Talk:Richard M. Daley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (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.	The Fourth term section doesn't flow very well, skips straight from, "he won the election" to "In August 1999 the U.S. affiliate of Amnesty International issued a report "Race, Rights & Brutality: Portraits of Abuse in the USA," Could you rewrite so it flows nicer? Each paragraph in this section just seems very disjointed, there is no sense of continuity. Seems like a list with expanded dotpoints basically. "Aviation interest groups unsuccessfully sued the city to reopening the airport.[citation needed]" What does that even mean? And . fixed Hugh (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC) "Northerly Island redevelopment includes a concert venue, prairie preserve, and bird rehabilitation center." This is just tacked onto the end of a paragraph, no sense of connection fixed Hugh (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [33][153][154][155][156][157][158][159] Could we cut a few of those out? fixed Hugh (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC) 'Daley joined a speakers bureau." I think we could make this less out of place. No further discussion of it, perhaps we could remove it? What speakers bureau did he join? fixed Hugh (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Could you please rewrite this sentence to make it less colloquil? Garnered doesn't seem like the right word. "Daley garnered 68.9 percent of the vote" fixed Hugh (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) This section doesnt read well, could you rewrite: Brzeczek forwarded that letter to State's Attorney Daley.[17][18][19] Daley never replied.[20] Charges were never brought against any officers. Its the three word sentence fixed Hugh (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) " faced off " Too coloquial fixed Hugh (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) 13 divided (not unanimous) votes. Dont think the unanimous part is neccessasry fixed Hugh (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) On October 2, 2009, in a stunning and embarrassing disappointment for Daley. I think we couild make this more Manual of style compliant. Probably get the stunning embarrasing part out of it. fixed Hugh (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC) In the lead section "Police use of force was an issue in Daley's tenures as States Attorney and Mayor." I'm sure other topics were also issues in his tenures as states attorney and mayor, why does this one warrant mention over everything else? Unless this issue completely consumned his 6 terms as mayor,(which i doubt) it should be removed or be balanced, gives undue weight to it.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	article suffers from citation overkill. Some parts have 4 citations at the end of the sentence, many citations are doubled. fixed Hugh (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) 3 in the article, this needs to be improved. improved Hugh (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The legacy and homage section doesnt seem to address his legacy. For someone who was mayor for 6 terms, im sure we can get more than a paragraph on him.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article goes into extreme detail in some parts. Daley, David Orr, and Jane Byrne are currently the only living former Mayors of Chicago. Is this really relevant? fixed. thanks, I was never happy with that sentence. Your comments helped me deal with some issues I inherited. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC) This is an article about Richard Daley, a whole paragraph about his sons party is wholly unnessecary. This content is important in partial support of one of the most notable aspects of the subject of the article, support of gun control. Early in his mayoral career there was very nearly a gun fatality at the home of the subject of this article. This content is important in maintaining neutrality through proportionality with respect to coverage in reliable sources as per WP:WEIGHT. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Patrick pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of furnishing alcohol to minors and disturbing the peace and was sentenced to six months' probation, 50 hours of community service in Grand Beach, fined $1,950 and ordered to pay restitution to his parents for property damage. His cousin pleaded guilty to aiming a firearm without malice and was fined $1,235. 16 other youths were charged with juvenile and adult offenses. The injured youth recovered.[57][59] 5 paragraphs on his son in the Daley son concealed city contracting section is ridiculous. paragraphs reduced from 5 to 2 Hugh (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC) This content is important in partial support of one of the most notable aspects of the subject of the article, friends and family benefiting disproportionately from city contracting. This content is important in maintaining neutrality through proportionality with respect to coverage in reliable sources as per WP:WEIGHT. Hugh (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You effectively say in this bit "On March 15, 2010, Daley appointed two aldermen in one day" the in one day bit twice. I think we can cut the one day bit out. fixed Hugh (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately I am going to have to fail this article. This article is too far from the criteria to warrant putting it on hold pending further improvements. I feel that with this review the editors will be able to rewrite the article so it is more compliant with the GA criteria in future. If you have any questions regarding improvements to the article I am happy to assist. Retrolord (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review and thanks for the generous 90 minute hold on Superbowl Sunday night brother. Hugh (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Just a passing commenter, but I'm also surprised by the speed with which this one was closed; the issues named above don't seem like they would have been insurmountable in the typical week given for GA reviews. Hopefully this one will have another go soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC) thanks for your comment Hugh (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your passing comments Khazar. The article did not meet the criteria, therefore I failed it. There are more problems than the ones issued here, and there are quite a few here. I can't see any rule or anything that even encourages a reviewer to put an article on hold if it fails the criteria significantly. Retrolord (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comment RL. I agree, there is absolutely no rule whatsoever that requires you or anyone else to give a fellow wikipedian more than 90 minutes of hold time on a GA review on Super Bowl Sunday night or any other night for a top importance article or any other type of article. Right you are! Well played! Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Snark aside, I think the difference is just in how we see the "significantly"; there are issues here, but they look like things that could be (and indeed were) addressed without tremendous rewriting. The goal, after all, is to get these to GA quality. But I nonsarcastically agree that you were within your rights to fail it if you chose, so I apologize if I sounded argumentative. You gave some feedback, the issues have been addressed (save the legacy section, which probably needs more discussion), and now it can be renominated for another reviewer to take a look at; the important net result is that the article's moving forward. I really appreciate your work in reviewing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)