Talk:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg/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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm happy to review this nomination, and will post feedback shortly. Edge3 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

---

First of all, I really appreciate your work on this article! I was such a huge fan of Mayor Pete during the 2020 campaign season, and I would have voted for him had he remained in the race for the Illinois primary. I'm thrilled that he earned a spot on Biden's administration.

Unfortunately, I do not believe this article meets the GA criteria at this time. Significant improvements will be needed, so I hope my feedback here will be helpful to you.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article has too many single-sentence or very short paragraphs. This makes the prose feel "choppy". This is especially true for the lead section. Note that lead sections generally have "no more than four well-composed paragraphs" (MOS:LEAD). Phrasing is also awkward in places (e.g. "Buttigieg forwent reelection in 2019" could be better phrased as "Buttigieg chose not to run for reelection in 2019").

   While MOS:BLPCHRONO is not a GA criterion, its advice is useful here. Information should generally be presented in chronological order, as it helps improve the quality and conciseness of the prose. The lead section jumps several times between his first and second terms, and dates do not appear in order.

   There are two subsections named "Other civic matters". Note that section names must be unique, per MOS:SECTIONS.

   His coming-out appears in "RFRA opposition" and "Coming-out" sections. Mentioning it twice seems redundant. This could be resolved once you reorganize everything chronologically.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I did not review all sources. However, I did see many sources published by the government of South Bend, or other official sources, which might not be reliable because they may be considered self-published or primary sources. (See WP:RS).

   I checked Earwig for potential copyright violations. While some flags were raised, none of them raised significant concern.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article should mention his campaign for DNC chair, since it took place during his mayoralty. In other respects, I feel that the article goes into unnecessary detail. (e.g. "As mayor of South Bend, Buttigieg lacked sole authority over the bus system, South Bend Transpo. Rather, authority was shared with the mayor of Mishawaka." -- This fact applies to any mayor of South Bend, not just Buttigieg. I'm not sure why this is relevant to this article specifically.)

   Consider using {{Main}} or {{See also}} to direct readers to content about the mayoral elections in 2015 and 2019.

   Certain "retrospective" content could be moved around. For example, in the "Infrastructure and transportation" section, you have quotations from Henry Davis, Jr. in 2020 after Buttigieg was nominated to become Transportation Secretary. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a "Legacy" or "Reception" section that would contain critical reviews of Buttigieg's mayoralty. Such content could also be combined with the "Analysis of Buttigieg's leadership style" section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Again, I'm really excited to see articles about Mayor Pete move through the GA process, especially the ones about the mayoral elections in South Bend. While this article is not ready for now, I'm confident you'll be able to make the necessary improvements. Feel free to message me with any additional questions. Edge3 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Why fail rather than hold?

@Edge3: I'm curious why you opted to fail, rather than put this on hold? None of these seem like issues that could not be remedied within a week’s time.

My understanding is that main section titles are the ones that need to be unique. Subsections, where unavoidable, can share titles. For example, in articles about elections with primaries and general elections, there may be more than one “results” sub-section or “candidates” section. This is the case in numerous good articles which I have encountered. In this instance, there were other civic matters during both terms. But I still have now altered the section layout to remove the repeated title. Again, a change that was quickly able to be accomplished, and could have been done if this article were on hold.

The article does have a mention of his DNC chairmanship campaign, I added it today (while you were still reviewing it). It only occurred to me then that I had not mentioned it. And even if it still did not, again, would that not have been a quick enough change for me to remedy if the nomination was put on hold?

SecretName101 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Thanks for your input. You're correct that putting the article on hold was an option, and I did consider it. I agree that formatting changes, such as section headers, can be resolved quickly. However, as per WP:GAN/I#HOLD, the "on hold" option is used "if a few issues [need to be] fixed and [the reviewer wishes] to prescribe an amount of time for these issues to be corrected (generally seven days)". As I mentioned above, I believe the article requires a significant amount of copyediting and reorganizing. This includes cleaning up the prose, re-ordering the content chronologically, checking for content from non-independent/primary sources, and avoiding unnecessary detail. Because the article is long (over 5,000 words of readable prose), implementing these changes would likely take a long time. Also, I figured that failing (rather than putting on hold) would actually be helpful, because I didn't want to rush the process by cramming the editing into a 7-day period.

It is possible that I am overestimating how long it would take for you to resolve these concerns. I just took a look at your contributions log, and you're a much more prolific contributor than I am. Maybe you'll get it done sooner rather than later. In any case, once you submit your second nom, feel free to ping me for a review, and I'll see if I have capacity for it. I'd be happy to take a closer look once you make the requested changes. However, if you want a different reviewer next time, I'd understand. Edge3 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (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.