Talk:Mike Sullivan (Wyoming politician)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the article. Layout is the standard for a politician. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The Casper Star-Tribune, which is cited 150 times, is a reliable source about Wyoming. The other sources are fine too.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article reflects what sources say.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 20%, but mostly proper nouns. No close paraphrasing detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article lists the positions Sullivan held and mentions his most significant actions.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays relevant to Sullivan's career and political views.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article mentions support and opposition to Sullivan and does not unduly weigh any views.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article has been stable for a year.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images depict Sullivan and his gubernatorial campaign.
	7. Overall assessment.	A well-written, comprehensive political biography.

Initial thoughts

• There's a sentence in the "Economics and development" section that you accidentally stopped in the middle of. I'll suggest more copyedits as I go on but that's the most obvious one.
• I'm not sure if the image in the infobox is really under a CC license. The source webpage (archived) says the article is under this license, but I'm not sure if the image is original.
• Sources look good.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I will email the American embassy in Ireland and ask for Mike Sullivan's official portrait. That will be certainly in the public domain as a work of the US government. Jon698 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've tried looking for other portraits of Sullivan. The only photo I found of him is in the back of a group of people with Bill Clinton, so I've added that one to the paragraph about him supporting Clinton's campaign. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead section

• The phrasing "political family" does not match the body. Though multiple family members were politicians, the phrasing "political family" is original synthesis.
• I don't think his high school is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but I'll accept it.
• oversaw Wyoming's most recent criminal execution violates MOS:RELTIME. I think something like oversaw Wyoming's only criminal execution after Furman v. Georgia would be fine, though.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Early life

• This section looks good besides some minor copyedits I've done myself.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Career

• Sullivan announced said that he was considering running... as "announced" implies something more official, in the context of an election. I also think the exact date is not relevant.
• The Republicans blamed their defeat in the 1986 election on the primary which had seven candidates that divided the loyalty of the party. The source attributes this claim specifically to the party's chairman, Mark Hughes, which should be specified.
• I don't think it's necessary to quote Hughes with the word "landslide". The statement that it was the state's largest margin of victory conveys the same information.
• Instead of separately listing that he was a DNC superdelegate in 1988 and in 1992, it would be more concise to have one sentence saying he was both a superdelegate and the Wyoming chair at both events.
• claimed said in a fundraising letter
• Remove both mentions of Sullivan and Karpan's letter, since both statements are cited to primary sources without any analysis.
• This section doesn't mention when Sullivan stopped being the ambassador to Ireland—should be a simple fix.
• I've made some copyedits throughout this section to split up long sentences and to replace passive with active voice.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Later life

• The source for the statement about the Secretary of the Interior position attributes this claim to "Del Tinsley, publisher of the Wyoming Livestock Roundup", which should be reflected. Also, the source does not mention Gale Norton.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Political positions

• The first mobile phone calls in Wyoming belongs under the "Tenure" section since it's not a political position.
• Is the use of the word "fraud" with regards to the Filipino election appropriate? Seems WP:CONTENTIOUS, and the Wikipedia articles about the subject seem to avoid definitively saying there was fraud.
• I think the paragraph about redistricting belongs in the "Tenure" section, but it makes sense either way.
• The "Government" section repeats information already in the article about Sullivan vetoing a law about vacancies and having his veto overriden.
• I think the phrase "opposed to abortion rights" is mildly biased as it focuses on the phrase "abortion rights". Maybe just phrase it as "anti-abortion".
• There's no need to define the term "non-therapeutic abortion", especially if you have to add an source for it that's unrelated to the article. Just wikilink the phrase to Abortion#Induced.
• The statement about the National Organization of Women only has a primary source, and I think it's undue.
• In 1987, the Wyoming Senate voted 16 to 14 in favor and the Wyoming House of Representatives voted 39 to 25 in favor seems like too much detail on the vote. Should just say In 1987, the Wyoming Legislature voted in favor.
• I think the information about signing the budget belongs in the "Tenure" section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• Checking 15 randomly selected sources, as of this revision. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

9. Y
45. Y
62. Y
69. Y
73. Y
83. Y
99. Y However, I think your phrasing is too close to the source.
105. Y
107. Y Also, this article describes Sullivan's political ideology as centrist, which would be useful to include in the article.
115. Y
117. Y
137. Y
144. Y
151. Y But I don't think this should be mentioned without context, since the news article was in response to another news article.
156. Y

And every use of the Roberts 2009 source:

35. N Doesn't mention the primary against Clingman, but doesn't matter since there are other sources for this.
61. Y
79. Y
98. Y And you could also use this source to cite the fact that he served until 2001.
174. Y

@Jon698: Good work on this article. Please address my comments above. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I have addressed almost all of your comments. I will have to find sourcing about the end of his tenure as ambassador. The vetoes mentioned in the Government section are different vetoes than those mentioned in the Tenure section. The National Organization for Women line should be kept as it is common to include organizational ratings of politicians. Jon698 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jon698: I was referring to the second paragraph of the "Government" section. It appears to me that this:
  Sullivan vetoed multiple pieces of legislation altering the appointment to fill vacancies in partisan offices as to require the governor to choose from three people selected by the central committee of the party that held the office.
  and the statement in the "Tenure" section:
  Sullivan issued his first veto against legislation that would have required the governor to choose a replacement for United States Senate or other high offices from a list of three names submitted by the incumbent political party.
  refer to vetoes of similar legislation. It'd be more clear to put them together. As to your other point, I agree that an organizational rating should be kept. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Done. Jon698 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• BTW I also replaced the infobox image with the public domain one. I am still waiting for a response from the Irish embassy. Jon698 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: I added a line about when his service as ambassador ended. I have answered all of your comments. Jon698 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Alright, that's all the issues addressed. For the record, the Commons deletion discussion on the old infobox image is saying it might be free, so once that ends I might add it back. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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.