![]() | 2011 South Bend mayoral election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
1. Well-written
2. Verifiable
3. Broad in coverage
4. Neutral The prose is neutral, but the coverage of the article is skewed to focus on Mayor Pete. Yeah, he won in a blowout, but he gets way more weight than the other candidates. We learn a lot about his positions, but we learn nothing of the positions of the Republican candidate. Patrick Farrell got almost 7% of the vote, so it seems that his campaign should be at least briefly referenced. The coverage in the article is more about "Pete Buttigieg's campaign in the 2011 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election" than the election itself.
5. Stable
6. Illustrated if possible
I'm going to place this article on hold. In order to meet the GA requirements, the article will need a substantial amount of work. The biggest two areas will probably be reducing the reference overkill and balancing out the coverage of the candidacies more. Based on the amount of work that needs done, if substantial improvement haven't been made within 7 days, I'll probably have to fail the article.
@ Hog Farm: Your opinion would be valued. I would curious as to what your opinion would be. I made a recent breakthrough, finding an article that provided strong coverage of nearly all the candidates running in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so the focus of the article is no longer overwhelmingly Buttigieg-centric. I also was able to finally find Curry's campaign website. However, there is still the obstacle of finding any article that mentions anything about Farrell beyond the fact that he simply ran as a Libertarian.
Upon a quick glimpse, is there anything you see as strong red flags at the moment? Would you recommend for or against ultimately nominating this again for the Good Article process? SecretName101 ( talk) 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PoliceSheep99 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ SecretName101: The article has come a long way since the last GA nomination 6 months ago and it certainly looks GA quality from a general scan. I'll try and get this done as soon as possible, whilst still being thorough. PoliceSheep99 ( talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Well Written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated
![]() | 2011 South Bend mayoral election has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
1. Well-written
2. Verifiable
3. Broad in coverage
4. Neutral The prose is neutral, but the coverage of the article is skewed to focus on Mayor Pete. Yeah, he won in a blowout, but he gets way more weight than the other candidates. We learn a lot about his positions, but we learn nothing of the positions of the Republican candidate. Patrick Farrell got almost 7% of the vote, so it seems that his campaign should be at least briefly referenced. The coverage in the article is more about "Pete Buttigieg's campaign in the 2011 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election" than the election itself.
5. Stable
6. Illustrated if possible
I'm going to place this article on hold. In order to meet the GA requirements, the article will need a substantial amount of work. The biggest two areas will probably be reducing the reference overkill and balancing out the coverage of the candidacies more. Based on the amount of work that needs done, if substantial improvement haven't been made within 7 days, I'll probably have to fail the article.
@ Hog Farm: Your opinion would be valued. I would curious as to what your opinion would be. I made a recent breakthrough, finding an article that provided strong coverage of nearly all the candidates running in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so the focus of the article is no longer overwhelmingly Buttigieg-centric. I also was able to finally find Curry's campaign website. However, there is still the obstacle of finding any article that mentions anything about Farrell beyond the fact that he simply ran as a Libertarian.
Upon a quick glimpse, is there anything you see as strong red flags at the moment? Would you recommend for or against ultimately nominating this again for the Good Article process? SecretName101 ( talk) 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PoliceSheep99 ( talk · contribs) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@ SecretName101: The article has come a long way since the last GA nomination 6 months ago and it certainly looks GA quality from a general scan. I'll try and get this done as soon as possible, whilst still being thorough. PoliceSheep99 ( talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Well Written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated