Jump to content

Talk:Ellen Roberts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEllen Roberts was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 6, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 5, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Review

[edit]
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?

[edit]

Generally yes. Some things that could improve:

  • The lead is too short for an article of this size. Per WP:LEAD, "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", which I don't think this does (I'm empathetic, though - my leads get mentioned as weaknesses of pretty well every article I nominate). Sarcasticidealist (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 (WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this length have a lead of three or four paragraphs). I'm afraid this is one of those things that does have to hold up the GA nomination, since the good article criteria are explicit about the need to adhere to WP:LEAD. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (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]
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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the solution. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Roberts was appointed to the Task Force to Evaluate Health Care Needs for Colorado, a task force..." We already know it's a task force, because it says so in the name. Either replace or just eliminate the second occurrence of "task force". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (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"). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Removed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances of "Rep. Larson" should be changed to read simply "Larson". Per WP:MOSBIO: "For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them, with surnames used only. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth"." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 2007 session of the Colorado General Assembly, Roberts was a member of the House Health and Human Services Committee, the Joint Legal Services Committee, and was the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee." This parallelism doesn't work. I'd suggest repairing it by replacing the comma after "Human Services Committee" with the word "and". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Done -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts also sponsored bills to revise to process by which special health care districts are created,[49] to expand eligibility for Korean War special license plates, [50] and co-sponsored legislation to fund study of methane seep in southwestern Colorado." Exactly the same problem here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No longer. - Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts introduced a bill, drafted and lobbied for by Colorado students,[62] to create a legislative youth advisory council," It appears that this is intended as a complete sentence, so it should probably end with something other than a comma. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bill stalled in the legislature until its minimal cost was approved by the House Appropriations Committee." In contrast, this doesn't appear to be intended as the end of a sentence, and therefore probably should have the period replaced by a comma. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a measure which has garnered support from both nurses and doctor's associations." First of all, the apostrophe should go after the S. Second, did it garner support from nurses, or from nurses' associations? If the latter, there needs to be an apostrophe there, too. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nurses' associations. Both fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone! -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts supported the panel's proposal to create distinctions in the petition process between constitutional and statutory amendments,[75] and was a cosponsor of the measure..." I'd suggest shortening this to simply state that she was cosponsor of it, since that would make it unnecessary to also state that she supported it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. -- Sethant (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Sarcasticidealist (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, Colorado General Assembly isn't wikilinked anywhere despite occurring in the article a few times. I think there could be a link to Ute tribe somewhere in the relevant section, and maybe "Rotary club" should link to Rotary International. There are more but, like I said, this isn't a GA issue, and is probably more or less a question of personal preference. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New issues

[edit]

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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Sethant (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...also misrepresented both candidates' positions on immigration, exaggerating the contrast between the two candidates positions." A couple of things: first, the second instance of "candidates" needs to be made into a possessive. Second, there's quite a bit of repeated wording in that passage - could it be reworked? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; reworded. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Sethant (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

[edit]

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

Is it broad in its coverage?

[edit]

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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also lobbied, unsuccessfully, for the creation of an interim committee to study palliative care." What kind of committee (i.e. committee of the legislature, citizens' committee, etc.)? And who did she lobby - state legislators? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Direct mail flyers sent by outside groups during the last weeks of the campaign also distorted both candidates' positions on immigration and abortion." This seems ripe for elaboration: what outside groups? How was Roberts' position distorted? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 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. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She also joined with other moderate Republicans to criticize an executive order issued by Gov. Bill Ritter allowing collective bargaining with government employee unions." This could use some elaboration - why only moderate Republicans? Wouldn't conservative Republicans oppose this measure most of all? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March, Roberts backed a proposal to require that insurance companies offer low-cost benefit packages for Coloradoans, as part of a "public-private" plan towards achieving universal coverage." Context strongly suggests that this is about health insurance specifically, but that should probably be clarified in there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk)
Looks good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is also a pass now. Good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?

[edit]

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

  • "Roberts maintained a civil relationship with her main opponent, Democrat Joe Colgan, signing a clean campaign pledge." The first part of this sentence doesn't seem to be supported by the source provided, and seems somewhat POV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to tidy up that a bit. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Roberts was a member of the minority party, she was one of the most successful Republican legislators at passing legislation," The "although" doesn't really work here, as it suggests that it's surprising that a member of the minority party would be one of the most successful Republican legislators. In fact, of course, all Republican legislators were members of the minority party. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her greatest victory was the passage of revisions to Colorado's surface rights, laws, requiring oil and gas companies to minimize the impacts of drilling" The sources provided don't support the statement that this was "her greatest victory", and the term seems a little peacocky. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Softened. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roberts also introduced a bill which would grant qualified nurses..." What is meant by "qualified nurses"? Does it have a specific meaning? If not, the word "qualified" doesn't appear to serve any purpose other than making Roberts' proposal look better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's advance practice nurses. Clarified. -- Sethant (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Sarcasticidealist (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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This criterion is a pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

[edit]

Yes. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

[edit]

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 Rocky Mountain National Park in the "Early career" section, maybe this for later in the article, etc. Such images don't necessarily improve understanding of the subject, but if they're free there's nothing wrong with a little relevant decoration. In any event, pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
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 third opinion and 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

[edit]

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]

GA concerns

[edit]

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There are lots of uncited passages, particularly in the later parts of her career.
  • The lede is too short and needs more detail.
  • References contain lots of deadlinks.

Anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Ellen Roberts

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is too short to summerise the contents of the article. There is a lot of uncited information, particularily towards the end of her career. Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ellen_Roberts&oldid=1238725891"