Talk:Richard M. Daley/GA2

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

/the GA symbol=No trouble at all = Questionable /the minus sign= Needs a lot of work.
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are a few errors in grammar. I went through and fixed as many as I could find, but there may be more lurking. A quick read over (preferably by more than one user) would probably do the trick. Beyond those, the article reads well reasonably well. There was one sentence in the intro that needs to be clarified or rewritten:
 * "expanded benefits to same-sex, domestic partners of City employees..."
 * fixed: "expanded employee benefits to same-sex partners of City workers" Hugh (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * edited for grammar Hugh (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article has good citations throughout. I checked about a third of them at random (along with the entire list of refs itself), and they all seemed to be what they were supposed to be. If anything, there were at times too many citations. Some sentences had 3 or 4 citations at the end, which led to 'senuary overload' in a way. (The previous GA review mentioned the same thing.)
 * combined some cites Hugh (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * trimmed fourth citation from sentences Hugh (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think a few areas were focused on too much. I don't think Daley's floor leader in City Council resigns in the 3rd term section needs to be so descriptive. The funding that Chicago received for PR and the parking meters (mentioned in similar sections here, here, and here) didn't need so much information, spread out so far. It can be cut down. Beyond that, this was fine.
 * shortened section on public relations speading Hugh (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * integrated content on public relations spending into financial section Hugh (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * consolidated some of the parking meters content Hugh (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * shortened section on Huels resignation Hugh (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think many people who know a little of RMD's story might know there was a early scandal involving his floor leader Alderman Huels resigning, but in order to be neutral on this episode more detail benefits a reader in understanding why an alderman resigning might reflect on a mayor (details such as the neighborhood, high school, and ward organization connections, and rise from tree trimmer to Alderman to committee chair and floor leader). The scandal was a turning point, something of an end of a honeymoon. RS has extensive coverage of this episode, and we are asked that our coverage be proportional to RS. The episode is important in support of one of the most notable aspects of the subject of this article, called out in the lead, "friends, family, & political allies benefiting from contracting," and so compliments the content on family contracting elsewhere in this article. With your consent, I will soon start a "to do" idea list to this talk page with "start an article on Huels", which will make it easier to trim this section further. For now, I beg your indulgence in roughly the current, shortened coverage and plead this is GA not FA. Hugh (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I thought the article well illustrated his successes and his failures, his approval and disapproval very fairly and without bias.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * My only problem is that a major contributor (and the nominator) is undergoing a contributor copyright investigation, but that should be ok, as I found no problems with the sources.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Another image of him in his earlier years (even as far back as when he was in the state senate), if it is possible to obtain, would really be beneficial. As it is, I think it is good enough.
 * Great idea! Free early images are scarce, but I found something that might work of a younger Mayor. Hugh (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this now passes. PrairieKid (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are just a few minor changes that need to be done before I can pass the article, but it is nearly there. I will put the article on hold for one week, and check back on or before the 15th of April. If the original nominator feels the article is ready and fixed before then, he can leave a note at my talk page and I will come back sooner. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page or here. PrairieKid (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)