Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1927 Chicago mayoral election/archive2

1927 Chicago mayoral election

 * Nominator(s): John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the last time a Republican candidate won a Chicago mayoral election. William Hale Thompson defeated unpopular prohibition-enforcing mayor Dever with a campaign supported by Al Capone and going off on such tangents as King George across the pond. His victory resulted in Chicago's disgrace across the country, and he would lose 4 years later to Anton Cermak due to the Depression. (This is my second FAC overall after an unsuccessful FAC of this article two weeks ago. I'd like to thank User:Coemgenus for reviewing this article in the interim and User:Factotem for introducing me to the Bibliography conventions of FA's. I'd also like to thank User:SecretName101 for his/her contributions to this article, including most of the images.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to meet the FA standards. There has been significant improvement since the last FAC, and this article is worthy of promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Done


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Will do when I get to a computer later tonight. Done. Feel free to correct it if needed.


 * File:William_Emmett_Dever_1923_headshot_(1).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Dr._John_Dill_Robertson_May_4,_1915_(1).jpg, File:William_hale_thompson.jpg
 * Those are crops from images in the Commons that I'll look at when I get to my computer later tonight. EDIT: I'm confused with what exactly you want, User:Nikkimaria. Unless I am mistaken I think the parameters you're looking for are already on the Commons pages. For the Dever and Robertson headshots I put the relevant parameters in the "Source" area of the description in Commons, but the Thompson photo already had that in the source department. This is my first experience with such things, so please do enlighten me in that regard.


 * These images all have a licensing tag indicating pre-1924 publication. However, while I agree all were taken before 1924, all are cited to archives rather than to contemporary publications. This is a problem because it's quite possible for archival images not to have been published contemporaneously, which would make those licensing tags incorrect. We need either to demonstrate that they were actually published before 1924, or to find some other applicable tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, will search. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Robertson and Dever images with newspaper clippings from 1915 and 1923, respectively. I have removed the unsure-license Thompson photo for now. Unfortunately the photos that were replaced are in the Chicago Daily News archives, whose paper archives I can't seem to access via newspapers.com like the Tribune. Perhaps someone else can help search through non-newspaper archives like books, but I hope this works for now. (EDIT: Perhaps User:Adam Cuerden can help with the Dever image. In any event I'm really tired and about to go to bed, see you tomorrow. EDIT EDIT: Looking through the websites it's quite plausible based on their rights statements that the images are NOT free. Given the replacement of the images I believe that all of Nikkimaria's concerns have been actioned on with regards to this article, but feel free to correct me and/or add more if you feel otherwise.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Chicago_1927_mayor_by_ward.png needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Chicago_1927_mayor_democrat_by_ward.png, File:Chicago_1927_mayor_republican_by_ward.png.
 * Those were from the aperture cards and news sources cited in their respective captions (except for the general results, which are cited at the ward table per INFOBOXCITE). I can add those citations to the appropriate Commons pages later tonight. Done on Commons pages. Let me know if anything else is needed in that regard.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian
Recusing from coord duties, I heard of Thompson when reading about Al Capone as a kid; if I remember rightly he summed up his contempt of Prohibition with the claim "I'm wetter than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read through and copyedited the first half of the article, I think the prose needs work but perhaps not so much that it couldn't be improved within a reasonable timeframe at FAC.
 * I'll therefore oppose for now but with a further copyedit (by me when I have time, or someone else) I could see myself withdrawing that.
 * Thank you for your comments. I'll see what I can do with copyediting but perhaps someone else might be better for the purpose. (EDIT: As in being a fresh pair of eyes, not an attempt to shirk nominator duties. In any event I have done some c/e of the remaining part of the article.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose, I have copyedited the article. In particular I focused on consolidating paragraphs and sentences (and for the primary elections entire sections) and rearranging content a bit, especially in regards to the general election and aftermath. I'm not sure whether the results will be to your entire satisfaction, but I hope that it's at least a start. -John M Wolfson (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tks, I'll try to look at the rest of the article in the next few days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Returning...
 * Not sure why my tweak to the lead made further comments on international affairs, directed against the United Kingdom in particular was essentially reversed as I still think it reads better to what's there now (a one-letter typo on my part notwithstanding)...
 * I thought the new text flowed better, feel free to revert it if you disagree.
 * Okay, tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dever was endorsed by such prominent reformers as Charles Edward Merriam, Harriet Vittum, Harold L. Ickes, and Jane Addams, who campaigned for "decency" on his behalf -- was it Addams who campaigned for decency or all of them?
 * All of them, I have clarified to that effect I believe.
 * That's about it re. prose I think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments, this has been a really fulfilling experience. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope it has, and sorry it's been drawn out -- given the above, and what I gather are completed image and source reviews, I'm ready to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification purposes. There are a few minor issues:
 * Ref Books 8, p. 30: ARTICLE: "Known as "Big Bill", he was a charismatic character in Chicago politics." SOURCE: The word "charismatic" does not appear, nor does the description of Thompson support this characterization.
 * Having not found a better statement elsewhere in Schottenhamel, I have removed the sentence.
 * Ref Books 12, p. 33: ARTICLE: "He also had many enemies from his previous tenure in office including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News," SOURCE: I'm not so sure that "many enemies" is justified, since the source only mentions the two newspapers, in connection with the 1915 election.
 * I have weakened the sentence.
 * Ref Books 29, pp. 43–44: ARTICLE: "Some Democrats criticized Thompson's positive relation with the city's African-American community". SOURCE: OK, but rather misses the main point, which was the crude attempt by some Democrats to divide the electorate on racial lines. I recommend you strengthen this somewhat.
 * I have strengthened the sentence.


 * Links: all links to online sources are working
 * Formats
 * Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens
 * Done
 * The newspaper references are all via a subscription service, so the template should be used
 * Done via template parameters
 * In the Bibliography, the Bright book lacks publisher information
 * As said before, I couldn't find it when I looked at the book at the library, but I can check again when I get back.


 * Quality and reliability. The sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability

One further general point. Although the subdivision of sources between Books, Newspapers, Web etc is helpful in some respects, I found the notation in the text very distracting, especially when double or triple references are used. It is possible that your general reviewers may wish to comment on this readability aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for further consensus before doing anything about this, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.
 * Thank you for your comments, I'll address them when I get home. I couldn't find publisher info on the Bright book looking at it, but I can look again now that I'll be back from vacation. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * WorldCat gives the publisher as Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, New York, 1930. It also provides a OCLC number: 557783528. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The site of the Chicago Public Library, where I got the book, says New York, J. Cape and H. Smith, but not the full names or OCLC number. If it's okay with you I'll just put that lower amount of information. (If it matters, I can use the info you've posted.) John M Wolfson (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The WorldCat info is reliable, o i suggest you use all of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case done, which I believe addresses all of your concerns unless you have any others. Again, thank you for your help! -John M Wolfson (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Misc. comments by nominator

I'll be leaving for vacation tomorrow and for a week afterwards I won't have access to offline sources, so I won't be able to effectively respond to comments on them. I will still have internet access, however, so online sources and comments dealing with solely online matters will not be affected. -John M Wolfson (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd greatly like for this to be promoted by the 28th for WikiCup purposes if not an imposition. Even if that's not reasonable, however, I'd still be okay with pursuing this FAC to its conclusion, whatever it may be. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely at this point given it's the 22nd and we have minimal support for promotion and open issues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although the issues raised above (other than that of Ian Rose) have been dealt with if I am not mistaken. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

, I've shortened the ref group names to single letters, I was just wondering if you think that would be a good compromise or that more conversation should happen with it. , I was just wondering if you had gotten the chance to review the article after my copyediting. Thank you both for your help! John M Wolfson (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

After looking through the recent TFA's for guidance I have decided to remove the ref groups and consolidate the reflists into one. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with that decision. Thanks! John M Wolfson (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I have posted notices of this FAC to the talk pages of WikiProject Chicago and WikiProject Elections and referendums in an effort to get more feedback, I hope that isn't an issue. (I have read WP:CANVAS and I do not believe such notices constitute canvassing.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Any luck? This has been open for quite a long time (and is at the bottom of the queue) and will need to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more feedback. We have a good amount now, but FAC really requires a substantial amount of review and support for promotion before an article can become featured. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet, unfortunately, although the two users below give some hope. If the worst does happen will I be able to waive the two-week waiting period and renominate this article sooner? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to review the article. It may take me another day or two. --Carabinieri (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've solicited another experienced editor to review this, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

 * The prose is a bit rough in the lede but pretty good elsewhere and I'm not making an issue of it.
 * I don't see the point of mentioning the other elections in the first sentence. That seems relatively insignificant to put in your first sentence.
 * Done
 * " his approval rating." did they have such things?
 * Probably not as a number, but his approval did fall qualitatively. Fixed as such
 * "Former mayor Thompson took advantage of this and entered the race, as did Robertson." is the reader whose off if this is omitted?
 * Reworded
 * "directly particularly" That phrase is new to me.
 * Reworded
 * "Thompson was supported and funded by notorious mobster Al Capone, and the campaign involved much demagoguery on his part." I imagine "his" refers to Thompson but it could arguably be Capone. You might want to mention if this was public support, it might help to set up your damaging the reputation bit at the end of the lede.
 * Reworded
 * Somewhere early in the first paragraph of "Background" you might mention he's a Democrat.
 * Done
 * Nowhere in "Background" do you mention that the election at which all these people are to run is in 1927. You could possibly figure it out but you shouldn't have to.
 * Done
 * I would cut "in the interim" and earlier in the sentence put a "had" before "managed".
 * Done
 * "Lundin later had Robertson withdraw from the Republican primary in order to support Edward R. Litsinger, " I might replace "to support" with "not to split the vote with" or similar. It's unclear who Litsinger is at this point. You introduce him on second mention, which is a bit odd.
 * He would campaign for Litsinger, which I've modified to show
 * After Brundage's name, the references are in reverse order; unsure if this is an accident.
 * Fixed
 * "to investigate causes and potential remedies of recent tax increases" Not sure what this means.
 * Reworded to clarify
 * "admitted on the ballot" I might say "allowed on the ballot"
 * Done
 * I don't see the point of the redlinks Galpins, Ellers.
 * Potential future articles, but not particularly likely at the moment.
 * "Robertson retaliated, asking his audience "Who killed Billy McSwiggin, and why?"[36] and accusing Thompson of corruption by "flocking with the Crowes, Galpins, Ellers, and birds of like feather[.]"[36] Litsinger reiterated such accusations ..." What this is saying is that Litsinger repeated allegations against himself. Suggest "Litsinger replied in kind ..."
 * The accusations were against Thompson, which I've made clearer.
 * In the third sentence of "Campaign", you use the word "conspiracy" twice. I would avoid the second usage.
 * Done
 * "Thompson based these claims on McAndrew allowing his allies to promote historic texts which Thompson believed were unpatriotic" what does this mean?
 * It means that McAndrew allowed textbooks that Thompson considered unpatriotic to be used in the school system. I have reworded it as such.
 * "He attempted, particularly early in the race, to tout parts of his record such as his construction of Wacker Drive and 51 new schools and a pure milk ordinance he had passed.[26]" I think this needs a comma after schools.
 * Reworded
 * "Attorney Orville James Taylor.[50]" why is attorney capped?
 * Fixed
 * I'm not sure that "socialite" is the first description of Potter Paper that comes to mind, though he certainly was. Builder?
 * Done
 * "Thompson won the election with the absolute majority of votes cast," I would just give the percentage unless there is some reason not to.
 * Done
 * "ultimately failing to properly promote Dever's own message.[48]" I might say "fully" rather than "properly". I'm sure they did their best.
 * Done
 * Suggest consistency among the hyphenations between the nationalities and "American" in second paragraph of "Result"
 * Done
 * Refs out of order on the Will Rogers quote.
 * Fixed
 * It strikes me that the final two sentences of the article could be combined.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Prose looks good, and certainly seems comprehensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Factotem
Lead
 * "It remains as of 2019 the last Chicago mayoral election won by a Republican as well as and the last such election not won by a Democrat.";
 * Done
 * "Thompson engaged in much demagoguery during his campaign...";
 * Done
 * "Thompson won the election, which damaged Chicago's reputation nationally." -> "Thompson's victory damaged Chicago's reputation nationally."
 * Done

Background
 * "...he and businessman Julius Rosenwald ultimately convinced Dever to run for reelection."
 * Done
 * "...Thompson, who was mayor for two terms from 1915 to 1923, took advantage of the situation and ran for a third term..." Tripped on "third term" as it is not obvious that being mayor from 1915 to 1923 involved two terms (which I assume to be the case);
 * Done
 * "He also had such enemies from his previous tenure, such as the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News,[14] and had started to wear out his welcome with such former allies, such as party boss Frederick Lundin."
 * Done

Democratic primary
 * Dever faced no genuine opposition from within his party,[28] winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1 . There's a confusing leap in the narrative here. Suggest moving the statement about winning to:
 * "Although he overwhelmingly defeated his token opponent, winning all the wards and securing the citywide vote by more than 10 to 1, Dever's vote total in the Democratic primary was less than the margin of victory Thompson had secured in the Republican primary."
 * Done
 * "The 27th ward attorney Martin Walsh filed on February 2..." to avoid beginning a sentence with a number;
 * That sounded odd, so I went with "Attorney Martin Walsh of the 27th ward..." instead.

Republican primary
 * "After Thompson's victory partisans of Robertson claimed that Democratic voters for Thompson were what had propelled him to the Republican nomination;" And suggest a comma after "victory";
 * Done, but no comma.
 * "...nomination;[28] similarly, Democratic leaders insisted that many of Thompson's voters..." Think a full stop rather than semi-colon is called for after "nomination".
 * Done

Campaign
 * "...set the groundwork for the United Kingdom to retake possession of repossess the United States;"
 * Done
 * "...the use in schools of textbooks which Thompson believed were unpatriotic and being critical of such artworks as Archibald Willard's The Spirit of '76."
 * Not done, as McAndrew was the one critiquing the artwork, rather than the textbooks. I have substituted ", as well as" for "and" in that case to make it clearer
 * I swapped the order round to make it read better, if that's OK with you. Factotem (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems that would work better. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "...the former of which was also used by The Independent Republicans for Dever Committee."
 * Done
 * "Supporters of both Thompson and Dever appealed resorted to bigotry."
 * Done

Endorsements
 * "After Thompson's primary victory, Charles Deneen relented and backed Thompson." -> "After his defeat in the primary, Deneen backed Thompson."
 * Done

Result
 * "He found that Eastern European Jewish precincts were carried by Thompson 55 to 41%, while the German Jewish precincts were carried by Dever 62 to 35%" I think you need to specify that 55 and 62 are also percentages. Per MOS:PERCENT, percentages in the main narrative (not infoboxes, tables, etc.) are "commonly" written in USEng as "percent", not "%".
 * Done

Aftermath
 * "The election was accompanied by only one ballot box theft and a negligible amount of violence, an uncommon occurrence in Chicago elections at the time." Were ballot-box theft and violence uncommon, or was it uncommon that so few/little thefts/violence occurred?
 * Both occurrences were uncommon. I have attempted to reword the sentence to that effect.
 * The sentence is still ambiguous. I don't have access to the sources to check, but the title of one, Quiet election surprises Cops guarding polls, suggests that it was uncommon for there to be so few ballot boxes stolen and so little violence. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, how about, "The election was marked by an unusually low level of crime; only one ballot-box theft and a negligible amount of violence." Factotem (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect, done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Carabinieri
Hi, I haven't gone through the whole article, but here are my initial comments:
 * I'm not a big fan of all the false titles.
 * I'm sorry, I don't believe I know what you mean. I looked up what a false title was. They don't seem all that bad to me and are often better than the alternatives in many cases, but I did remove some instances in the article.
 * I'm afraid you haven't quite understood what false titles are. A false title is something like saying "Democratic incumbent William Emmett Dever" rather than "the Democratic incumbent William Emmett Dever" or "notorious mobster Al Capone" instead of "the notorious mobster Al Capone". Newspapers use them to save space, but this use has spread somewhat beyond newspapers and isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. I think it makes sentences sound choppy. Since this use is fairly widespread on Wikipedia, it would be unreasonable for me to insist on removing the false titles, but I think it is worth thinking about, particularly given the extreme frequency with which they are used in this article.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll think about that.


 * I'm not sure about the source in footnote 3. It appears to be a summary of Schmidt 1989. Why not use that book directly?
 * I have removed all but two of its uses, where it remains the only ref. I can't access the book right now because the local library's closed, but tomorrow I can remove the others. All instances replaced or removed.
 * "It remains as of 2019 the last Chicago mayoral election won by a Republican and the last not won by a Democrat." That seems like an unnecessarily complicated way of saying that Democrats have won every election since then.
 * Attempted reword
 * I think that's better. It still unnecessarily makes this election the grammatical of a sentence that's really about something else. One could simply say "As of 2019, Democrats have won every Chicago mayoral election since 1927". At least, I'd change "won by a Republican and a non-Democrat" to "won by a Republican or any non-Democrat" to remove some ambiguity.
 * Done second one


 * "and made comments on international affairs particularly directed against the United Kingdom" This is rather vague. I would suggest either being more specific or leaving it out.
 * Made more specific
 * "Thompson engaged in demagoguery during his campaign" Is demagoguery really a neutral term? Also, I can't find this information in the body of the article.
 * Reworded it for neutrality and specificity
 * "His crackdown on Prohibition made Chicago the most alcohol-free major city in the United States by 1925" According to the source (Schmidt 1995), this was by 1923, not 1925. Schmidt only says that it was "proclaimed" the driest city in the US. Also, in the edition of the book I'm looking at, this is on page 89, not 90, but that may just be due to a difference in pagination between editions of the book.
 * I decided simply to reword it as "was initially effective", or it could be excised altogether
 * "Republican William Hale "Big Bill"[8]" The source actually gives his nickname as "Big Bill the Builder"
 * Changed to source that gives shorter form
 * "having served as alderman of the predominantly black[12] 2nd ward" The source only says that the 2nd ward had Chicago's largest African-American population. This does not imply that it was predominantly black.
 * Changed to "largely black"
 * The source doesn't really support that either. The source says that this ward had the largest number of African-Americans of any ward in the city. This doesn't imply anything about the proportion of African-Americans in the ward, only that it was higher than in other wards.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that blacks were historically segregated it is not unreasonable to assume that a largely-black neighborhood, especially in the early 20th century, would not have many members of other races. Having said that, in an effort to remove any possible OR I tried to reword it to be more direct.


 * "Doctor John Dill Robertson, also known as "J.D.", "Doctor Dill", and "Dill Pickle",[16] who had previously been the city's health commissioner from 1915[17][18] to 1922[19] and an ally of Thompson,[12] ran against Thompson in the Republican primary supported by Lundin.[16]" Seven footnotes in one sentence, isn't that overdoing it? Makes it rather cumbersome to read.
 * Perhaps, removed some sources
 * "participating in such antics as constructing a yawl named the Big Bill with his head as the figurehead and spending $25,000[a] to take it" Antics is a non-neutral term. According to the source, he only paid a third of the $25,000.
 * Changed word, but the third is mentioned in the footnote.
 * Oops, I must have overlooked that.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't link boil and appendix.
 * Done
 * " the same day as the primary elections" and "the same day as the general elections" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that those elections were concurrently, not just on the same day?
 * Yes, done
 * "Robertson retaliated, asking his audience "Who killed Billy McSwiggin, and why?"[36] and accusing Thompson of corruption by "flocking with the Crowes, Galpins, Ellers, and birds of like feather[.]" I think we need more context. Who are Billy McSwiggin, Crow, Galpin and Eller? Also you shouldn't place a period in square brackets.
 * Such context would be unnecessary detail, IMO, so I decided to just say he accused Thompson of corruption.
 * "After Thompson's victory partisans of Robertson claimed that Democratic voters for Thompson had propelled him to the Republican nomination.[28] Similarly, Democratic leaders insisted that many of Thompson's voters in the primary were Democrats who wanted him to be Dever's opponent and who would vote Dever in the general election" I'd suggest merging those two sentences.
 * Done
 * I'd actually go further. Why not: "Both partisans of Robertson and Democratic leaders claimed that..."?--Carabinieri (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done

--Carabinieri (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Billy McSwiggin was a mobster. I suppose the others likely are too. But, yes, arguably unnecessary to include.SecretName101 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more comments:
 * "as well as a pure milk ordinance he had passed" I don't know how Chicago municipal politics work, but wouldn't the ordinance have been passed by the city council and then possibly signed by the mayor?
 * Yes, ordinances are passed by the City Council and then signed by the mayor. The source (to the extent that I can remember, I don't have it on me) states that he "passed" it, which I presume is shorthand for him having helped its passage. I've changed it to "helped pass"
 * "Capone donated between $100,000 and $250,000[f] to Thompson's campaign,[43] by some accounts as much as $500,000" Wouldn't that mean that he donated "between $100,000 and $500,000"? Or is the latter figure somehow less believable?
 * Merged figures.
 * The paragraph on Thompson's supporters starts with organized crime and then goes to traditional political actors. Was the support of organized crime that important? Otherwise, I'd suggest reversing the order.
 * Done
 * "as loyal as a Catholic as he is citizen" is that quote right? There seems to be a word missing.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked again and yes, it is correct as is, but I added an [a] in the quote to make it flow better. Thanks for your comments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  11:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)