Talk:Ellen Roberts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleEllen Roberts has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


GA Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:Ellen Roberts/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I honestly don't know what it is, but I seem to have a knack for reviewing Good Article candidates about liberal Republicans (earlier today I reviewed Charles Mathias, for example, and earlier I did Mark Hatfield - and this is only my seventh GA review ever). Weird. Anyway, this is very close to GA-quality, in my view, but there are a few points that could stand to be addressed. I cover them below.

Is it well written?

Generally yes. Some things that could improve:

  • The lead is too short for an article of this size. Per
    talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still a little on the short side (
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've expanded the lead to about three paragraphs now. - Sethant (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I still think it should be a little longer, and I think you'll definitely have to work on that if you have any FA aspirations for the article, but it's good enough to barely pass the criterion now, I think.
talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm never satisfied with leads, but I suspect it will be easier to add to this one as her career develops. FA isn't something I'm aiming for here -- maybe if she seeks higher office someday. -- Sethant (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roberts' name is used too often in the article, I think - try to replace some occasions of it with pronouns, or rework the article to make these mentions less necessary.
    talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've tried to replace or rework some of the repetitive uses of "Roberts." -- Sethant (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are still four mentions in the second paragraph of "2006" election, and I think at least one (probably the last one) could be eliminated. Other than that, I like the progress.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the solution.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I see what you mean. I've got the article down to four "also"s from a much higher number. :) - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we're on the same page.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The misplaced apostrophe was copied from the original news article; however, other sources (including the City of Durango) have the proper name without an apostrophe. Given that that's more common version and the sensible version grammatically, I've removed the apostrophe. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I got a little overzealous there with my Harvard commas. Removed. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good (though here in the Commonwealth we call them "Oxford commas").
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup. Removed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed, except for the one last usage, which I think doesn't read well with just "Larson." -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Done -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Reworked. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good - no problem that can't be solved by judicious use of semi-colons.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No longer. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem isn't everywhere in rural Colorado; moved the "portions" to make it more clearer. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That changes the meaning and adds clarity. Good work.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
nurses' associations. Both fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Gone! -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray!
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Makes sense. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Gone. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay!
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting. Usually, I get comments that I have too many wikilinks. I've added a few more, but, on balance, I think the level of links is reasonable. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well,
talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've beefed up the wikilink count a bit, including your suggestions. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

New issues

A few new issues have reared their heads with your improvements:

Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comma's eliminated, but the footnote still needs to be moved to after the semi-colon.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree; reworded. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I like the unhyphenated version better. Changed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This criterion is now a pass, and therefore so is the whole article. Great work, and I hope you enjoyed improving this article as much as I enjoyed nitpicking from the sidelines.

talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it factually accurate and
verifiable
?

Overall very well-cited. A few concerns:

The group is mentioned in the third reference. -- Sethant (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - not sure how I missed that.
talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "The only major controversies of the campaign stemmed from advertisements run by outside sources." The sources seem to support that there were controversies stemming from these advertisements, but I'm not sure it's accurate, based on the sources, to say that these were the only controversies.
Rephrased a bit. -- Sethant (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.
talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The source here are the ratings referred to (and cited) earlier in the sentence. -- Sethant (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest duplicating the footnotes to make it totally clear, but it's not essential.
talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Great work in this category - no further improvements are necessary for this to be a GA. Pass.

talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it broad in its coverage?

Generally quite good. A few quibbles:

That information doesn't appear in the sources I have. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, but okay.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's the legislature on both counts; hopefully referring to it once clarifies both aspects. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I've elaborated a little more. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are the sources silent beyond this? I'd still like to see more, personally, but it's definitely not worth holding up a GA over.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't feel like excessive detail is really necessary here; both candidates held relatively similar positions, and the flyer made it appear as though there was a large gulf between them. -- Sethant (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Vive la difference in opinions, I guess.
talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
That's correct. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk)
Looks good.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
The deadline is well past now. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'd suggest clearing up the wording - "...have declared their candidacy" suggests something ongoing. Something more solidly in the past tense, such as removing the word "have" or even changing it to "challenged her" would make it clearer, I think.
talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Past tense now, rather than present perfect. :) -- Sethant (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capital.
talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This section is also a pass now. Good work.

talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it
neutral
?

I think the article as a whole reads slightly in Roberts' favour. Some examples of things that could be improved:

Tried to tidy up that a bit. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Nobody publicly accused Roberts of being involved, either. I've removed the statement that it was totally independent, as there's no verifiable evidence of that. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Softened. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It was a broader reform than prior legislatures had been able to accomplish, even though they'd tried. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble I have is that is the prior legislatures had desired that breadth of reform, they would have gotten it. The fact that they didn't indicates that some substantial portion of those legislatures didn't want that reform, no? The use of "eluded" or similar suggests that the prior legislatures wanted these reforms, but were for some reason unable to get them.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In prior sessions, the lobbyists of the oil and gas industry thwarted the legislators who were trying to get those reforms passed. Check my latest rephrasing (which doesn't ascribe intentionality to a collective body. :) -- Sethant (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like.
talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It's advance practice nurses. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Extended, really. Adding more of them. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This criterion is a pass.

talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it stable?

Yes. Pass.

talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

Yes - the single photo in the article is appropriate and properly-licensed. I'd recommend including more free photographs of related subjects in appropriate sections - possibly something from

talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is
transcluded from Talk:Ellen Roberts/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the 3rd criteria of a "Good Article" in my opinion.

"Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

This article goes into many unnecessary details as regards the political actions of Roberts. Rather than summarizing her actions, this article gives a laborious "play-by-play." If you compare it with articles of politicians in similar offices, you will easily note that this article is extraordinarily long.Grassrootsgirl (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general format of the article and level of detail were not objected to in its original GA nomination, nor were similar objections raised for my GANs on other Colorado legislators, such as Douglas Bruce (GAN), Joe Rice (GAN), or John Kefalas (GAN). While some of the more mundane sections on Roberts' legislative accomplishments could certainly be improved by streamlining and condensing them, recent edits to the article by User:Grassrootsgirl have removed a substantial amount of biographical content and reformatted the article into a non-chronological order; relative lack of biographical content has actually been a mild objection on several past GANs I've made for legislators. As I'm going to be away for most of the weekend, I recommend that an uninvolved third party take a look at the edit history and the old version of the article before Grassrootsgirl's edits. -- Sethant (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sethant, I am quite new to Wiki-land, as I am sure you have gathered. I confess that I am being bold in my edits as Wikipedia encourages, although there is a steep learning curve, and so I have made mistakes on the way. I initially edited out some of Roberts biographical information because it was too narrowly focused on her political achievements, even in high school. In retrospect, it would have been better to add in other information or checked for citations it, but to be honest, I didn't know how to undo that and I knew that Wikipedia kept an old version on file, so I figured it could still be rectified. However, I had edited that, I was quite surprised to find that everything left was simply repetitive of the preceding paragraph. So I edited that out as well. As to changing the chronological order, it placed the more relevant information closer to the beginning of the article and actually improves the flow as it ends her Bio info with her 2010 race and picks up her legislative Hx there. I did reverse it all so that it is in order from newest to oldest so it is consistent. And I looked at some of your other articles that you mentioned and the blow by blow of those political careers were far less mundane, (especially Douglas Bruce, oh my goodness) and grouped more to topic. And so I stand by my original concern. I think that it is a great idea to get a third party involved... how does that happen? ThanksGrassrootsgirl (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am likely somewhat biased as the original GA reviewer (under my prior account name of Sarcasticidealist), I think that this article still meets the GA criteria. There's certainly room for refinement through the consensus process, but I don't see any problems so radical to call for delisting. Some of your edits to the article have been problematic: for example, here you deteled material because it was already covered in the lead. However, per
WP:LEAD, the lead is intended to summarize the article's contents—that is, everything in the lead should also be found elsewhere in the article. As well, the edit summary here
is somewhat misleading, since besides reordering material, the edit also deleted a great deal of material. On the substance of that edit, ordering events from the present backwards is extremely unconventional, and I don't believe that I have seen it used in any other Wikipedia articles.
What I would suggest you do—and you are quite at liberty to disregard my advice—is revert your edits for now, withdraw your reassessment request, and initiate discussion at talk:Ellen Roberts on specific changes that you would like to make. If we can't agree there, we can make use of tools such as
request for comment to bring previously uninvolved editors into the discussion. Steve Smith (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I did not realize that delisting was radical :-) So, how do I go about taking your advice? How do I revert my edits and withdraw the reassessment request?Grassrootsgirl (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2011 edits

Page changed to reflect results of 2010 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.205.98 (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Ellen Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ellen Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ellen_Roberts&oldid=1213067330"