Talk:Edward M. Burke/GA1

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Initial comments should be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes. Hugh (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review (sorry it's a little late):
 * I don't mind. It's not late. Hugh (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --1ST7 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Well-written
 * Considering the size of the article, the lead could be expanded more.
 * Lead expanded, thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "While in law school, Burke received a draft deferment as a full-time student." Please specify if this is in relation to the Vietnam War.
 * Done Hugh (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That one sentence under "Political career" isn't really necessary.
 * Short paragraphs combined; combined one-sentence paragraph with next paragraph. This sentence is a topic sentence which may seem redundant in that it introduces the next two subtopics by offering a concise, one-sentence summary of the next two subtopics, how Burke came to be committeman and alderman. Hugh (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Chicago Alderman" section is disjointed in some areas. For example, the two-sentence-long third paragraph goes from saying that Burke threatened to punch Leon Despres (were there any consequences for that?) to saying that he was named "Best Dressed Alderman" without much transition.
 * Editted, thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This phrasing is a little awkward: "In the days following the death of Mayor Washington in office, Burke supported the Council's selection of Alderman Eugene Sawyer over Evans to serve as Mayor, but Burke was the alderman who least often voted in support of the legislative agenda of Sawyer, Chicago's second black Mayor."
 * Fixed. Hugh (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "The most significant scandal..." Can you specify who considers it to be most significant?
 * Paragraph lead reworked, thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Verifiable with no original research:
 * 2) Broad in its coverage:
 * The article feels a little unfocused in some areas, such as in the "Ghost payrolling on Burke's staff" section where it gives a lot of details about the investigations and convictions of other people.
 * Section editted for length, thanks. This section is focussed; it is focussed on the topic described by the 1st sentence of the section, the topic sentence: "The staffing practices of Burke's Finance Committee came under scrutiny in local and federal investigations of ghost-payrolling abuses in local government and resulted in several indictments and convictions." The rest of the section offers detail in support of this. The level of detail is necessary to summarize copious reliable sources while honoring neutrality. The coverage of this topic in this article is proportional to the coverage in reliable sources as required by neutrality guidelines. The "other people" are employees who report to the subject of this article. Nominally a legislator, the subject of this article manages headcount larger than several city departments. The number of indictments and convictions of persons reporting to the subject of this article is notable even by Chicago standards. That the subject of this article himself was investigated but never indicted is a major aspect of the notability of the subject of this article. Additional citations to reliable sources could be added to further demonstrate compliance with coverage guidelines. This article is well within guidelines on article length. Hugh (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Property tax attorney" section gets a little long-winded in detailing the events. Can you edit it down to make it more concise?
 * Section shortened, thanks. Moved some content out of this section. Added subheadings to improve readability. Added quote in section to highlight notability of content regarding inter-relatedness of successes in public and private sectors. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral:
 * The article seems a bit on the negative side.
 * This article is neutral; it is neutral by the objective, quantifiable definition of neutrality in our guideline, that is, "in proportion to the prominence ... in the published, reliable sources". This article is a fair, proportionate, and unbiased summary of all of reliable sources on the subject. The article includes over 150 citations to reliable sources, most of which include links and are available online. Where-ever possible, the point of view of the subject of this article is presented as a direct quote. Certainly I can understand that a reader might consider the article somewhat unflattering, yet neither is it entirely unflattering (but that is beside the point). Thanks, Hugh (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Stable:
 * 2) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

I'll put the article on hold for a week to give you time to address these issues. --1ST7 (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes look good, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)