Talk:Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg

Comment on lead
Hi I saw this article listed on WP:GAN. I don't have capacity to pick up the review at this time, but I just wanted to leave a quick note and state that the lead section should be revised and expanded. It is currently too short. Per MOS:LEAD, a lead should provide an overview of all of the article's main points. Additionally, I note that there are citations currently present in the lead. This is likely acceptable under MOS:LEADCITE, but I question whether his nickname of "Mayor Pete" deserves mention in the lead section.

I might be able to pick up the review in the future, if another editor doesn't step in before I do. Edge3 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes made since GA review
SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Improved structure of lead
 * Many single-sentences eliminated. Some still exist for information that is important to incude, but for which multiple sentences seem excessive, and for which no related information makes sense/exists that can be merged to form a larger paragraph
 * Phrasing revised
 * A number of grammar and spelling errors resolved
 * Retitled the section titles that previously shared a name
 * A number of suggested edits undertaken
 * Some City of South Bend citations removed/substituted. Others remaining are supplemented by non-primary source citations, or are items for which the official source makes sense, such as line items on a municipal budget, numbers reported by the city (contextualized that they were reported numbers within the text), and what the advertised/stated goal of municipal projects were

per your request to inform you if I resubmitted this article for Good Article consideration, I am informing you. SecretName101 (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'm currently pre-occupied with another article, and I also am busy in real life with personal errands. However, I will be happy to pick up this review at the earliest opportunity, if another reviewer doesn't beat me to it. Edge3 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding ongoing GA review
I have implemented a number of changes based off the feedback you have already suggested. A few concerns that I found with your feedback,


 * I disagree that the section on the "Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative" is puffery.
 * Describing it as a "signature program" is not puffery. It has been described as such by many media outlets, and indeed was a signature project of his first term. Much like one could say that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a signature legislation of Obama’s first term, without running into puffery concerns, one could call this a signature program of his first term without running into puffery.
 * Describing that it met its goals, and at a faster rate than promised, is not puffery.


 * "Established by his predecessor, Luecke, in 2009 to assess ways to reduce city's negative impact on the environment". You are wrong, I believe. No comma is needed after "2009". Without the part clarifying that his predecessor was Luecke, would the sentence not be written “established by his predecessor in 2009 to assess….” rather than "established by his predecessor, in 2009, to assess….”?

Also.. SecretName101 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "A significant example was the former Bendix Corporation headquarters and factory, which the city sold to Curtis Products in 2014". This indeed was a significant example of a city-owned property which was sold off. Does not seem to be puffery. Nevertheless, I removed the word "significant" and just described it as "an example"
 * Hi! I'm not the reviewer this time around. I think you meant to ping Bait30, which I've just done for you. I'm thrilled that another editor was able to step in! I've been super busy in real life, and this article is quite long and requires a lot of time to read, which is why I haven't picked up this review. Edge3 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinged you by accident. Meant to ping SecretName101 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * could you respond in the GA review itself a la Talk:2017 World Championships in Athletics – Women's marathon/GA1 instead of in a separate section? It makes it easier for me to keep track of your comments. I'll copy your stuff and respond to your comments in there.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 23:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)