![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1927 Chicago mayoral election is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 4, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article is too short for anything but start class IMO. I can't tell if there was a primary and who the major newspapers endorsed, which are both fairly basic mayoral election topics.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Are the voter turnout statistics correct? They seem rather suspicious. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I started with the image review (big surprise if you know what kind of work I do here) and found rather a lot of problems with
File:Williamdever.jpg - you can't really claim something is out of copyright by way of {{
PD-US-1923}} and give the year as 2006.
This doesn't block promotion as I have removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement. The other two candidate photos are... very mediocre, but this isn't FPC.
So, criteria
Yes, it's quite well-writen and clear. Nice work.
As far as I can tell, yes.
Yes, though the section "Republican primary" feels rushed, without even a mention of Thompson. I'm sure that the idea was that he was already covered, but... seems like a brief comment should be made on him there.
I think so. All the main candidates are covered neutrally.
Standard heavy editing you see before a GA run, but nothing that constitutes a dispute.
The problem above beside, yes. The images made for this article are very good, by the way, it's only the historical ones that have any issues.
I'd say this is a clear. ✓ Pass. Minor issues acceptable at GA. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SecretName101:, I added up Thompson's wards and found a surplus of two votes relative to the accepted total. Could you please recheck your source Ward by Ward and try to correct the discrepancy? I'm doing mine but the numbers are handwritten and I couldn't resolve it. Dever's numbers are fine, and I haven't checked Robertson's yet. - John M Wolfson ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In having close knowledge of a topic area, it often happens that one doesn't notice people have no clue what you're talking about. At least, the terminology is opaque. It turns out that Wikipedia (and thus me) has no idea what a palm card is. Nor push card, cowboy card or push piece. Searching WP for these finds none of them. And Wiktionary (bless) has another definition entirely: wikt:palm card.
Nor can I find at Electioneering a mention of the term for the piece of paper the obnoxious mayoral candidate handed me at my door. Gee, there are massive gaps here at Wikipedia? Elect Phil Pitt for Mayor! Shenme ( talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed "Bibliography" to "Works cited" in the References section. The article is not a biography but does have links to many.
MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications")
, so any confusion is avoided by using "Bibliography" in the appropriate section and using different wording under "References". It is a small maintenance change that should not cause any conflicts since it has valid reasoning.
Otr500 (
talk) 06:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 1927 Chicago mayoral election is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 4, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article is too short for anything but start class IMO. I can't tell if there was a primary and who the major newspapers endorsed, which are both fairly basic mayoral election topics.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Are the voter turnout statistics correct? They seem rather suspicious. SecretName101 ( talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I started with the image review (big surprise if you know what kind of work I do here) and found rather a lot of problems with
File:Williamdever.jpg - you can't really claim something is out of copyright by way of {{
PD-US-1923}} and give the year as 2006.
This doesn't block promotion as I have removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement. The other two candidate photos are... very mediocre, but this isn't FPC.
So, criteria
Yes, it's quite well-writen and clear. Nice work.
As far as I can tell, yes.
Yes, though the section "Republican primary" feels rushed, without even a mention of Thompson. I'm sure that the idea was that he was already covered, but... seems like a brief comment should be made on him there.
I think so. All the main candidates are covered neutrally.
Standard heavy editing you see before a GA run, but nothing that constitutes a dispute.
The problem above beside, yes. The images made for this article are very good, by the way, it's only the historical ones that have any issues.
I'd say this is a clear. ✓ Pass. Minor issues acceptable at GA. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SecretName101:, I added up Thompson's wards and found a surplus of two votes relative to the accepted total. Could you please recheck your source Ward by Ward and try to correct the discrepancy? I'm doing mine but the numbers are handwritten and I couldn't resolve it. Dever's numbers are fine, and I haven't checked Robertson's yet. - John M Wolfson ( talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In having close knowledge of a topic area, it often happens that one doesn't notice people have no clue what you're talking about. At least, the terminology is opaque. It turns out that Wikipedia (and thus me) has no idea what a palm card is. Nor push card, cowboy card or push piece. Searching WP for these finds none of them. And Wiktionary (bless) has another definition entirely: wikt:palm card.
Nor can I find at Electioneering a mention of the term for the piece of paper the obnoxious mayoral candidate handed me at my door. Gee, there are massive gaps here at Wikipedia? Elect Phil Pitt for Mayor! Shenme ( talk) 03:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed "Bibliography" to "Works cited" in the References section. The article is not a biography but does have links to many.
MOS:NOTES states: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications")
, so any confusion is avoided by using "Bibliography" in the appropriate section and using different wording under "References". It is a small maintenance change that should not cause any conflicts since it has valid reasoning.
Otr500 (
talk) 06:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)