Talk:Rahm Emanuel/GA1

Hi, glad to see you've chosen to review the article I've nominated. I'm just wondering what you think should improved if possible for this to be a GA. Sorry if I'm being rude, it's just that most reviewers don't start unless they already have comments. Thanks, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being rude. Comments below. Hugh (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it now. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You asked me what I thought should be improved. What do you think about the other suggestions below? Hugh (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I think I've taken care of all issues pointed out and it's up to GA status. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your nomination and edits. The subject has been mayor for 16 months. The mayoralty section describes two events, the reassignment of some in the police detail and the teacher's strike. If we GA this as is it will be vulnerable to a request for reassessment on the basis of currency and completeness. Hugh (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more info on his mayoralty, and I feel the amount of information proportionately reflects a Mayor in office less than one term. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 11:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are asked that content be proportional to coverage in rs, rather than our expectation of a Mayor. The subject has extensive rs. Sry I don't agree that the amount of information in the mayor section is good coverage. Off the top of my head as I mentioned I came up with publishing a detailed transition plan, the infrastructure trust, and his managing to avoid any serious opposition from Chicago City Council, his claims of transparency and record of denial of FOIAs. Beyond these, we name the subject's brother but do not mention the brother's role in Lollapolooza; the subject's support for the demolition of the Prentice Women's Hospital Building; closing of health clinics, ending the Daley tradition of attending budget hearings in the neighborhoods, defense of the parking meter deal in court - any of this strike you as notable? A reader or fellow editor might understand the very most recent notable events to perhaps be given short shrift here, but as it stands I am leaning toward not passing and a little more time to beef up the mayor section. Hugh (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've added the major points of his mayoralty, do you think there's anything else I can add to get it to GA status? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 13:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. It's getting there, it's close I think. I will try and put in some time. The GA review notes mention 2 weeks which gives us til about 12/19. As far as what else it needs, here's some suggestions for us for this week:

writing & publishing a detailed transition plan
first budget proposal; Council vote; closing of mental health clinics
court battle with Trib over FOIA of schedule
the teacher's strike paragraph reads more about the strike and not enough about the subject's role
since this is this article's 1st peer review or GA review, and there are many previous editors before us, we should do a more thorough review of the sources for close paraphrasing, this will take time
compare & contrast candidates comments on parking meter deal with the administration's defense of the deal in court
intro more about all of the article
more out-of-town refs (NY times, Washington Post, LA times, etc.) to complement the Trib refs

Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as it stands now, Emanuel's mayoralty section is definitely up to GA status. He is an important man and he just took the job, so there is likely much to happen, but for now it provides a good scope into what he's been doing, with bills, controversy, his foresight for Chicago's future, and more. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 09:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your efforts. Do you have time to help me check the contributions against the sources for WP:CV, WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE? Most of the sources are online but there are about a hundred, so it will take time. Also, we should move the references from the intro into the body, as in a recent edit. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review has been on for nearly two weeks now, and I must reaffirm I believe it should pass. As far as I can tell the only recent edits made by you are just copyedits, nothing major. The only thing not passed in your review is 3b, focusing on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, which it sufficentallly passses. I've gone over this article pleanty of times and I can't see any violations, and I believe now is the time for it to be passed. Thanks for all your work. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the mayoralty section! "I've gone over this article pleanty of times and I can't see any violations" What do you think of the paragraph that begins "One of his proudest..." Isn't it too close? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HughD (talk · contribs) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.	A genuinely enjoyable read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead reads somewhat dry, offices and dates, no sense of the person, could be expanded. Consider bumping the "Political positions" section (I'm not a big fan of such sections, preferring to let the facts speak) into the preceding congressman section, when the subject had a voting record and the positions were verifiable. As mayor issues such as his approach toward unions, privatisation of public jobs, lack of transparency, and others are not universally associated with "generally liberal" positions. No lists; nice table of election results; the voter turnout was not 100%.
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.	Some redirects in urls in refs.
	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).	Good in-line citation style without being obtrusive, except for maybe the same ref 3x in a row in the Clinton campaign graph, probably once at the end is enough.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage of a diverse career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The Youth service section seems like it is mostly about Obama's program. Consider expanding the mayoralty section. Consider adding a link to the transition plan under "works" and mentioning it under "mayoralty," a pol issuing the criteria by which he is to be judged is notable. Under mayoralty consider adding the Trib's lawsuit over the schedule and other FOIA requests. Consider adding the infrastructure trust and the support of the Council. Consider moving the "popular culture" and "West Wing" sentences to the White House Chief of staff section, where they fit more chronologically.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Perhaps somewhat favorable.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring 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.	All images tagged with copyright status; no fair use images, mostly federal images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Consider adding to caption of last image, "Emanuel (left)..."
	7. Overall assessment.	pass