Talk:Kathy Karpan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm happy to review the article. My feedback will be posted shortly. Edge3 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
"Karpan raised $927,949 and ended with $24,919 during the campaign while Enzi had raised $911,153 and ended his campaign with $121,587 and $29,000 in debt" - This is confusingly worded. I recommend forming separate sentences and rewording. Additionally, in the "Electoral history" tables, you have "Change" columns that are unused.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
At the end of the "Secretary of State" section, explain that she was no longer the Secretary of State because she had run for Governor. Further, in the "Gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns" section, she first met with party officials to consider running for Senate. However, she ultimately ran for Governor. Could you add more explanation into why she backed out of the Senate race to run for Governor?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Nice job! Just a few items to resolve before I close this review. Edge3 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an extra comment. It might be helpful to add extra content about her early life and also her legal career post-politics. I found this source that is quite detailed: https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/kathy-karpan-life-law-and-politics Edge3 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This nomination appears to have been abandoned. See first notice and second notice on nominator's talk page, along with thread at WT:GAN. I will go ahead and edit the article to bring this to GA standard, and Wasted Time R has agreed to take over the review. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction after reading the article is I think it is lacking with respect to a couple of items re 3a broad coverage. In particular, while there is a description of her two campaigns for the secretary of state position, there is nothing said at all about what she did in that position for the eight years she held it. What actions did she take, what achievements did she have, what disputes did she get embroiled in, etc. Similarly, she was director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for almost three years. What happened during her tenure there? That's an inherently controversial area that involves competing interests of mining companies, laborers, environmentalists, westerners versus federal bureaucrats, etc etc. Surely something went on during her time in that position. The article has a lot of coverage of whom she endorsed for what, but far more important is what she did when she herself held office. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm busy in real life, so it'll take me a bit longer to respond than usual. However, I've started making minor edits to the article, to address the comments I made earlier as the reviewer. I'll address your feedback once I'm done with my intended edits. Edge3 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: I've finished the edits I intended to make. It took longer than I expected because I didn't realize there was so much content in the Wyoming Historical Society's biography that hadn't already already been included in the article. I believe that my edits also address your comments, but I welcome additional feedback! Edge3 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: The article is definitely getting there, but I think the sectioning now needs some attention. The "Early life" section is now too long compared to the others and takes her to age 44, which is not exactly 'early'. I would break it after she gets her undergraduate degree in 1964. The new section could be called "Early career" or something like that. Next, having a section called "Political career" that just includes her statewide campaigns and elected office held doesn't make sense to me, because was heavily involved in politics both before that and after that. You could simply make "Secretary of State" and "Gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns" top-level sections and dispense with "Political career". Next, her time as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement should be its own section, not folded into "Later life", since it's a major position with its own spot in the infobox. I think her time as Principal Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals Management can be included in that new section as well, since it was still in the Department of the Interior. Then after that, you can begin the "Later life" section.

My other immediate comment is that all of the material you have added about her time in office as Secretary of State and as Director of OSMRE is from one source, the Wyoming Historical Society bio that you mention. There's nothing wrong with that source, but it's always a good idea to bring some other sources in as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So for example:

this story says that she didn't exactly step down as director of OSMRE, but rather had to recuse herself and be shifted to another position because she was being interviewed for the job of president of the National Mining Association and environmental groups saw that as an obvious conflict.

both that story and this story have the title of Karpan's second position at Interior being "acting deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management", not "Principal Assistant Secretary" as the article currently states. Which is correct?

furthermore, if she assumed the second position in April 2000 and was gone from it in January 2001 with the advent of the Bush 43 administration, then she held the position for 9 months, not the 1½ years that the article currently states.

this story says that Karpan opened her Cheyenne law firm under the name is Bagley Karpan Rose and White, not Karpan and White as the article currently states. Per the firm's website, it was indeed the longer name until 2007 but is now Karpan and White.

That's just one area that I looked at, but it shows the value of looking for additional sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've reorganized the section headers, and I also did some extra research on why she stepped down from the OSMRE. I'll keep making some additional modifications, but in the meantime, I wanted to point out that I'm unable to verify her actual job title. While the clippings you provided state "acting deputy assistant secretary", this source states "principal assistant secretary". Additionally, in the Federal Register [1] and [2], she's listed as "Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary". I agree that it's confusing. Edge3 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've finished making the additional modifications that you had requested. I'm still doing research on her job title. Check out this article by the Brookings Institution, as it's a fairly interesting read on how large the bureaucracy really is. Notably, there's no "Principal Assistant Secretary", but there's a "Principal Assistant Assistant Secretary" (whoa -- that's two layers of assisting!). However, I think the closer match would be "Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary". Note that in Karpan's case, she's likely "acting" because she wasn't confirmed by the Senate in her new role. Edge3 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Federal Register one that you found, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, is the best one to go with because it looks to be what she signed documents with at the time. It also has good comic value since it seems to combine every possible bureaucratic qualifier. And thanks for the Brookings link, although after a while I had to stop reading it out of mental self-defense! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I've adjusted the job title and cited the Federal Register. By the way, I should mention that during my research, I came across allegations during the gubernatorial campaign that Karpan is a lesbian. See Tampa Bay Times (scroll down to Wyoming) and The Advocate, an LGBT magazine. And these statements, although not appearing in a published reliable source, provide additional context into what happened. However, I didn't think the allegations were well-sourced, and a lot of it was tied to aggressive campaigning. I'm inclined to leave it out as per WP:BLP, but I wanted to get your perspective on whether there is anything worthwhile to include. Edge3 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karpan's apology remarks did come out in a regular newspaper story, see this Billings Gazette clip. Whether to include this in the article or not is a borderline call. It does illustrate LGBT attitudes in America circa 1994 and what certain kinds of candidates had to face. On the other hand, it does not seem to have recurred as an issue in the 1996 campaign, at least it wasn't mentioned in this lengthy New York Times piece from a week before election day. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added the content about the LGBT rumors, and also the NYT story about the campaign in 1996. Let me know what you think. Edge3 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1994 campaign, I think you've given the rumors/apology matters undue weight – 119 words out of the 226 words in that paragraph. Was it really that critical? I don't get that impression. I would try to boil it down to a couple of sentences and maybe add something else about the camapign. Regarding the 1996 campaign, the grouping of material needs a little attention. The 'A' rating from the NRA should be moved to after "increased access to guns" and there are a couple of good quotes from her from the Billings Gazette clip on the endorsement – the 'very heartening' one at the beginning and the one at the end about being a Wyoming Democrat and not a national Democrat or a Clinton Democrat. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! I've made some changes to address those concerns. Edge3 (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... let me know when the whole article is ready for review. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I was wondering whether you were conducting a full review, lol. But I've enjoyed the conversation we've had thus far! Yes, please go ahead and review the whole article. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are points about the article as a whole:

The lede needs to be reworked a bit. A mention that she was Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement should be in first sentence or paragraph, while the current first paragraph's mentions that she served as a congressional staffer, campaign manager, and assistant attorney general can be moved into (and coalesced with) what's in the second paragraph.

a Democratic presidential candidate – I think "a" should be "the", since Adlai was not just any candidate but the party's two-time nominee.

Thomas, a coal miner, worked for the Union Pacific Railroad on a nearby mine from Rock Springs to Superior. – Did the mine stretch from Rock Springs to Superior? Or that branch of the railroad? Not clear to me.

It might be worth saying that Rock Springs and Rawlins are about 100 miles apart, to give readers an idea of what these moves back and forth entailed.

Rawlins High School should be linked, but the partial link inside Rawlins Daily Times should be removed.

One month later, she protested the Vietnam War at a march in Washington, D.C., – a more specific link for this is Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam#Second Moratorium.

During the 1988 presidential election, Karpan endorsed Tennessee Senator Al Gore for the Democratic presidential nomination. – This would be better as one link to 1988 Democratic Party presidential primaries, as is done for 1992 in the next sentence, rather than two split links as done now.

Karpan accused staffers for her Republican opponent ... – I saw that you trimmed this somewhat, but I still have the feeling that this rumors/apology matter is given too much weight here. If you look for Wyoming and Montana newspapers writing recap stories in the days following the election, do any of them mention this as a factor in the outcome?

She battled Republican efforts to label her as a "national Democrat" or "Clinton Democrat" in favor of gun control – I think the "in favor of gun control" portion of this can be dropped. This was a labeling battle being fought over all issues, not just this one.

The poll also showed that she had name recognition among 92% of people and was viewed by 81% of people – these are better written out as "percent", per MOS:PERCENT.

Based on her early career, some categories could be added: Category:American women journalists, Category:Journalists from Wyoming, Category:United States congressional aides. Maybe also Category:American campaign managers.

Regarding cite formatting, fn 51 and 52 are missing the 'via Newspapers.com' credit and fn 30 has an error in the publisher link.

Anyway, those are my review comments, nothing really major at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I believe I've addressed your comments, but please let me know if there's anything else. I've also trimmed the 1994 rumors even further, as I agree that it didn't get a lot of coverage in the local newspapers. Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is addressed except for the reworking of the first paragraph of the lede. Which, I hate to say, is often the only thing that matters. If you look at the results box that Google or other search engines put up, or the Wikipedia article when in mobile view, it's just the first paragraph that people see and a few items from the infobox. Then they have to start scrolling or clicking to see more, which probably a majority of people do not do. So the first paragraph has to be a complete little article unto itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! You're totally right. I simply overlooked that item when I was going through your comments. I'll make the needed changes and get back to you. Edge3 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph looks good now, except that since everything else in it is Wyoming-specific, readers may assume that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement was part of the state government. So maybe say "... as the director of the federal Office of Surface Mining ..."? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've finally finished my edits to the lead. Could you please take another look? Edge3 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lede looks good now ... but with your latest revisions, the lede overall has become too long. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, for an article of this size – 14 kB (2175 words) readable prose size before this increase – the lede should be around two paragraphs, maybe three. And three is what it was before, and that would be reasonable for now. But five is definitely too many. And in terms of content, there's way too much detail in the lede now – the moves between towns, the activities during college, the starts and stops of her education, whom she has supported for office, jobs and conflict of interest, etc. That's all important for the article body but doesn't belong here in the introduction. As it is sometime reading the article would be subjected to reading the much of the same narrative twice. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback! Thanks. I've just trimmed the lead, so please let me know if there's anything else I can do to fix it. Edge3 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're done, I'm passing the article and this especially long GA saga is now over! Good work User:Edge3 and also User:Jon698 for starting it along this path. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: @Wasted Time R: I would like to thank both of you for getting this article over the GA line. I was unable to help after a while since I stopped editing Wikipedia for a bit after a close friend died. Jon698 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]