Talk:Tom Galligan (mayor)

Cleanup

The article needs to be in prose rather than lists, and also not read so much like a campaign brochure. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I revised the article and removed the list format. Jahnx 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tom Galligan (mayor)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

*Assessed as mid-importance Active mayor of a mid-sized city Assessed as start class. Article was not in very good compliance with the manual of style, using informal wording heavily, and had several grammatical errors. I have fixed most of the ones I noticed. There just just a lot of stuff like "Galligan would win..." where "Galligan won..." is all that's necessary, and stuff like "He then went to go on and win" which is just highly awkward. Someone else should copy edit the article to verify I've fixed everything. An example of something I couldn't fix was "consists of members not running for an elected position to have an unbiased view". "to have an unbiased view" is a dangling participle, I think. Also the entire sentence of the "first term" section about the flood is written in the passive voice and needs a total rewrite. Also problems with context. Refers to "KIDPA" but doesn't explain what that is at all. There are probably lots of "Transportation Policy Commission"s - which one did he serve on? In general, "Career highlights" section reads (and is titled) like a glorified resume. The article doesn't seem to explain why he lost the primary in 2003? Surely some of the local newspapers gave some likely reasons. It just kind of leaves the reader hanging to say a 2-term mayor lost a primary and not explain why. The article could also shed some more light on why he stopped attending council meetings in 2002. Personally, I would prefer the article be written chronological, rather than split into elections 1995 to 2007 and then sections that actually explain what he did while in office in between those elections. I wouldn't dock the article on this alone though because I'm unaware of any official guideline saying to do it either way. The sentence "The city council worked on passing resolutions during 2001 to 2003 with the city council" makes no sense. "as the city prepared for a large annexation" - annexation of what? The tone of this article gets a bit biased (WP:NPOV) when towards the end of the third term section, especially as it describes Perkins's hiring it seems to be criticizing it. This should be rewritten to clearly source the criticism to whoever made it. Words like "Furthermore" and "Additionally" are used in a way that suggests they're trying to further some argument about Galligan - but articles should not do this on their own, the argument needs to be sourced to establish its notability. Due to the POV, context and grammatical problems, this is still a start class article. Once they are carefully fixed I believe this article can be a fine B-class biography that meets the needs of the average reader.

Last edited at 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)