Talk:United States Conference of Mayors/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * My main problem with this article, and something which had me seriously considering failing it without a hold, is the emphasis on activities that occured since 2000, especially in the 2007-2009 period. The fact that the History section is made up of three extremely short paragraphs while the Current issues section is made up of four good-sized paragraphs dealing mainly with 2 years of activities is rather POV and slanted toward recent events. What would happen if every two year period since this organization was started got the same amount of attention as 2007 and 2008? The article would be huge!! The focus on current events in this article needs to be trimmed significantly, while information on the past history needs to be expanded.
 * I found a few things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Reference #31 (Communication Initiative Network) deadlinks.
 * New refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference #42 (US Conference of Mayors on Frank Murphy) deadlinks.
 * Rewrote with new refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Please see my comment above in the prose section to understand my serious reservations about this article's comprehensiveness and ability to fulfill the NPOV policy. I am placing this article on hold for now; however, if the lead editors wish to withdraw the article from consideration in order to have more time to work on it, I would be more than willing to re-review it when they consider it to be more finished. Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have done quite a bit of work on the article. However, I still have major concerns about the coverage. The article discusses nothing that the Conference did between its founding in 1932 and 1972. There were major wars, cultural revolutions and many other happenings during this time - was the Conference simply sitting around eating bon-bons? Also, the Current issues section is still just as long as the History section. It is a little ridiculous to have this much information (not to mention the first two paragraphs of the Activities section) devoted to such as small span of time (2007-2009) when writing about an organization that has been around for over 75 years. My suggestion would be for the nominator to agree to withdraw this article, and then spend a few weeks working on it (perhaps drawing on resources from their local libraries, if possible) before renominating it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all the bullets I've got for this one in the short term. I accept whatever evaluation you wish to submit.  I understand your reservations and I hope you have advice for me to improve the article regardless of your final decision.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding, and I have decided that I will fail the article for now. My main comments to improve the article stand above - the history section needs to be expanded with notable events/programs from the 40s, 50s and 60s, while the emphasis on current events needs to be trimmed. Another comment would be that the Controversies section could probably be integrated into the History section. As it stands now, it's little more than two pieces of unconnected trivia. Also, did nothing controversial happen in the organization prior to 1995? Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article, Tony, and I look forward to seeing this article at GAN again once more work has been completed on it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above in the prose section to understand my serious reservations about this article's comprehensiveness and ability to fulfill the NPOV policy. I am placing this article on hold for now; however, if the lead editors wish to withdraw the article from consideration in order to have more time to work on it, I would be more than willing to re-review it when they consider it to be more finished. Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have done quite a bit of work on the article. However, I still have major concerns about the coverage. The article discusses nothing that the Conference did between its founding in 1932 and 1972. There were major wars, cultural revolutions and many other happenings during this time - was the Conference simply sitting around eating bon-bons? Also, the Current issues section is still just as long as the History section. It is a little ridiculous to have this much information (not to mention the first two paragraphs of the Activities section) devoted to such as small span of time (2007-2009) when writing about an organization that has been around for over 75 years. My suggestion would be for the nominator to agree to withdraw this article, and then spend a few weeks working on it (perhaps drawing on resources from their local libraries, if possible) before renominating it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all the bullets I've got for this one in the short term. I accept whatever evaluation you wish to submit.  I understand your reservations and I hope you have advice for me to improve the article regardless of your final decision.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding, and I have decided that I will fail the article for now. My main comments to improve the article stand above - the history section needs to be expanded with notable events/programs from the 40s, 50s and 60s, while the emphasis on current events needs to be trimmed. Another comment would be that the Controversies section could probably be integrated into the History section. As it stands now, it's little more than two pieces of unconnected trivia. Also, did nothing controversial happen in the organization prior to 1995? Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article, Tony, and I look forward to seeing this article at GAN again once more work has been completed on it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)