Talk:Joseph Mitchell (city manager)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Overall
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * All citations check out
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I've checked all the online sources, and whatever google books allows me to see of the offline ones, and there seem to be no instances of close paraphrasing.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit warring, or content disputes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are free use
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit warring, or content disputes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are free use
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Specific comments

 * Lead
 * The term "conservative" is used to describe Mitchell in the lead, but it is not actually used as a descriptor of him anywhere else, only of his supporters. The body needs to contain at least a sentence describing him as conservative.
 * Similarly, the lead says that a small part of his plan was implemented, while the body only says that most of it was struck down. If you wish to say this in the lead, I would like to see a sentence or two in the body discussing what was actually implemented. Otherwise, please rephrase this lead sentence.
 * I think his work with Wallace and other opposition to the civil rights movement is worth a mention in the lead
 * I think a hatnote to the disambiguation page for other people with the same name might be helpful.
 * Education and early career
 * The very first sentence is run-on, and also strangely juxtaposes his birth and his college.
 * The whole section is very brief. Ideally, I would like to see further information on:
 * His family,
 * Anything between age 0 and 18,
 * Anything on what led him to be a city manager,
 * Why his legacy was controversial. Now, I understand that not all, or even any, of this may be available; but please do make an effort.


 * Images
 * The caption for the George Wallace picture does not make it clear whose resignation is being discussed


 * Battle of Newburgh
 * "Mitchell had been tapped by conservative city councillor George McKneally"; "tapped" is a colloquialism that not everybody will understand. Would be better in plainer English.
 * " influx of African-American internal immigrants to the city" is a trifle confusing for people who may not have heard the term "internal immigration". How about rephrasing it as "concerned by the number of African-Americans immigrating to the city;" the "American" surely implies they are from within the country.
 * It would be helpful to have a link, or failing that a one-sentence description, so that people know what it is a city manager does; it is hardly a position that exists worldwide.
 * Reform measures
 * First paragraph; did he withdraw a specific payment, or did he change the status of those families? It isn't clear
 * An obvious question about the announcement of not receiving state funding would be "where did the money come from?" if this information is available, it would be interesting.
 * If the city council gave Mitchell authority over the welfare program, why did his program still have to be passed by the council?
 * "however, only one man presented himself"; does the source say whether there were any consequences to this?
 * "Though Mitchell's reforms were ostensibly struggling, his support continued to grow" The sentence has a hint of POV to it. Does the source say among whom it grew, or what form it took? His position was not an elected position, was it?
 * I also don't like the use of "ostensibly;" see WP:CLAIM. I'd much prefer something like "Although the national media portrayed Mitchell's reforms as struggling, his support among city residents continued to grow" or something like that; except I made those facts up. Please check what the source says here, so we can rewrite this in a more neutral way.


 * Controversy
 * "Mitchell was at loggerheads from the beginning with the mayor of Newburgh" Once again, this makes me wonder about the precise role of the manager, and the powers he has. I think a brief description above would really help.
 * You have generally managed to bring balance to the "controversy" section, which is not easy to do. In a few cases, though, your coverage of the criticisms of the program just say that the criticisms occurred; you could make it a little clearer as to exactly why they were complaining. I am referring specifically to:
 * The mayor's positions
 * Rockefeller's condemnation
 * The NYT's editorial
 * Relatively minor point: was all of the controversy a result of the 13 points, or were there further (or previous) reforms at issue as well?
 * It would be interesting, although not absolutely necessary, to know how the major parties, or alternatively major political figures besides Rockefeller and Goldwater (who were both atypical republicans, were they not?) stood on the reforms, just for completeness. If this information is not available, leave it be.


 * Court injunction and resignation
 * The first sentence refers to a "crisis," which I would take to mean that the city of Newburgh had its functionality impeded in some serious way. The previous section, though, only suggests criticism, which is far from the same thing. Could you clarify this?
 * It would be interesting to know on what grounds the 12 points were struck down; right now, that paragraph is rather opaque, and almost seems incomplete.
 * Do the sources say why his support declined? Above, it seemed like he received criticism from some folks, and support from others; why did the supporters switch?


 * Activism and later life
 * Does the source say why he was expelled, or even the stated reason?
 * again, why was he readmitted?
 * Any information on his family? Spouse, children?


 * Legacy
 * I'm a little concerned about giving undue weight to the local news source. It might be reliable, but I'd like a weightier source to suggest that Carter's policy was similar to Mitchell's, and particularly if you wish to use a large quote like the current one.
 * I don't think the Lewiston source adds anything here, it's a little lightweight. Replace it with another scholarly source, if you're able; if not, just take that source out, it's not critical.

On hold
I'm placing this article on hold, for now. It has some issues, but nothing (I believe) that cannot be sorted out without some focused work. The standard period is seven days, I believe: if you need longer, let me know, and I'm willing to be flexible. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments
I'm afraid I have to fail this now. This is unfortunate, because the article is close, but it has enough issues that I cannot pass it as is, and I do not have access to the sources required to fix those issues. It is not very fair for me to leave this open indefinitely. I think I have left enough comments here to improve this substantially. If the nominator (or any one else) places renominates it after acting on those comments, they should feel free to ping me, and I will do my best to see it through. Vanamonde (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)