Talk:Gery Chico/GA1

GA Review

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

As WP:CHICAGO director, I decline to review this article and defer to a neutral reader. However, I will note that the WP:LEAD is malformed. It should probably be three paragraphs and need further wikification of things like public offices (Mayor of Chicago and United States Senator, with the proper link to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004.) Much of the rest of the article passes the smell test, but the LEAD is very deficient. The article may have progressed enough that the initial template is not longer warranted, but I will leave that for an independent review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen and worked on a lot of politician BLPs, but this one is really weird. It was created by one infrequent editor, Aaronjhunter, sometime after the Daley replacement derby started up and apparently after a previous attempt got deleted. It was immediately tagged by an experienced editor for COI and press release, and indeed it was pretty much pure puffery. Then not much happens for a while except for some reference formatting. Now a new SPA pops up out of the blue, Geread, and makes a ton of edits and decides to simultaneously: leave the tags on, nominate the article for GA, and post this message at WT:GAN admitting to unspecified COI and asking whether the nomination should be quick-failed. Then one of WP's most prolific editors of all doesn't want to touch it.

Well, I doubt that Geread is really a new editor. The article isn't terrible ... it's less puffy than before, although phrases such as "Mayor Daley once again turned to Chico to lead" betray its origins. There are some strange wordings in the "2004 Campaign for U.S. Senate" section and it is presented out of chronological sequence. The sectioning needs improvement overall, and the lead is deficient as Tony said. The quality of the sources looks good in general, relying mostly upon Chicago's main newspapers, but I don't have enough knowledge of Chicago politics to be sure of how thorough and fair the treatment here is.

Regardless, the strange provenance of the article combined with the stranger nomination sequence makes me believe that a quick-fail is indeed the right approach here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I am staying out of the final decision on this one, I would request a WP:WIAGA violation to assign quick failure to. Niether provenance nor nomination sequence is a valid reason to fail. If no valid reason is presented I will, without prejudice bring this up at WP:GAR. It would not be because I believe that the article should pass or fail, but because it was not failed for a proper reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)