Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney

Please note There is a disagreement over the need to have a peer review by the editors of this page. I suggest the editors come to a consensus about the peer review before wikipedians take the time to comment on this page. If suggestions are not wanted, we should turn to others pages where peer reviews have been requested.

Thanks to those that take the time to make meaningful contributions to wikipedia!--71.232.179.222 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To more easily read the evaluator's original peer review, take a look at at this version of this Mitt Romney peer review page, before comments were interspersed within the original evaluation.

Mitt Romney is a biographical article about the current governor of Massachusetts, who is visible as a likely contender as a Republican candidate for President of the U.S. in 2008. The article has yet to be rated for quality. I speculate that more than a hundred editors have touched this page since it started as a three sentence stub on 10 January 2004. It has had about 1,500 edits. Apparently over the summer of 2006, the article was expanded significantly by several editors, and sources with links were attached to most of the statements and claims in the article. There are about 10 footnotes and 150 embedded links to sources.

Key points and desires, for a review by outsiders:

General comments that assess its current level of quality and advice on how to improve the article
It is understood that the article presently fails to follow policy by lacking a listing for citations in a References or Notes section at the foot of the article, and that that makes it hard to scan the quality of the sourcing for the article.
Since admirers tend to expand on articles about leading living politicians, it is desirable to have specific comment on various aspects of the neutrality and balance of the article:

- a. tone and style of the words used to describe activities, speeches, accomplishments and events, in relation to balance and neutrality
- b. quality of the sourcing and citations (no small task), with attention to balance or neutrality of the sources
- c. an assessment of what is selected topically to be in the article, and assessment as to what extent that topicality indicates a point of view
- d. there is little mention or explanation in the article about the environment surrounding the efforts of Romney, and why and how his rhetoric or actions (whether in speech, or in bill-filing, or otherwise) have achieved modest results in comparison to his desires in the state of Massachusetts. Comment on this environmental aspect of a biography is desired, as several editors have said sections read like a press release from a candidate.

A scan of the talk page's table of contents may (or may not) be informative: Talk:Mitt_Romney.
Many thanks -- Yellowdesk 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

I gave a detailed review, because the request was also detailed. In general, it is a quite good an informative article. It needs formatting and content improvements; therefore I rated the article as B-class. As far as POV issues are concerned I give a more detailed analysis further down. In the intro I'll just say that I may not agree with the comment of another commentator that the article "was submitted by the Romney camp", but some slight POV issues exist. The article is not, as a whole, POV, but some phrasing (a phrase concerning the previous governer), the tone in some sections ("CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee" is a hymne for Romsey - in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" we get the impression that some "vilains" tried to impede Romsey's plans), the over-analysis of Romsey's views and the underanalysis of the legislature's viewes (in "Health" and "Education"), and the lack of critical analysis (pro- and against-Romsey as well) throughout the article raise some partial POV issues.

You make some good suggestions, but others are off base. I think the article is informative and the tone is appropriate. Words like "villian" (which you suggest is in the drunk driving section) are wrong, however I cant find them in this article. Where is this reference? Does it exist? I cant find a place where somebody is called a "villian"? To suggested that this article stoops to name calling is really uncalled for.--Michael16G 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting remarks

First of all some "technical comments". The article definitely needs formatting. It is really peculiar the way some links are done. For nistance, the link to the List of Eagle Scouts was made like an external link, although it is a wikilink (I fixed that)!
Let's come to external links. First, it is not nice to link like that: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 [1]." Like that is better: "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998." It is even better if the link is transferred along with the other notes. It is not nice to have 10 inline citations and about 150 external links spread within the prose. Check any recently confirmed FA to see who the system works.
Even the notes mentioning external links need formatting. Example: A note was like that: "Greenberger, Scott S. "Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail," Boston Globe, October 24, 2005.[2]". Isn't it better like that? ""Romney often casts himself as budget hero; But speeches omit some important detail". Greenberger, Scott S. (Boston Globe). Retrieved October 28, 2006." I fixed this one, but obviously much formatting work is needing here.
The "External Links" at the end are too long. Try to keep only what is absolutely necessary.

Prose issues

"Among the first companies it invested in was Staples, an office-supply store. In 1986 Staples, Inc., had one store. Today it has nearly 1,700." Prose here obviously needs some polishing.
"One poll taken after the September 20,1994 primary, sponsored by the Boston Herald and WCVB-TV, showed Romney ahead 44 percent to 42 percent but within the poll's sampling margin of error.: I have a question: Since Kennedy finally swept Romney (17% ahead), why do we have to emphasize on some polls (obviously not to accurate as the elections proved) that had Romney ahead?

The polls that Romney was a serious contender in 1994. His serious candidacy to topple an iconic US Senator gave him name recognition. These polls were not inacurate, they represented the mood in September. Elections are held in November.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"His critics cited ... ruling in court." Another phrase needing copy-editing. In general, the whole prose needs copy-editing so that the article flow gets better.

Citing unamed critics are against wikpedia policy. Take the line out.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Governor Mitt Romney has been discussed as a potential 2008 presidential candidate as early as 2004. [2] Governor Romney is frequently mentioned as a potential contender in the 2008 presidential election." Aren't these two sentences telling the same thing? Copy-editing needed again.
"One Laptop Per Child Initiative: Duplicating a successful program" Rephrase in normal prose.
In "Abortion" there are many one-sentence pragraphs. Merge or expand in order to make the prose more solid.
"Other Issues" is listy. It should be turned into normal prose. If you can keep it as it is, incoroprate its content in other relevant sections. Like now it looks like a "trivia" section, which is not recommended.

I disagree. The section is for minor issues that dont warrent their own section. Minor rewording might be needed, but it should be left as it.--Michael16G 17:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues

"According to figures in the 1996 Almanac of American Politics (which relies on official campaign finance reports), Romney spent over $7 million, with Kennedy spending over $10 million, mostly in the last weeks of the campaign." Here we need a citation.
"Romney announced in 2005 that he will not seek re-election for a second term as governor, fueling speculation about a run for the White House in 2008." Citation needed.

If something needs a citation, go find it. Stop making work for others. Take some intitiative.--Michael16G 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt the Almanac of Politics the sources in the first one? I will add a citation for the second one.--Waverider5 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content and POV issues

I can't say that the article is n general POV, but there are some possible POV issues that should be resolved. There also some topics needing further analysis:

In "2002 Campaign for Governor" I would like a further analysis about the issues raised during the campaign (not only the legal controversies mentioned) and in which areas Romney and O'Brien confronted each other. After all, it was a narrow defeat for Romney and it looks like an interesting campaign. GIve us some more details about it. Not just the final result!

Its a fine length. Keep in mind this is Mitt Romney's page, not "the 2002 Massachusets Governor's Race Page." Start a separate page if you want to add more details. This page is undoubtably going to expand when Romney runs for president. We cant clutter it with minor details.--Michael16G 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Swift was viewed as an inept and unpopular executive, and her administration was plagued by political missteps and personal scandals." "Viewed" by whom? "Inept" and "unpopular" according to whom and why? What "missteps" and what "scandals"? This phrase, at least under its present form, is definitely POV for Swift. This arguments need substantiation, analysis and rephrasing. And of course, the only citated source is not enough for me.

Somebody just added the "inept" phrase. I removed it. It is clearly POV. The sources do show that she was unpopular. Read the Associated Press article sourced. "her approval ratings had plummeted." Look at the poll. If you have questions about the scandal, read the article. It mentions ethics investigations.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "Health" and "Education" we have a comprehensive analysis of Romsey's policies. And after this full analysis, we learn about the legislature's vetoes. But we donot have an equal analysis of the legislature's point of you. We see the clash, we see Romsey's beliefs, but we do not learn why the legislature does not agree with Romsey. I think a more balanced analysis is needed here. Critical viewes of both Romsey's and the legislature's stance would be also welcomed.

Here is what you need to know. Romney is a Republican and the legislature is dominiated by Democrats. Democrats and Republicans disagree. The legislature has so many democrats that they can override his vetos as they choose. The sections are appropriate for Romey's page as is. If you want a page that deals with large scale philisophical discussion aboput policy, launch anopther page (as was done in the healthcare section). This page summarizes what Romney proposed, and what became of the proposal.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Romsey's plans to file a death penalty bill in early 2005 must have initiated an interesting debate and there must have been critical voices and supporters as well. But in "Death Penalty" we learn nothing about these issues! Only a dry narration of events. I want something more here, including a brief presentation of those opinions critical to Romsey's initiative.

Once again, lauch a new page. We are all aware that some people favor the death penalty and other dont due to philisopical differnces. We dont need to have that discussion in a short summary about Romney's legislation. This section defines his proposal and mentions that outcome. Lauch a "Death Penalty in Massachusetts page" that would talk about the history of capital punishment in the state and link it to the bottom (for more information) of Romney's death penalty section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tone in "Drunk Driving: Melanie's Bill" is a bit pro Romsey. Again the point of view of the other side is not analysed and the narration leads to the conclusion that the governor tried to do the right thing and some "bad guys" tried to impede him. At least, this is the impression I get.

I dont think so. Read all of the sources. Romney proposed drunk driving legislation. The legislature weakened the law. There was a public outcry over the legislature's action, and the legislature eventually caved and restored most of the provision. It clearly looks like a victory for Romney and the view of the public. That dosent mean that it is POV.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "Abortion" we learned that Romsey changed his views concerning abortion. During the campaign he said one tthing and after the campaign he advocated another thing. Weren't there any criticisms for this shift, for this important change in his political beliefs? If yes, we don't see them in the article. Does this shift in his views has anything to do with his plans to run for President? Has any analyst raised this issue? I'm a European and maybe not so familiar with American politics, but, when I read about this change in his viewes, this thought crossed my mind. Am I the only one?

This section adequatly chronicles Romney's changing abortion stances. It even menions why it changed. It is sucessful in conveying his attitue towards the subject. Criticisms of his view when he runs for president will go in the Presidential campaign section.--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cape Wind has received both bipartisan criticism and support." Such as? Analyse and citate accordingly?--Yannismarou 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for more details go to the cape wind page on wikipedia. The sources indicated bipartisan positions (Kenndy and Romney both oppose it for instance)--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Its "ROMNEY" not "ROMSEY". Please read and article a identify the topic before suggesting any type of changes. Please know what you are talking about--Michael16G 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Michael16G: Some of your remarks were really uncalled-for. There's no need to attack the reviewer who took the time to give an excellent review because you disagree on certain points. A peer review consists of suggestions and ideas for further improvement, you should know it's not the reviewer's job to do the work for others. As I said before, these are just suggestions, take them or leave them. You may know more about the subject than the reviewer but that doesn't make the tips less valuable. The readers could go through similar problems. Nat91 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think there are many changes to be made on the page based on the current suggestions. I think that Michael16G makes some valid points (although the editor's tone was a little harsh) about mantaining the current structure of the page. New pages should be created for in depth discussion on issues that go beyond the current page.--Waverider5 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To Michael16G: I'm puzzled as to why a peer review was requested if the editors think the article is fine as is? We're impartial/outside editors (and most are non-American, so clearly have no stake in an election. In fact, your reviewer Yannismarou is not American) that volunteer our time to review any article posted to the WikiProject Biography Peer Review page. Attacking them and saying they need to do the work that's suggested is not in the spirit of peer review requests. You asked our opinion and so we gave it. You can take it or leave it, but don't be so harsh on the reviewer. Thanks! --plange 22:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to plange by the editor requesting the review. The history of the request is that another editor submitted a nomination that the article undergo a Featured Article Review, without understanding that FAR was for already featured articles, nor understanding how far the article is from being a Featured Article Candidate. I withdrew the {FAR}} template, and suggested a peer review instead, and since there were no objections, submitted the peer review. As you can see by the comments above, some editors participating in editing the article are hostile to adjusting the tone or balance and content of the article, nor do they understand how much effort will be required to achieve even an A-Class article. - Yellowdesk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I can tell you that based on the above reaction to Y's review, I won't be conducting a review. Hope you understand! :-) --plange 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that Michael16G does not understand how peer-reviews work and what is their purpose. So, I apologize for mispelling one letter of Romney's name and I express my confidence that there are definitely other users who are interested in improving the article. That is why I ask Plange and maybe Nat91 (if he intended to) or any other possible reviewer to launch their own independent reviews. It is unfair because of one extreme reaction editors who are interested in ameliorating the article not to get the right guidance. Thanks!--Yannismarou 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yannismarou. She, and yes, I intended to; but after seeing the reaction above, I second what Plange said. You bring up a good point though - it is unfair for others interested in improving the article. To be honest, I took a look at the article and I thought your review was excellent. I don't think I have anything to add, but I'll give it a second thought. Nat91 07:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you to Nat91 for still considering to comment. I agree that Yannismarou's review was comprehensive and very responsive to the outline of concerns. We have a great deal to consider. I believe the review will have the attention of at least three quarters of the 20-odd people who regularly edit the article. I have started converting the embedded links into footnotes what will show up in the references (a previously known problem); this will cause me to examine all of the sources and compare the article statements to the sources. Some of the specific wording noticed in the review has been attended to. There's a negotiation yet to come, among the article editors about point of view, and analysis of the Romney administration, and this will take some time and effort; as you can see, some editors treat the article as an effort for promoting Mr. Romney, and others, including me, indicate the article fails explain important aspects of Romney's milieu. In any case, I wish to express appreciation and high regard for the fact that the reviewers are willing to spend effort, time and energy reviewing articles that you collectively have no stake in, and especially I appreciate it is a voluntary effort on your part. Thank you. Yellowdesk 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yellowdesk: The conversion of the links to footnotes is a wonderful project. It improves the quality of the page and ensures that the provided sources supply the information referenced. Thank you for the effort. The article looks to be comprehensive and well written, but should still be reviewed for any innacuracies. I do however share Yannismarou's disagreement over your opinion that the page "was submitted by the Romney camp." It does have some minor issues, but does not read like a campaign document as you suggest. I absolutely agree that the Romney page should not be used to promote his campaign, but it does not do this in its current conditon. Lets continue this review and focus on the things that need to be addressed. Thanks!--MN57798 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply toMN57798: Yannismarou was referring not to a statement made by me, (on the "Romney Camp" quote), but to an annonymous review located here: Talk:Mitt_Romney/Comments, where Yannismarou gave a one sentence summary during the peer review. I think that the article is on the whole comprehensive, but in sections merely descriptive of proposals by Romney without context. Yellowdesk 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]