitly list wars and riots as covered conditions. I've tried to clarify this.

Looks good (and I'm not even complaining about the additional "upon"!).

• "The wide margin of victory in Romney's November 1966 gubernatorial re-election..." "Romney's wide margin of re-election in 1966..."

Changed to this, but kept the "November" in; this section detailed down to the month level.

• "The press coverage of the trip focused on Vietnam and was frustrated..." The press coverage was frustrated?

Clarified that it's reporters who were frustrated.

• "The qualities that gave Romney success..." "helped", maybe?

Added.

I was actually suggesting that you replace "gave Romney success" with "helped Romney", but I'll leave it up to you.

Further changed as suggested.

• "...Romney was gaffe-prone and an oaf." How about "a gaffe-prone oaf"? Also, is "oaf" straight from the source? I don't really like it as a word in an encyclopaedia article, but I can tolerate it if it's from a source.

Gaffe-prone and oafishness are too different things, so they can't be combined. The source for the latter is the Witcover book: "... until the idea set in that George Romney was a kind of oafish plodder."

I don't think two things need to be identical to be combined: "a pungent lawyer", "a lying goat", etc. I also think they're reasonably closely related. But up to you.

If someone had written that he was a "gaffe-prone oaf", I would go for it, but these were separate observations and I think they should be kept that way.

• "...with one of them saying Romney's remarks..." Do we know which one?

I thought this was extraneous detail, but I've added the name.

I like detail, but dislike words. These sentiments sometimes conflict.

• "...made Romney's comments devastating..." "...devastated Romney's campaign..."?

I like it better the way it is.

• "...all the retail politics activities known to that state." I'm unclear on what this means.

I was trying to save some words here, but I've enumerated it out now.

• "However, several more campaign mishaps made him the renewed attention of press disparagement." I don't think this sentence makes sense as written.

I've replaced it with something completely different.

• "...something the nominee did not forget." Kind of cutesie; I'd suggest replacing "the nominee" with "Nixon" or, if you must, "the latter".

Replaced with "Nixon".

• "Romney's name was placed into nomination for vice president..." "Romney was nominated for vice president..."?

"Placed into nomination" is standard phrasing; see these book usages.

• "After the election, Romney was named Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The president-elect made the announcement as part of a nationally televised presentation of his new cabinet on December 11, 1968." Active voice, please. Maybe "After the election, Nixon announced Romney's nomination as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a nationally televised presentation of his cabinet on December 11, 1968."? Or maybe that's unwieldy, and the sentences shouldn't be merged?

I don't suppose it would do any good to quote one of the essays in defense of the passive voice, such as this one or this one or this one? Yes, one combined sentence here would be unwieldy. No, I don't see anything wrong with the first sentence. It's not a dodge to avoid attributing responsibility, since it's obvious who ultimately chooses cabinet members and the lead already says "... Nixon appointed Romney Secretary ...". It's just a phrasing to avoid having to have both "Nixon" and "Romney" in every single sentence in this section.

Academic writing is far from consistently well-written (said Steve, in an ironic use of the passive voice). If it's your preference, though, we can leave it.

• "Nixon praised Romney for his "missionary zeal" and said that the new secretary'he would also be tasked with mobilizing volunteer organizations within the nation to fight poverty and disease."

I did the first change, but "also" is necessary because mobilizing volunteer organizations isn't a responsibility of HUD and I think "within the nation" also helps clarify the scope of what Romney was to do.

I understand and agree about your first point. I continue to disagree with the second. If you want to leave it in there, what about "...to fight poverty and disease in the United States"? Anyway, I've struck the concern, but I hope you'll consider alternative wordings.

I've changed the last part as suggested.

• "Republicans were able to hold..." "Republicans held"

Changed.

• "His November 1969 plan brought programs with similar functions under a unified policy and administrative handling at the Washington level, while also increasing the number of regional and area offices and decentralizing program operations and locality-based decisions to them." I've reread this sentence several times and am unable to parse its meaning. I'm not sure that it's actually incoherent, but it could certainly be made simpler and clearer.

Reading it back, it was incoherent. I've tried reworking it, although it still suffers from the bureaucracy-speak that's in the source.

It's structured much better now; thanks. I'm wondering about the meaning of "locality-based"; is it different from "local"?

They aren't decisions of city X's government, which would never make it to the federal level; they are federal decisions, that were now being made by regional and area offices of the federal agency (that might be located in city Y or in a nearby state) instead of in Washington, D.C. So I think "locality-based" captures this.

• "The Fair Housing Act of 1968 mandated a federal commitment towards making progress on housing desegregation..."

A little worried that this overstates the case, but removed.

• "Romney, filled with moral passion..." This seems a little much.

The book source says "The former Michigan governor attacked, with moralistic fervor, the widening economic gulf between the races ... Romney strove to move blacks from cities into suburbs." And "filled with moral passion" fits with every other source on him too; it's the kind of person he was, and why some people found him hard to take.

I can live with it. I don't think it's too strong, but think it might strike a tone that's more suitable to an individually authored biography than to Wikipedia.

• "Romney proposed an open housing scheme dubbed "Open Communities" to facilitate desegregation;" I think this would benefit from re-ordering, to "...scheme to facilitate desegregation, dubbed..." The modifier dangles a little right now.

So changed.

• "Once made public, local reaction was often hostile, including in Warren, Michigan, where a Romney visit to his home state proved ineffective." Could use elaboration: why was it hostile? Whose reaction was this? What was Romney trying to do by visiting Warren?

I've significantly expanded the description of this whole episode, and added a contemporaneous source. I think it's worth the space because it illustrates the issue in a tangible form and not just as a generality, and that it occurred in Romney's home state gives it an extra kick.

Much better, and agree that it's worth the extra space. It also addresses some of my NPOV concerns about the section, since it provides specific cited evidence in support of Romney's approach to race issues.

• ""Operation Breakthrough", which was intended to increase the amount of housing available to the poor and which did have Nixon's initial support." This suggests that Nixon stopped supporting it later, but there's nothing to this effect in the article.

I've expanded the paragraph dealing with Operation Breakthrough, and this should be clear now.

• "This program also brought about strong opposition at the local suburban level." This requires similar elaboration, or at least rewording.

Should be clarified now.

• "Romney slightly increased the amount of federally-subsidized housing"

This sentence no longer in the revised version.

• ""Operation Breakthrough"...did lead to more modern and consistent building codes and to introduction of technological advances such as the smoke alarm." How?

Clarified that it's a side effect of the program.

Better. If the sources provide additional information, I think the context might help, since it's not intuitive that the program, as described, could lead to the smoke alarm. But acceptable in the current form.

• "...lacked adequate guile to succeed in Washington." "...was too guileless"?

I think it reads and flows better the way it is.

• "Nixon, who hated having to fire people..." How about just "...who hated firing..."?

He hated having to do it himself; I think the existing wording gets the across better.

I'm not sure either wording really conveys that, actually; maybe "who hated firing people himself" (or "hated having to fire people himself")?

It's a little more complicated than that – he hated and resisted doing it himself, but he also resisted having others do it for him (not that you really can with a cabinet member); he preferred schemes that would get the target to resign instead. I've expanded this a bit with a quote from Ehrlichman that hopefully gets this across more

• "The area was having prolonged lack of shelter six weeks after the storm..." "The area lacked shelter six weeks..."?

Changed.

• "The announcement of his departure came..." "His departure was announced..."

So changed.

• "...as part of the initial wave of departures from Nixon's first-term cabinet." Repetition of "departures" is awkward. Maybe something like "...as part of a series of changes to Nixon's first-term cabinet"?

Changed the previous use to "leaving".

• "...did stay until Nixon's second inaugural..." I'm sure you're more familiar with this sort of thing than I am, but shouldn't that be "inauguration"?

Yes, fixed.

• "...where he traced through many of the activities..." I'm not clear on what "traced through" means in this context.

Visited the places he had worked and spoke about what he had done in the places.

Would "recalled" or "recounted" capture the intended meaning?

I've changed this to "where he showed the places and recounted the events of his life which had occurred there."

• "Romney had urged Mitt to enter the race and moved into his son's house for the duration of the race..." Perfect opportunity for a pronoun: "...for its duration..."

So changed.

• Is there a reason that some of the things named for Romney are covered in "Public service..." and others in "Retirement"?

The one specific to volunteerism is in that section. The others are now in the final section, which I've renamed to "Final years".

• There seems to be a pronounced preference for sentences of the form "X did verb" instead of "X verbed". That's fine as far as it goes, and I understand it can indicate contrast with the possibility of X not verbing, but I think it's overused here.

Well, maybe so, I guess that's my (subconscious) writing style. Some of them must have been replaced during all the above edits.

• There's a similar preference for "within" over "in"; again, it has its place, but a lot of the time it's just an extra syllable.

As noted earlier, I like "within" and "upon". I think people read right through either one of them without trouble.

Note that much of the above is subjective; please feel free to disagree with any of my suggestions. Steve Smith (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a pass now. Thank you for your patience with my nit-pickery and deadline-missery. Steve Smith (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

The article is quite thoroughly cited, and the sources seem almost uniformly reliable. A few issues:

• What makes globalsecurity.org a reliable source?
  • It seems to be a serious, policy-oriented website that was an offshoot of the Federation of American Scientists. It's only being used to support which units got called into the Detroit riots (relevant because those units are famous, indicating the magnitude of the action), which I had trouble finding clearly stated in the other sources I was using.
• References 46, 58 and 79 need to be formatted.
  • Now done. These were a real oversight, not sure how bare cites got in there.
• Has the broadcast referred to in reference 33 been recorded somewhere? That is, would it be possible for a sufficiently diligent reader (one willing to travel the world's libraries, etc.) to verify its contents?
  • Knowing how the LDS Church likes to keep track of things, I would suspect it is recorded somewhere, and might be available at some church library or maybe at BYU. I did some Google searching for it, but didn't find anything. It's supporting an innocuous assertion (but still one of some interest given Monson's later position and the importance of religion in Romney's life). So assuming good faith on the part of whoever added it, I'm in favor of letting it stay in. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• The following items lack references. In most cases, these references aren't required for GA status, but it would be best to add them anyway if they're available (and if they're not, what's the information doing in the article?):
  • "...the Ramblers were frequent winners in the coast-to-coast Mobil Economy Run, an annual event on U.S. highways."
  • "including Democratic incumbent Thaddeus Lesinski in the separate election for Lieutenant Governor of Michigan."
  • The block quote under "Public service and volunteerism"
  • "The Governor George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award is given annually in Michigan, to recognize citizens who have demonstrated a commitment to community involvement and volunteer service throughout their lifetimes."
  • "He re-emerged to the general public in 1994 when he helped campaign for his son, Mitt Romney, during the younger Romney's unsuccessful bid to unseat Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the 1994 U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts. That same year, Ronna Romney, Romney's ex-daughter-in-law (formerly married to G. Scott Romney), decided to seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from Michigan."
  • "The building housing the main office of the Michigan governor in Lansing is known as the George W. Romney Building." Steve Smith (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • All of these items have now been cited. These were in areas of the article that I "inherited"; I should have been more diligent finding cites for them when I did my large-scale expansion/rewrite. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This criterion is now a pass. This criterion is now a pass. Steve Smith (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?

The requirement for GA is that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which this one certainly does, so I have to pass it on that criterion. However, I'm concerned that the things for which Romney is most notable - his service as Secretary and especially Governor - are underemphasized. For example, the "Governor" section is ten paragraphs, but only six or so of those are about his actions as Governor (the rest deal mostly with election campaigns). His presidential run, besides having a main article all of its own, is given nine paragraphs. Finally - and this isn't really a broadness issue, but I'm not sure where else to stick it - I wonder if a somewhat more thematic, rather than chronological, organization might serve the article better. For example, you could group all of his 1962-1968 federal political activities together, rather than mentioning them as they come up, and maybe have a section dedicated to his religion, which is currently dealt with a couple of sentences at a time in all sorts of sections.

To reiterate, I'm certainly not requiring any reorganization as a condition of passing this review, but it's something I'd suggest considering if you want to continue working to improve this article. Steve Smith (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Governor section, I agree that it could use a little more coverage of his actions there. I've had trouble finding the 1967 Harris and 1968 Mollenhoff biographies, but I have both on interlibrary loan request and hopefully they'll materialize. They should have more analysis of his time as governor, although both are of the always-suspect "campaign biography" genre and have to be examined in that light. I want to look at these biographies before going to FAC (which I intend to take this article to at some point and at which your detailed suggested changes on writing style will definitely help!), but I don't expect any major changes and I think that the present gubernatorial coverage is sufficient for GA.

It's certainly sufficient for GA.

More – I've now updated the Governor section with additional material on state budgets, spending areas, and accomplishments in improving education and the like.

Regarding the Secretary of HUD section, I must disagree. There are nine paragraphs here, with substantial narrative and analysis both included in large amounts and high-quality sourcing. If you look at United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and click on each of the other secretaries' articles, you'll see this is the most extensive treatment of any HUD secretary's tenure. The only other one that is good is Jack Kemp (also a GA/FAC article), which has five paragraphs but does a solid job. A few of the other articles have content weighting issues (with 'controversies' dominating whatever else the person did in the post) and most of them dispense with the person's time at HUD in a single paragraph, or in a few cases, a single sentence!

Regarding the presidential campaign section, this and the "brainwashing" remark are in fact what Romney is most remembered for in the U.S. these days. WP articles for presidential candidates tend to spend a lot of time on the campaign, even when there is a campaign subarticle as well. (Note that WP:Summary style does not say to reduce the size or weight of a section in a main article just because there is a subarticle underneath it; in order words, if the "right" weight for a section – when compared to the rest of the article and the section's importance – is N paragraphs, then it is still N paragraphs even if a subarticle is created for that material that is much longer.) That's because presidential campaigns are usually the greatest national exposure a person gets, and because such campaigns become a crucible in which a person is tested, and you can tell a lot about them by how they handle the inevitable pressure and adversity. Finally, you say in the next section that you are concerned that the article is slanted too much in Romney's favour. Well, his presidential candidacy is something that he failed miserably at, so we definitely don't want to reduce the space we give it.

Regarding thematic vs. chronological approach, I've done a number of these political biographies at the GA/FA level, and I'm a big, big believer in the chronological approach. People don't live their lives in separate boxes for personal, religious, business and political matters; all exist together, and anything that happens at time T in one aspect of their life can and often does affect what happens at time T + 1 in another aspect of their life. Every 'real' biography (i.e. that you find in a library or bookstore) is written chronologically, and so to I think should ours. Now obviously this can be taken too far, and I certainly do group the narration of a specific topic area within each section. But I believe that Romney's 1964 presidential campaign activity does belong in the "Governor" section, not regrouped elsewhere, because his prominence then was part of a movement of moderate Republican governors, and because his objections to Goldwater on civil rights grounds fit together with the civil rights actions he was taking as governor. As for religion, I like that mentions of it keep popping up in different places in the article. That shows and illustrates that religion was a constant presence and activity in his life, not something that was just walled off from the rest of his life, which is what having a separate section on it would convey. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed responses, and for the expansions you made. This was a pass already, but that only helps.

Is it neutral?

I'm somewhat concerned that the article is slanted too much in Romney's favour. The section dealing with his automotive career is universally laudatory; I understand that he was highly successful here, which is how he got into politics in the first place, but is there really no critical assessment of his performance available?

The Governor section is generally fairly balanced, I think, but there are problems there too: it reads as though Romney knew all along that the tax system would have to be reformed, and the evil legislature at first blocked him, but then it gave in and he became the hero of the Governor class. Moreover, the final paragraph sort of comes out of the blue: we're not told much previously in the section about any technocratic tendencies, and the budget's sixfold (!) increase is only hinted at. As well, I think the first sentence of that paragraph needs to be attributed as somebody's opinion, as I can't reconcile stating it as fact with WP:NPOV.

The Secretary section makes it sound like he was trying to do all sorts of wonderful things, but was thwarted at every step by Dark Lord Nixon. While this may indeed be the case, is there really no critical commentary of his objectives (the section does, to its credit, identify critical views of his implementation of those objectives)?

Finally, there are a few POV words lurking around the article. For example, describing Romney's stances as "strong", saying that he "fought for" things (which can make it sound rather more heroic than, for example, "recommended"), and "finally", which can imply that things took longer than they should have (especially as in the case of the state income tax, for example). Steve Smith (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding his automotive career, I've gone back and looked for different assessments of his performance, but haven't found much. I've added that AMC struggled his first few years in control, but I suppose that only makes his later triumph more impressive. They were still doing well in 1960 and 1961, his last two years there. If he had stayed, it's possible he would have got caught in a downturn, but he didn't, and his record as CEO looks pretty solid. (As it happens, his replacement at AMC abandoned his small cars only strategy, tried to compete directly with the Big Three, and did poorly; this again makes Romney look better.)

Regarding the Governor section, several other governors and many independent voices had thought a state income tax was necessary. It's not that the state legislature was evil, but new taxes are always potentially unpopular and legislative bodies tend to postpone unpleasantness if they can. I agree that the final paragraph has some structural issues in terms of coming out of the blue, and I agree that "technocrat" needs a second source. I'll work on these.

More – I've removed the "technocrat" description. I never found a second source for it, and I think the Boston Globe first source may have been unduly influenced by frequent labellings of son Mitt as a technocrat (or former technocrat). The sixfold increase in the budget made no sense once you pointed it out, and I've been doing research since then. I have the budget increases for each year 1963 through 1967, and the proposed budget for 1968. The last figure is $1.3 billion, not $3 billion, which makes much more sense and fits within the trendline. The original source is a solid one (history of Michigan book by experienced authors) but their figure must have been a typo or mistake or something. So I've corrected this, and with the additional material on why the spending was possible and what the spending was being used for (that I mentioned in the new comment above), I think this final paragraph is much better than before.

Regarding the Secretary section, well yes, if ever there was a dark lord among American presidents, it was Richard Milhous Nixon. That being said, residential integration of suburban areas was something many white Americans just did not want. What were their stated reasons? What were their real reasons? In all that lies a full article in itself ...

Regarding words, I've removed the "finally" regarding the income taxes (the following sentence expresses the point already). The other "finally"s are used in the sense of culmination and I think are okay. I disagree about "strong" and "fought for"; these are indicators of intensity, not rightness or wrongness. Consider: "President Nixon believed strongly that the Watergate tapes would destroy him, and fought for a court ruling that would preclude their release." Or: "Mayor X had a strong disliking for racial minority Y, and fought for local ordinances that would prevent them from buying homes in the town." Neither Nixon nor Mayor X was heroic, but use of the words is still appropriate.

Your explanations all look good. My points are still things you might consider as you further refine the article, but it's not necessary for GA. Steve Smith (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?

Clearly. Pass. Steve Smith (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

All images are good choices, and all our either public domain or freely licensed. The alt text is sub-optimal in a couple of cases: Image:RomneySwornInSecHUD.jpg could be better-written, I think (it lists the people in the image without saying that's what it's doing), and the use of "forced" in Image:NixonAndRomneyInOffice.jpg seems somewhat POV. Still, alt text isn't a GA requirement, so while I'd encourage you to address those issues, I'm going to pass this criterion now. Steve Smith (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I modified the alt text on the first one, but I'm not quite sure what you meant by your parenthetical so it may need more changing. As for the "forced" in the second alt text, knowing what we know about the relationship between Nixon and Romney, it seems the best way of describing the scene to someone who can't see it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The alt text is better now; thanks. Steve Smith (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Early response) Thanks very much for the review and the thoroughness, and I've already started fixing up the sets of issues you first identified. You reviewed one of my GA articles in the past under your old name, and I'll repeat what I said then – I'm more than happy for you to fix up minor wording, grammar, or usage problems directly if you want. I will review them and tweak any change that I think needs adjustment. But if you still prefer to just list every issue here rather than do any edits yourself, that's okay too. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another update. In doing the responses to your early comments, I realized that several areas in the earlier sections of the article needed stronger sourcing, chronological clarification, and in some cases expanded treatment. I also decided refine the sectioning a bit. I've now done those changes, so the article should be stable again for your review. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now completed the first pass through all of your comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)