Talk:Byron Brown/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

There's a lot to like here; the foundation of a good article is definitely present. The writing still needs quite a bit of work, and there are some problems with neutrality, however.

I've started reviewing your changes and comments. As I go through, I'll bold anything that I think requires further attention. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All concerns have now been addressed, and the article is a GA. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

This could use quite a bit of work:

"...was elected on November 8, 2005 as the 58th mayor of Buffalo, New York; He is the first African American mayor elected to serve Buffalo." - I think this should be retooled so as to avoid repeating "mayor", "elected" and/or "Buffalo". Maybe something like "...was elected on November 8, 2005 as the 58th mayor of Buffalo, New York and is the city's first African American mayor"?**Good advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...as a member of the New York State Senate and as a member of the Buffalo Common Council." To avoid repetition, this should be reworded to something like "...as a member of the New York State Senate and the Buffalo Common Council".
- Almost. I think proper parallel structure requires two ofs though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends where you put the invisible parentheses: It can be "...as a member of (the New York State Senate) and (the Buffalo Common Council)." or "...as a member (of the New York State Senate) and (of the Buffalo Common Council)." I'm not going to insist on mine, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As a State Senator, he was the first African-American elected to the New York State Senate to represent a district outside of New York City." The words "As a State Senator" don't serve any purpose here.
- Thank you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Before these elective offices..." First of all, this is the second consecutive sentence to use the root "elective offic", which should probably be changed. Second, which offices are being referred to? The preceding part of the paragraph doesn't refer to Brown filling elected offices at all, but to working as an aide and with a regional political organization.
- I have got it straightened out now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was born and raised in Queens, New York." This seems out of order - if this is going to be dealt with in the same paragraph as the beginnings of his political career, it should probably come before.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Both he and former Buffalo mayor Grover Cleveland originally came from the New York City region." I can't fathom the relevance of this (besides that, it appears only in the lead, and therefore isn't summarizing anything in the article - it also isn't cited).
- I have moved it and will look for a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have removed this altogether. It is a relic that precedes my involvement in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As a downstate native and upstate servant..." I take this to mean that he was born downstate but is active in upstate politics, but I'm not sure it's clear.
- It is now stated more literally.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...he has also been active on the statewide political front..." Since this sentence appears to refer to a specific past event (i.e. the 2006 gubernatorial election), the past tense would probably be better: "...he was also active...".
- I use the chosen tense to demonstrate that this activity may be ongoing. I don't believe he stopped doing this in 2006. I am sure he continues to have an interest in statewide activities, since he is a statewide candidate himself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. In light of that, how about changing it from "he has been active on the statewide political front with endorsements of..." to something like "he has been active on the statewide political front, such as by endorsing..."? That way, it's clear that the endorsements are just examples of his statewide activities. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence structure in a few places gets pretty repetitive. An example would be the third paragraph of the lead, in which the last four sentences are structured essentially identically.
- I have taken the four simple sentences and rearranged them so that two in the middle are combined for variety.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"His legacy as mayor is his development of the Buffalo waterfront." First, he's still mayor, so it seems a little premature to talk about his legacy. Second, I'm concerned that "legacy" tends to be a POV term, in that politicians' legacies are usually debated; could this be changed to something like "He has made the development of the Buffalo waterfront a priority"?
- I have reworded and hope that it is not considered POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Partially for POV reasons, but mostly just for prose reasons, how about "He has made the development of the Buffalo waterfront a priority."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have lost track. Were you talking about the WP:LEAD. I hope so. I just changed something there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was, and looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As a Queens resident, he was a New York Mets fan as well as a New York Knicks fan." Unnecessary repetition.
- How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places that the sentences don't flow very well. An example is the first sentence of "Background", in which you go from talking about where he was born to his grandparents' ancestry to where he grew up to his pro sports allegiances to his father's professional background and so on. I think this paragraph, as well as several others, could use a reorganization for coherence.
- I have reorganized the two paragraphs as three. I hope this helps. If you trace the history of this or almost any article in which I am a major encyclopedic content contributor you will note that I generally add one cited sentence at a time. Sometimes, I rush and slap a sentence in in the wrong place. Given the detail of the following comments, I am assuming you note most times where this causes a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good, and yes, I've noted such problems wherever I've found them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown attended Public School 134 in Hollis, where he attended school in a suit and tie on his first day of first grade." Unnecessary repetition of "attended".
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown continues to be what is referred to as a suit-and-tie guy." What does this mean?
- I have met Brown on multiple occasions (even on weekends) and I only remember seeing him wear a suit. I have changed the article in a way that my personal knowledge meshes with the secondary source and improves the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, though I'm not sure how noteworthy it is that a politician at his level has a "proclivity to wearing suits". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In high school, he played the trumpet in the school band and in college as a 5-foot-11-inch (1.8 m) guard he played a year of Junior Varsity basketball while dabbling with a potential medical career." I'd break this into two sentences, as I think the second independent clause is probably too long to be just tacked on to the first. As well, it deals with his activities at college, which are primarily dealt with later in the paragraph.
- I have rearranged this content now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...a position that came with a nice salary..." I find the wording here a little colloquial.
- I am not sure what you are looking for here, but I have edited the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"With visions of a glass ceiling..." First of all, I'd suggest a wikilink to glass ceiling. Second, the source says "He liked the job but quickly realized sales was not going to get him into the upper echelons of corporate communications."; I'm not sure "glass ceiling" is a reasonable interpretation of what that says.
- I have reworked the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better, though the word "position" is repeated unnecessarily, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...two more years working for Arthur Eve..." Since these are his only two years working for Eve, I'd suggest eliminating the word "more".
- Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"After eight years of service, he resigned in July 1993 to run for public office." First of all, I think the root "serv" is overused in this paragraph; I'd suggest rewording some of its uses. Second, we learned just last sentence that he spent eight years in this position, so repeating it here probably isn't helpful.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better on all counts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Later Brown became a member of "Grassroots," which was founded in 1986 by a group of block club leaders." I'd suggest that rather than specifying when it was founded (and what are "block clubs", anyway?) first priority should be given to a brief explanation of what the organization is (which currently doesn't appear until the end of the paragraph). Actually, I think the paragraph in its entirety reads pretty jumpily, and could do with a rewrite.
- I trust you will tell me if it still needs more work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitely better, but I think the organization's title is overused in the paragraph, and I'm not clear on the purpose of the quotation marks around its second occurrence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...as one the "30 Leaders of the Future." with a caption..." Is there a reason for that period
- Probably a copy and paste problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1993 he was selected by Business First to its "40 Under Forty Honor Roll."" I don't think you can be "selected to" something, can you? Either "named to" or "selected for" seem better.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2001, he was awarded the Infinity Broadcasting/WBLK "Voice of Power Award" and the “Citizen of the Year” award in 2004." *"In 2001" is situated in such a way as to modify the entire independent clause, but clearly it's not intended to modify the "and the "Citizen of the Year" award" portion.
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was originally been pledged..." "been" should probably be deleted.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more personal preference than anything, but I find some of the sections very short (the five immediately after "History" are all quite short, which I think hurts the article's fluidity). Just have a look and see if you agree and, if you don't, ignore me.
- I think I have edited the sentences following your suggestions above so I don't quite see the problem where you are pointing. However, as I have explained I find a fact and add a sentence one by one. This sometimes creates flow problems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't talking about the sentences, but the sections themselves, which are quite short. If you like them like that, by all means leave them; my personal preference is that the shorter ones be merged or otherwise reorganized. This is bolded not so much because it's an ongoing problem but because I wanted to make sure that you'd read my clarification. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish I had more to add to them, but some of the sections make the TOC more useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, just personal preference. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1993, Brown was invited to attend Bill Clinton's Inauguration." This sentence is very out of place and has no relationship to the section heading or any of the other material in the section.
- I moved this to the prior section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better there, though, now that I look at it, I'm not sure "History"'s a great heading for that section. "Professional life", or something, maybe? What do you think? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I changed it to "Early career".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the endorsement of Eve" How about "Eve's endorsement"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"June of 1993" Per WP:MONTH, the word "of" shouldn't be there.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brown is referred to by name six times in the very short "Buffalo city council" section, including at the beginning of each of the first three sentences. I'd suggest mixing it up with some pronouns.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...he won the November 2 general election." I'd suggest getting rid of the word "he".
- For the purpose of citation placement (which must follow a punctuation), I prefer to conjoin the phrases with "comma and subject" rather than just and.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's acceptable (I still think less than ideal, but it's not a GA-breaker). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown enjoyed serving..." The source doesn't appear to say anything about Brown enjoying this, and even if it did I don't think such a narrative description of the subject's feelings would be suitable for an encyclopaedia article.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brown is again referred to by name six times in the also quite short "State senate service" section.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Substantially better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Senator Brown" appears twice in the article, and "Mayor Brown" four times; per WP:MOSBIO, professional titles should be omitted, and subjects should be referred to by last name only.
- Is "the Senator" O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...the state's agreed 18% cut..." This seems a little colloquial - how about "share" instead of "cut"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 2004 elections, Al Coppola opposed Brown as the Republican nominee..." A couple of problems here: first, given that the previous sentence deals with Brown's decision to run for mayor, "the 2004 elections" initially appears to mean mayoral elections, which isn't what's intended. Second "as the Republican nominee" is an ambiguous modifier, that could apply to either Coppola or Brown (I assume it's intended to be Coppola).
- Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Four candidates, including Brown, quickly emerged for the race, and eventually a total of six candidates contested for the office." This sentence is badly written. I'd suggest rewriting to something like "Six candidates, including Brown, entered the race to replace him." (does it matter that four of them emerged quickly, especially if you're not naming who they were?).
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"but Brown accumulated many endorsements and the backing of organized labor." I don't think the word "but" should be there at all (what's this sentence contrasting with?), but if it is it should be capitalized.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brown's name continued to be overused in the "Mayoral election" section, and also in the "Mayoral service" and "Personal" sections.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown was the sixth African-American to win the Democratic Mayor Primary since the 1960s, but all before him had failed to win the general election even though the city had not elected a Republican since 1961." The way this parses is that there have been six African American Democratic candidates for Mayor, but all of them were defeated by candidates other than Republican candidates. If that's what the sentence is intended to say, then all's well; I just found it surprising.
- Interesting fact isn't it. Third party candidates have had amazing success in the Buffalo Mayoral races against African Americans.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It sure surprised me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Actually, no, this sentence is highly incorrect! The New York Times article is just saying he was the sixth African American Democratic possibility to become mayor, but nothing about *any* of the prior five winning the Democratic primary. Indeed, it is counterfactual because since the mid-1960's all the mayors have been Democratic, and all of them presumably have won their party's nomination in order to run in the general election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.52.172 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"His Republican opponent, Kevin Helfer, beat him on the Conservative Party Primary" That should be "in the Conservative Party Primary", no?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown outdrew Helfer by more than 5:1 in terms of fundraising, however. Brown carried 64% of the vote in the general election to Helfer's 27%." How about merging these sentences, to "Brown raised more than five times Helfer's money, however, and defeated in 64% to 27% in the general election."?
- I did pretty much what you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The resulting sentence still has a couple of problems, one of which came from me (should be "defeated him" rather than "defeated is" - oops!). I also think it should be "Helfer" rather than "Helfer's", no? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...in favor of the third casino which seemed to cater..." A comma is required here.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...there was a consideration of boycotting the special election due to a perceived racial slight." This is badly worded: the passive voice is much too prevalent, and it's not at all clear what racial slight you're talking about.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "...considered of boycotting..." Should be just "considered boycotting". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...neither of the previous State Senators turned Mayor Anthony Masiello nor James Griffin..." This doesn't work as worded. It needs to be either "neither Anthony Masiello nor James Griffin, the previous State Senators turned mayor..." or "neither of the previous State Senators turned mayor, Anthony Masiello and James Griffin,..."
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lenihan noted that Thompson had not been timely..." This is the second straight sentence to begin with Lenihan's name; perhaps it could be merged with the previous one?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...Democratic New York Attorney General candidate, Andrew Cuomo." There shouldn't be a comma here, as Andrew Cuomo is the object of the sentence.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...the nomination of Cuomo..." Better as "Cuomo's nomination".
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk)
"...on his road victory." Should that be "road to victory"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown was a supporter of United States Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton." I'd suggest either "a supporter of New York Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton" or "a supporter of Hilary Rodham Clinton, the United States Senator from New York".
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the "Political dealings" section should be under "Mayoral service", since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with his work as mayor. Maybe it could be worked in with "Higher office", which is quite short, to create a single section on his federal and state activities while mayor?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the blizzard relief stuff has to do with the "Crime and poverty" section it's found in.
- The story is that what ever actions were taken when the electricity went out there was no crime under such conditions where alarm systems do not work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Not sure how I missed that the first time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Mayor Brown called Russert..." I'm not sure what purpose "although" serves here.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown was joined by several other officials in recognizing Russert when United States President George W. Bush signed a bill..." Which other officials recognized Russert when Bush signed this bill?
- Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He enjoys basketball and has attended high-level youth basketball camps. He played for City Honors School. On the national level, he was an unheralded point guard in the 2008 high school graduating class, and he went on to attend Queen City Prep in Charlotte, North Carolina." It's not clear whether this is referring to Byron Sr. or Jr.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...he sat on the Board of the Boy Scout Council of Western New York. and the Community Action Organization of Erie County." That first period clearly shouldn't be there.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was a delegate to the 1992, 2000 and 2004 Democratic National Convention" "Convention" should be pluralized.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the article is quite disjointed.
"Brown announced that Byron Brown III, took the senior Brown's car..." That comma shouldn't be there.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...driving without a driver's license and/or leaving the scenes of multiple accidents." "and/or"? Shouldn't it be clear what the charges were?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Only minor issues here; I have the impression that the material is all sourced, but that an occasional lack of inline citations sometimes makes it hard to tell which source supports a given assertion. Examples:

"He also completed a certificate program for senior executives in state and local government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government."
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He also made history by becoming the first minority member of the New York State Senate to represent a majority white district."
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Erie Canal Harbor eventually opened on July 2, 2008."
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...his decision to lower the flags in honor of Russert, a civilian who never held elected office, was both unusual and touching."
- Should be good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those cases, there are a few cases where the information in the article doesn't appear to match the sources:

"The city, which had a 6:1 Democrat to Republican ratio" This reference says it's 8:1: [1]
- O.K. must have been a typo or a reado.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to Paterson's ascension to the governor's office Cuomo, Paterson and Brown were the three names most often mentioned." I don't think the source allows you to state that as fact; what the source says is that one consultant said that those were the three names he had heard most often.
- I have qualified the statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good enough. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...they have a son, Byron III (Byron, Jr. by some accounts)." The only source provided seems to call him Byron Jr., not Byron III.
- Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This now passes the factually accurate criterion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Mostly excellent. Some minor quibbles:

"Subsequently, he served eight years as director of the Erie County division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..." Since the EEOC isn't wikilinked, would it be possible to briefly describe what it does?
- I linked it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gather from the bit about Grassroots that Brown had a falling out with Eve. Is there any information available on that?
- I am up against data limitations. My Buffalo News archive begins 1/1/89. Brown stopped working for Eve in 1985, which would have been when any falling out occurred. I can not find it easily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough - that could become a concern at FAC, but I don't think it's essential for GA status. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... the "Harlem Clubhouse" that had dominated state politics." Some timeframe of this organization's dominance may be helpful, as might a brief explanation of what it is.
- Not sure what you are looking for. HTH.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to have figured out what I meant. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...and faced a former City Council colleague in the general election." The colleague/opponent should probably be named.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At that time restoration on the original point where the Erie Canal met the Great Lakes was underway. Brown presented his plans for the development on tours by top state leaders, including future New York State Governors Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson." I find this a little unclear: it sounds as though this was in progress already (since it was underway on his first day in office); is there room for elaboration on exactly what Brown's role with this was?
- I think I misinterpreted something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to a New York Times article in February 2007, after courts ruled that the National Indian Gaming Commission's actions were improper, "the judge ordered the commission to reconsider, which could take six months." That six months would have elapsed in August 2007; is there anything new to report?
- Updated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown even ran to be a delegate for Clinton at the 2008 Democratic National Convention." Did he win?
- dunno.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd almost say that it isn't worth including unless you can say how his candidacy turned out. Almost. Up to you; as a reader I find it frustrating, but I don't think the Good Article Criteria require either including or deleting. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the absence of relevant MOS either way, why don't we WP:PRESERVE the information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I say, my suggestion that it be removed was merely personal preference. Since you do not share that preference, let it stay. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"During the New York state September primary elections for state office, The New York Times alleged that Brown was aiding Golisano's attempt to unseat Sam Hoyt in the New York State Assembly." This sentence could use some context.
- I added a sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He was scheduled to appear on April 16 in Buffalo CIty Court on the charges." I presume from the rest of the paragraph that that's April 2007; has there been no update? Also, the I should be decapitalized.
- I presume the story was kept quiet because I can not find out anything further even in the local Buffalo paper.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same comment as for primary elections. My first reaction is that if nobody reported the results of the charges, the charges themselves may not be important enough to include. Again, though, your call. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say that this is more an issue of protecting the privacy of a minor who has a celebrity father. Again, I feel this is info that in the absence of a reason to remove should be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - As above, okay by me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article now meets the good article criterion on comprehensiveness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

There are some issues here:

"He was considered to be an ineffective but amiable Mayor." This is sourced to an opinion column, in which the column's author indeed refers to him as ineffective and amiable, but that isn't nearly sufficient sourcing to state, as fact, that this was the prevailing opinion about him.
- I have removed this claim from the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...noted that the Buffalo economy would not benefit from a business designed to transfer money from local citizens to the Seneca Gaming Corporation." The word "noted" implies fact; given that it's an opinion being expressed here, I think a different word might be better - perhaps "suggested" or "argued"?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Republican Party nominee was the lightly-regarded Harrison R. Woolworth." I'm a little bit uneasy about calling him "lightly-regarded", though the single source provided does appear to support this. What about calling him something less subjective, like "politically inexperienced" or similar?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He also made history by becoming the first minority member of the New York State Senate to represent a majority white district." "Made history" is something of a peacock term.
- Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...a wake up call for Brown who had been endorsed by the Party." This seems like editorializing.
- I think you will accept this change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The program may have large benefits nonetheless because abandoned house costs the city an approximate average of $20,060 over five years in lost taxes, debris removal, inspections, and policing." The bit about having "large benefits nonetheless" sounds very much like editorializing; I think the facts could be included without that particular preface.
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...was both unusual and touching." Stating as fact that a gesture was "touching" is clear editorializing.
- This was an artifact from before my involvement in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All neutrality issues addressed - it now passes this criterion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

One minor edit in the last eighteen days, no evidence of edit-warring at any time. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Good image choices, all of them appropriately-licensed. Pass. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]