Talk:Gery Chico/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Early life and education: This is an encyclopaedia, words such as "mom" and "dad" are not encyclopaedic. Done

   My apologies. Changed to "mother" and "father".

   Chico first pursued a pre-medical degree at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign drop "first"

   Done

   In that time period,, perhaps "At that time"

   Replaced

   He earned his law degree in 1985 "earned" is not the right word, perhaps "gained".

   In US parlance, one "earns" a degree.

   Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   From 1996 to 2003 he was a senior partner of Altheimer & Gray, when it became insolvent and dissolved. Rephrase, presume you mean that it was dissolved in 2003

   Rephrased. Hopefully there is less ambiguity.

   At first Daley asked Chico to become the CEO, but Chico refused because he was resuming his law career. "At first", better to drop this

   Dropped

   Furthermore, Chico had already subtly suggested his intentions to succeed Mayor Daley, "subtly" is a weasel word here, implying a point of view.

   Removed

   ''Within a decade, what William Bennett, then U.S. Secretary of Education, had criticized as the worst public school system in the nation became hailed by then-President Bill Clinton as a national model This sentence is confusing

   Reworded. Hopefully I reduced the confusion!

   What is with the COI banner? Has this been resolved?

   I have a conflict of interest, since I served on Chico's campaign this year. I declared this on the GAN talk page. The first nomination was subsequently failed, in part because of the COI issue. Since then I have submitted the article for peer review, and submit it now for further GAN consideration.

   Hmmm, I suggest that you declare this COI on the article talk page. Whilst not absolutely forbidden, editing pages about subjects with which you have a close personal connection is strongly discouraged. I shall seek a further opinion on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   I switched to a template that more accurately conveys the message I would want to send. Is there a similar template to place on the talk page? Or were you suggesting that I post a normal message? Geread (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Parts of the article referenced to ref#3 [1] appear to be very close paraphrases.

   ref #37 [2] gives a search page, not supporting information is there.

   You have to click on "Mayor" in the drop-down box to get the election results

   Indeed. You need to add a note to this effect in the reference so that readers can easily find the information. Or better still, perhaps you could find a news report like this[3] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   Huffington Post[4] is generally not considered a reliable source

   I removed that statement entirely, since it seems that the major news organizations didn't report on this particular endorsement. Geread (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   Assume good faith for off-line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   What happened to him after the failed mayoral campaign?  Not done

   I've added information on his involvement in subsequent elections. Geread (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Overall, the tone of the article appears to be rather promotional.

   I tried removing some the material that showed some hints of bias. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geread (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

   Certainly better. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for the issues above to be addressed. When they have, I will take another look, I am watching this page, please respond here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

   As noted above, I shall ask for a second opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   Jezhotwells, this is more like a zeroeth opinion, since I'm the guy who quick-failed the first GAN of this article. But if I were in your place, I would not pass this article unless you did enough research on your own to convince yourself that it's a fair and thorough bio of the subject or unless you found a subject matter expert who said the same. The very fact that you had to make the comment above that "Overall, the tone of the article appears to be rather promotional" should sound alarm bells. Imagine the bad publicity for Wikipedia if it knowingly promotes to Good Article status a politician's biography that was written by a campaign aide, and that biography turns out to be skewed in favor of the subject. Ugh! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you so much for your feedback! I have already begun to address some of them. I should be able to handle the rest of your comments soon. Geread (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)