Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1

Gery Chico

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Listed As a result of the GAR the article has been through an AfD and its had its content checked for neutrality and verifiability. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has gone through two GANs and a peer review. It failed both GANs, in part, due to the fact that I have a conflict of interest with the topic. I am a former volunteer on the campaign of Mr. Chico, and there are concerns that this COI has hampered my ability to present a sufficiently broad and neutral biography of this politician. However, I object to the notion that this article in its current state cannot even be considered in the regular GAN process. In fact, I also do not believe that my prior involvement in this person's political campaign automatically constitutes a conflict of interest that is harmful to Wikipedia. WP:COI suggests that "closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias."

Having said that, it is comforting that Jezhotwells took the time to check much of the article against the GA criteria. However, the COI, while influential in determining compliance with WP:NPOV, should not be a deciding factor in the outcome of a GAN. The GAN process is an assessment of the article, not the nominator. I therefore submit this article for community GAR. Geread (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Overturn and promote I did not find the article biased, which is the issue. It contained many of the failings and detracting elements of his life in full encyclopedic detail. I don't know any major controversies that were overlooked. I did not note any given examples of remaining artifacts of biased contributions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I am the director of WP:CHICAGO, and overlooked a request to comment on this issue when it was raised at Wikipedia_talk:CHICAGO. I believe the article was largely failed due to my oversight of this requested opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added several projects to the talk page so that others will be able to respond to such requests in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am glad that Geread has brought this here. My concern is with whether the article meets the broad coverage criterion. AS it was mostly written by an associate of Mr. Chico, I found it impossible to determine whether this had been met.  I received a few comments after asking for second opinion, but none that specifically addressed this.  I am happy to wait for the input of the community. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Lead does not adequately cover the article per WP:Lead, thus failing criteria 1(b). I wondered why the subject was notable from the lead, though there is stuff, such as Outstanding School Board President which are interesting which are not mentioned in the lead. There is a neutrality tag on the article that has been there since Nov 2010 - that would need to be addressed before the article could be passed as GA due to criteria 4. Is this topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I've just read through it again and I'm struck by how little this chap has done that would be of interest to people who don't know him. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. The sources used are purely local. Has there been any coverage of this person outside of the Chicago area?  SilkTork  *Tea time 12:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I have added info on the award to the lead. The very purpose of this GAR is to resolve the neutrality issue (see above statements and previous GANs), and the notability issue is currently being debated at AFD. Geread (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have had a read through this with an eye on neutrality. I found it mostly complimentary, but it also delves into his failings. I think it is similar to a sports biography written by a fan and as long as there are no WP:PEACOCK words and it reflects the sources it should pass criteria 4. It does use words like "some people" and "reports suggest" that should be spelled out better. As to the broad coverage aspect; I am not familiar with the man so it is hard to be certain, but I did not feel there was any substantial gaps while I was reading it. I have left some comments below. AIR corn (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * leading the firm's practice related to state and local government. Could this be clarified better.
 * Some blamed the bankruptcy on poor management, namely Chico, while others blamed an economic downturn. Who is "some" and who is "others".
 * since Chico had made many enemies as the mayoral chief of staff. How had he made enemies? Enemies seems a bit loaded. Would opponents be better?
 * Then-President Bill Clinton hailed the school system as a national model, within a decade after William Bennett, then U.S. Secretary of Education, criticized it as the worst public school system in the nation awkward sentence.
 * He resented this, I am assuming this is Chico not Vallas, but it could be made clearer.
 * Reports suggest that while donations to organizations What reports?
 * Reference: Neal, Steve (May 7, 1999). "Chico needs a lesson on sharing spotlight". Chicago Sun-Times: p. 7. This is used to justify most of the first two paragraphs in the Chicago Public Schools board section. Is there an online version of this or has someone got access to it so the statements can be checked. The title does not appear that complimentary, yet it is used to cite some positive achievements.


 * Do not list A month and no response. AIR corn (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are any of those issues really dealbreakers. The main editor has only made three edits since May 29 and none since June 9.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as the original concern about "Neutrality" only the last one. If someone can confirm the contents of the reference support whats in the article I would be willing to change my suggestion. I left a note at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. AIR corn (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the general reader to verify this it would require a subscription to see the article. As a Chicago Public Library patron, I can probably get it online. However, as WP:CHICAGO director, I would prefer if someone else assess whether this is a neutral synthesis of the original source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone was able to supply a pdf at Resource Exchange/Resource Request which I have now downloaded. I will check it against the article (not right now as I have to shoot off, but I should be able to do it within the next few hours). AIR corn (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article is supported by the reference. I made a few changes and added some more, slightly negative info, to balance it out. Also have done some copy-editing, mostly relating to my above comments. The neutrality tag needs to be removed. I personally think it is fine, but in this case it would be good to get another opinion from an uninvolved editor. Is there a noticeboard or place a request can be made? Neutral point of view/Noticeboard maybe? Also the Mural picture is udergoing a deletion request so that should probably be sorted first. AIR corn (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)