Talk:2015 South Bend mayoral election/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: John M Wolfson (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, there. I'll be starting this review shortly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well-written:
 * Prose: I see no issues here other than the layout given below. ✅
 * MOS:
 * Lead: Perhaps it would be better to include long-term implications, if any, in the lead to make it more comprehensive (Buttigieg is running for President, after all); I'd also ditch the LEADCITEs. (EDIT: On second thought, this isn't fatal for a GAN, so I'll pass this on that count. ✅ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Layout: Many of the paragraphs need to be rearranged and/or combined; I've already done some, but I think more should be done in that regard. (EDIT: I have done the requisite copyediting. ✅ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC))
 * The other stuff: Are either inapplicable here or satisfied. ✅
 * Verifiable/NOR:
 * Reference list: I think there's actually a ref overkill, so refs should actually be trimmed down (EDIT: Same as above, this isn't fatal for GAN. ✅ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Sourcing: I see nothing too problematic here. ✅
 * Copyvios: There don't appear to be any copyvios per Earwig's tool. ✅
 * No original research: I don't see any ✅
 * Broad in coverage: ✅
 * Main aspects: Good to go. ✅
 * Focused: Also good to go. ✅
 * Netural: I'm slightly concerned by the fact that there are no endorsements for Jones; perhaps this can be explained by WP:DUE, but I'd like some (reliably-sourced) note to that effect. (EDIT: This has been done. ✅ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Stable: I see no edit-warring in the past 50 edits. ✅
 * Illustrated: A results map would be nice, but is not essential. The Buttigieg photo appears appropriately-licensed. ✅ (EDIT: The map has been added, good work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC))

Overall, this article is imperfect, but there's nothing that can't be fixed in the course of a normal GAN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the lack of coverage of endorsements received by Jones, I have attempted to find endorsements of her, but have never been able to find any. I have also failed to find any article that explicitly states that she had "no" endorsements. The only thing I have come across is that she lacked formal support from the Republican party itself, and received little other outside support (as mentioned in this article). SecretName101 (talk) 05:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that source works and that material should be included in that article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the one area in which I could see this election having a strong effect on subsequent activities of Buttigieg (besides providing a continuation of his tenure as mayor) is that (most prominently in this Politico article which I used as a citation), the decline of his support in African American precincts has received new scrutiny during his presidential campaign, in light of his underperformance among African-American voters in presidential polls. Also, receiving similar attention, are some criticisms about his mayoralty's impact on African American residents that echo some of what Davis had said. It is, perhaps, possible to mention this in the body of the article. SecretName101 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, it could be mentioned that during his presidential campaign he has many times, including in at least one presidential debate (the September one), discussed the personal difficulty and uncertainty of coming-out in the midst of a reelection campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps; regardless, the current lead does not appear to be sufficiently comprehensive, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added info about the primaries to the lead in an effort to partially remedy this. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'd also add a sentence on the aftermath for comprenhensiveness. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * How are we going with this? AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My greatest apologies, I forgot about this review. I see that the article has received many edits since this review was last touched upon and shall look at it in the next couple of days. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem. You are far from the only one who forgets reviews, myself included. AIRcorn (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)