Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is generally dry and choppy, with way too many one-sentence paragraphs. The lead needs to be expanded, and make sure you use en dashes or em dashes instead of hyphens.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Isn't there any more information for the 2007 Special election section?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

It's a decent article, but it needs some work. I've placed the article on hold for these issues to be addressed. Good luck, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a crack at expanding the section about the 2007 election. Can someone take a look at the lead and do a bit of copywriting?--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the paragraph under "Banner-Gate" to be based on conjecture and hear-say. If such documentation of blogs and speculation is admissible under the verifiable content guidelines I am sorely mistaken and disappointed in wikipedia. --Linkinlogs (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is so much emphasis on the controversies in Ravenstahl's tenure that it's hard to believe this article passes NPOV. I think the article needs balance and maybe some praise (i.e. other PGH politicians, local newspapers, etc). Also, be careful when using multiple footnotes: they are really only necessary for controversial information that may be challenged and needs additional verification. Would the idea that Ravenstahl wanted to fulfill O'Connor's remaining term be this controversial that it needs three footnotes? Anyway, that's my two cents. Great job to the editors on this article for giving it some effort. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think a casual reader might be confused by what appear to be duplicate headings: "Mayor of Pittsburgh" and "First term as Mayor". --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed the headings to "Interim Mayor of Pittsburgh" to describe the time period between O'Connor's death and the 2007 special election. The heading "Finishing O'Connor's Term as Mayor" describes the time after the special election (which was just to fill the remainder of O'Connor's term) until the next regularly scheduled election for mayor. I also beefed up the personal and the city council sections. I also removed the statements cited to the blog. I left the rest, which was reliably sourced. Hope this is enough for GA.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]