Wikipedia:Peer review/Bernard Stone/archive1

Bernard Stone
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I intend eventual good article.

Thanks, Hugh (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A fair amount of work still to do
 * General
 * The article's structure needs rethinking. At present much of it is broken up into too many often very short sections. I am sure that many of these could be combined, if not extended by new material.
 * Lead
 * Too short: not a complete summary of the article, rather a collection of snippets: half the words are on trivial information
 * "Alderman" needs a link
 * Education
 * None of the information is cited - 4 citation tags
 * Chronology needs clarifying. He was 18 when he enlisted; how much of his education was completed before then? In what year did he earn his law degree?
 * The information requires some dating - year of graduation, year of law doctorate
 * What is a letterman? Is there a link?
 * Early attempts at elected office
 * "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way race in the Democratic primary for the Illinois state House of Representatives from the 8th district" - needs rephrasing, e.g. "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way Democratic primary for the 8th district Illinois state House of Representatives seat". Link "primary" for the benefit of non-US readers.
 * The second paragraph needs further rewriting, so that readers can understand what was actually happening. At the moment it is all confusion: Barnes is one of 233, then one of 11 of whom 10 are trying to unseat an incumbent...etc. What's the relevance of the information about the incumbent seeking a third four-year term? Why, ultimately, was Barnes not on the ballot?
 * 1973 campaign for alderman
 * Three consecutive sentences begin "Stone..." Variety of expression is needed
 * "including ... including" in a single sentence
 * The Republican years (1987–1990)
 * "...to run for recorder" → "to run for Recorder"
 * Who did Vrdolyak threaten?
 * Subsection title should capitalise Recorder of Deeds as this is a formal office (and for textual consistency)
 * Why did Stone return to the Democratic Party? You gave detailed reasons for his leaving it.
 * "Berny's Wall"
 * "the most significant altercation in recent decades". Whose view is this? And "altercation" is probably not the best word to describe a long dispute
 * I tried to read the details, gave up. Why is it necessary to discuss this particular incident in such extensive detail? This level of attention seems wholly disproportionate, and unbalances the article; I would have thought a single short summary paragraph would do.
 * Sleeping in Council Chambers
 * Is this trivial incident really worth a main section to itself?
 * Campaign employees convicted of vote fraud
 * Avoid contractions such as "wasn't". Encyclopedia articles should be in formal language
 * As with the preceding section, there is probably too much detail in this section, and some repetition (Salone calls the sentences  "a kiss" twice).
 * There is more chronological confusion, particularly in the third and fourth paragraphs. When did the trial begin (we are only told when it finished).
 * Committees
 * Probably Stone's committee memberships should be cited somewhere
 * Loss in 2011 run-off
 * "Certified Public Accountant" is a profession, not a title. I'm not sure of the relevance of this description, but if you must use it I'd rephrase: "Silverstein's wife Debra Silverstein, a Certified Public Accountant..."
 * Political philosophy
 * One single unoriginal line does not amount to a political philosophy, and certainly doesn't justify a whole section to itself
 * Personal life
 * Scant content, and citation tag.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews at present, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any points arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)