Talk:Toni Preckwinkle/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Preliminary GA review[edit]

There are several general issues relating to this article.

  • POV tone. The article reads more like promotional material for this politician, rather than a neutral, encyclopaedic view. We read repeatedly that she is progressive, publicly accountable, also independent, keen, persuasive, spirited etc. She is powerful, she had "disproportionate influence" in choosing Obama’s successor to the state senate. Her role in Chicago’s Olympic bid becomes an "international" one (it's still local, at this stage). It seems that you are bigging her up, rather than giving a factual account of her career to date. I think you need to go through and tone down the prose, all the way through the article.
    • The tone is reflective of the mainstream secondary sources. She is non-controversial and positively portrayed in the press. I am as a tertiary author relay this positive portrayal. The adjectives chosen reflect those used by secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The adjectives have undoubtedly been used. It is your selection and deployment of them which is the issue. For example, in relation to the Tribune and Sun-Times comments, instead of repeating the whole list of compliments you could have said they "praised her for her intelligence and independence, and hoped she would continue in politics" - or something like that. Also, I imagine that there are some conservative commentators or columnists who don't eye her with such undiluted favour and might use other terms? Perhaps they don't criticise her much, which would make me wonder if she was as powerful as your article implies. However, the general point stands - the prose has to be toned down if it is to read as a factual article rather than campaign literature.
        • When it comes to WP:RS, I stay away from liberal and conservative rags as best I can. I hope to stay with the Trib and Sun-Times and even more mainstream media. I definitely do not intend to seek left-wing or right-wing sources just to counter the prevailing thought. Without contravention from the mainstream middle of the road media I will leave the positive vibe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In a neutral article you have to consider all sources, not just those that reflect your own preferences. I'm not saying that you must trawl through the aforementioned "rags" to find balancing criticisms, but if a critical perspective does exist, as is likely with all elected officers, this should be mentioned. You have to decide, basically, whether you are writing an encyclopedia article of a promotional article. At present it has the character of promotional material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not all sources. All WP:RS. This is why I do not use either left-wing or right-wing media for political articles. People will say anything sourced thusly is POV. I am limited in my experience having only produced Jack Kemp and Jesse Jackson, Jr., but this seems like the right way to source politicians.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • When it comes to newspaper sources, which your article relies almost entirely on, there will be different views as to what is reliable and what is not. But rather than pursue this debate, I intend to read the article again, to see whether the changes you have recently made create a more neutral image. I'll come back on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I guess I should remind you that some text remains that was added during following WP:DRV debates. I just fixed the {{ArticleHistory}} to provide greater clarity. I think the last sentence of the lead was really written as a defense against the first three items in the article history. I find the sentence unusual in my own review. I am not sure whether an article that has a history like this needs to be handled. I fear not reminding people she has been mentioned in several national media outlets is abnormal, but was necessary earlier for this article. I have removed a few terms from the rest of the article. I still remain concerned about the efforts that have been made to take this article off of WP in the past and want the lead to be strong enough to stop people in their tracks. Advice on toning down the last sentence of the lead and/or beefing up the lead would be welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Why no image in the infobox? There are several portraits of Ald. Preckwinkle on google images. Surely, if approached, one of the copyright holders would let you use a picture? Or you could give a fair use rationale. In the one group image you have, Ald. Preckwinkle isn’t identified by the caption except as Columbia, which isn’t particularly helpful if you are outside the US and don't know what Columbia is supposed to look like.
  • References: The following are dead links: [17], [23], [25], [26], [33] and [40]. I could not get [1] and [2] to work, either; a message said that there were "temporary difficulties" with the site.
    • (Later comment) [1] and [2] still not functioning. I assume they are dead, too. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [17], [25], [40] are all Sun-Times articles so I have fixed those.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [23] The ref was case-sensitve on the word bylaws, which should be Bylaws.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • [26] was obtainable at archive.org--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • [1] and [2] still dead. [33] also dead. As of now, [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8] work with Firefox but not with Internet Explorer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have just reopened [3], [4], [5], [6] and [8] in MSIE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have just fixed [1] and [2] and merged them. This causes all other numbers to be reduced by one. The only currently outstanding ref is [33] which is now [32]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • [1] is still not working for me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is breaking for me again. Do you have any suggestions? It is a link on the ward page in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm afraid that there are continuing problems with the references. Apart from [1] and [32] not working, the Chicago Tribune Newsbank refs are all problematic and temperamental. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't - yesterday, they did; this morning they don't. As to [1] and [32], these are your main biographical sources. The infobox link to the Chicago 4th Ward has a biography that gives most of the information cited to [1] and [32], and this link works, so I would advice using this biography as a replacement for {1] and [32]. But I don't know what to suggest about the Newsbank ones which only seem to work on occasions. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: Apart from the POV issues mentioned above, the general standard of prose needs much improvement. Some examples (and please note that they are examples, not the whole problem): the word "role" appears four times in the second and third sentences of the lead; the last sentence of the lead makes three distinct statements yet is completely unpunctuated; the "Political role" section includes the sentence "The ward is adjacent to the Lake Michigan lakefront, and she is now serving her fourth term" – completely unrelated facts linked in a single sentence. The article needs a thorough copyedit; I’d do it myself, but not until the POV question and other issues have been resolved.
    • I have reduced the 4 roles to 2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence just needed better parallel structure. I think the punctuation is fine unless you just want to break it apart.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded ths sentence to show the relation.--TonyTheTiger (t/cbio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you clarify a general point for me? I understand that Toni Preckwinkle lost to Timothy Evans in 1983 and 1987, and beat him in 1991. They both appear to belong to the same party, so are these primary elections we are talking about? If so, were there general elections following, or were the selected Democratic candidates unopposed? All this has to be made clear to readers unfamilar with this electoral system. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal information: This seems rather thin for an elected office-holder. What was her name before marriage? When did she study at the University of Chicago, and when did she graduate? What made her suddenly seek elective office in 1983? These are examples of information you would expect to find in an article about an active politician.
    • We are on the fringes of WP:N with a local city councilperson. Extensive biographical sketches of such persons are not common apart from scandalous media attention. I have scoured the Chicago Dailies for the advances made since the last GAC. I have a contact at her office that I might call for information such as maiden name, years of study, etc. However, such might border on WP:OR unless they can direct me to secondary sources for the information. I will make some calls and see what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a lot of google information and google images concerning her, so she is not completely un-notable. I would expect basic information such as I have suggested to be on the public record somewhere, unless she has chosen to protect her private life, in which case this fact should be mentioned. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to get some responses from you on these questions, before moving on to more detailed issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review stage II[edit]

I feel that there must be a time limit to our discussions on this article, so I am putting it on hold. Seven days should be more than enough time to settle the outstanding issues, which I see as:-

  • References - getting all the links to work, all the time. Note I have fixed [32] by using the [1] url. All the biographical citations now go to the Preckwinkle biography.
    • Newsbank has never failed before. I don't know what the problem is. It should work across the pond (If I recall you are in Great Britain).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - trying to extend the images, in particular with a view to an infobox portrait.
    • I have posted requests at Flickr and with some image search results. I am working on this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had hoped to see Preckwinkle and take her picture today at a bi-monthly neighborhood meeting that she usually attends. She is out of town. I got a reply regarding the image above that they will release it with the alderman's consent, but that they feel she would probably prefer an alternate image for a WP main image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose issues, including extending lead, possible POV tone, other questions of general style. I will be looking at the prose in detail today, and will come up with some suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, can you answer the question raised above, about the status of the various elections - were these primaries or general?Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:Here are some suggestions concerning the extending and improvement of lead:-
    • 1. After opening sentence say something like: "She first sought office in 1983, and was defeated twice before securing election in 1991."
    • 2. Suggested clarification: "In addition to her elected role on the city council, Preckwinkle serves in a party capacity as....Cook County Central Committee".
      • Can you clarify what you want?
    • 3. Delete description "international". Although the Olympics are an international event, Chicago's bid for the 2016 games is a city affair, not an international one.
    • 4. Suggest paragraph break after Chicago 2016 Olympic bid. Then, in a short new paragraph, briefly summarise Preckwinkle's main areas of activity as an alderman, such as you have mentioned later, especially on affordable housing and minimum wage legislation. Also mention, again briefly, the controversies she has been associated with e.g Bellow, graffiti.
      • I broke the paragraph as suggested, but only added the two items mentioned in her brief summary in the press at "Meet Chicago's City Council". Chicago Tribune. Newsbank. 2007-05-20. Retrieved 2008-07-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). Should I mention more.
    • 5. Final lead para. Suggest begin: "Politically, she is a critic....." Then, "She is by reputation an outspoken Chicago politician, whose actions and opinions have been noted in publications across the country, including the NYT and WP. She has a reputation as a progressive leader, accountable to her electorate".
        • In general, the lead is looking pretty good now, though I've tweaked the end a bit, to avoid having both paragraphs ending with the same Olympics phrase. A bit more could be added, along the lines that, although she has generally avoided contoversy, she made a stand in the Bellow issue and was outspoken in the torture case. Details like that would give her a little more depth. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Bellow story is not important enough for a lead. I am working on Jon Burge as my next WP:GAC. I will nominate it within the next 48 hours. I have not gotten to her role in the recent settlement and ongoing litigation. This may be important enough for the lead, but I am not sure yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early Life: I have copyedited, to give the prose a smoother flow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political role: I have done some substantial copyediting to the first two paragraphs of this section, to get rid of repetitions and to attempt a better flow. I am unhappy with the statement that she is "now" in her fourth term. When is "now"? Also, on the basis of four-yearly elections (1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2007) she is in her fifth term. It would be better to say: "In 2008 she was serving her fifth term", or something like that.
I have completed my copyedits of paras 3 and 4. I have changed the paragraph break to a more logical position in relation to the text, and removed the word "disproportionately", which doesn't figure in the source. I have also, as a try-out, changed the name of this sub-section to "City alderman", and the name of the main section to "Political career". I think these are better, but the final decision must be yours. I'm going ahead with the copyediting of the "political issues" section & will report on this later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue my copyedits when I get a response. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now copyedited the first two paras of the Political issues section. I removed some geographical stuff from the first para, since this information was too detailed for anyone living outside Chicago. Overall, the article is beginning to look in tidy shape. I'll continue my efforts tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the location of the Olympic Village (immediately south of McCormick Place and across Lake Shore Drive from Burnham Park and Lake Michigan) get lost in the shuffle or did you have a rationale for its omission.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seemed to be too much local geographical information which would mean nothing to the general reader. I would have thought that saying that the complex was being developed from a parking lot mostly in the Douglas and Near South Side community areas was enough. If you feel strongly about this, you could continue the sentence after "community areas", "located immediately south of McCormick Place...." etc. But we don't want to lose clarity for the sake of too much detail. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but anyone who is from Chicago, who has been to a conference at our convention center (McCormick Place), or who has a familiarity with the geography of the city and Lake Shore Drive would be better informed. I will readd this information--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a photo gallery reference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I have now finished copyediting this section. Two points:
  • The last sentence of 3rd para is nothing to do with Preckwinkle and nothing to do with the city - suggest you omit.
  • Yes, but it gives the reader context and may help them to find out more on the living wage subject until it gets its own article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor argument. The purpose of this article should be to focus on Toni Preckwinkle. You can't suddenly adopt a different purpose, that of informing readers about the living wage issue generally. It weakens your article by changing he focus.Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5th para: "A year later....." that takes us to 2007. If this controversy is still on-going now, this sentence will need updating. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now completed my copyediting. Regarding the Personal life section at the end, I accept what you say about little information on her private life being on the public record. But in that case it makes no sense to have a whole section devoted to this single line of information. This simply draws unneccesary attention to the shortage of details. I recommend that you transfer this information into the lead, as its final (short) paragraph.
  • I have noticed the additions and improvements that you have been making, and the article is beginning to look quite solid. I will shortly list the few remaining points which I think must be settled before I close the review. Incidentally, where exactly do I find the photo gallery reference?

Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (Later) I've just read the biography, your ref [1]. There's loads of stuff, private and political, you're not using. E.g: President of the Disabled Adult Residential Enterprises (DARE) 1985 & 1986. This must go in. Also, her involvement as a director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. There are various other offices and involvements that give a much clearer picture of her as a person and as a politician. Most of this is not directly part of her role as alderman, and could go into an "Other activities" section after "Political issues". But please use it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • On an international encyclopedic level "Disabled Adult Residential Enterprises" is not a must. Have you done a google test on it. I get 67 hits. Not an encyclopedic point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence" is a mentionable, I guess. I'll look at it more closely tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DARE thing is important, because it gives a clue to her activities and involvements before she became an alderman. With so little information on her life generally, you need to use what's available. Please reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comparing Preckwinkle with the most similar level of notability at WP:GA that I see Gregory R. Ball, I would advise against inclusion of such non-notable endeavors.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why are you so opposed to using this information? It's no less notable than her having been a high school teacher, or having two children. It tells us something interesting about her, and gives a more rounded picture. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is normal to have a complete job history and list of family members. Non-notable endeavors are not noted. That is more like a non-notable hobby than a non-notable job or non-notable family details.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will keep on repeating it: anything that we have that gives us some kind of clue about her life and interests before her political career began is worth having in the article, whether it is judged "noteworthy" in itself, or not. Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Should we merge early life and outside interests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally, I wouldn't merge. The outside interests section is a nice way of rounding off the article and I like it where it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review, final comments[edit]

You have done sterling work during this review, extending and improving the article and raising its quality. I have just two further points:-

  • I am still niggled by the lack of images in the article, and particularly by the imageless infobox (I am by no means a fan of infoboxes at the best of times). Is there any reason why you shouldn't ask if you can use this [1]? Looks like a campaign photo - surely her office would not object?
    • I attend a bimonthly meeting on occaision that Preckwinkle attends regularly. It is the second Monday of the odd months. She happened to be out of town this week. Of the eight or ten I have attended, this was the first she missed. I will get her photo before the year is out. I may even pass by her constituent hours tomorrow (today UTC) to see if I could get her photo and some other info. I am not sure if she is back in town. I have been meaning to pass by and do so. I took some photos at a prior meeting, but my camera flash was not set correctly and everything came out blurred. I will get better photos.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't do that, have you considered ditching the infobox and putting the one image you have into the lead section, at the head of the article? That would work, and the infobox would be no loss. Finally, do you have access to any photographs of the 4th ward, even photos taken by yourself, which might be used to illustrate the article and enhance its presentation?

    • Infoboxes are a plus for most articles. With a good photo it would be for her as well. Almost every politician with a WP:GA or better has one, so I think we should keep the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some while ago I suggested you amended the image caption to clarify which person was Preckwinkle. Your extended caption has not helped. We only need to identify Preckwinkle, not all the others - they don't otherwise figure in the article. May I suggest that the caption is simplified, to read: "Hyde Park 2006 Independence Day parade. Toni Preckwinkle as the Statue of Liberty, center of picture, in white". Anything else is unnecessarily confusing. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extended caption has helped identify Preckwinkle. It has further added context to the photo by pointing out her companions on this day. It serves each of them well on their respective WP pages to have all of their names in the caption. I actually neglected to make the same improvement in the other articles. I prefer the caption as is in all of the pages (with the extension). Since we worked on the Jesse Jackson, Jr. article you may recall that in all the photos we named all notable persons. I believe this is the common procedure.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win - but could you change "light green" to "white", since that's how her robes look in the picture?. What am I supposed to do with these links (below)? Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can clearly see the shade of light green is darker than the white sleeves of the person to her left.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA promotion[edit]

This article is worthy of GA status, and is hereby promoted.

  • It is reasonably well-written
  • It is well-referenced
  • It covers the whole topic
  • It is neutral
  • It is stable
  • Images: more should be done to increase the images on the article, especially in the infobox. The present single image is barely adequate. The main editor concurs, and has this in hand. This shortcoming is not, in my view, an sufficient reason for witholding GA status.

Congratulations! Brianboulton (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toni_Preckwinkle/GA1&oldid=334185573"