Talk:Gery Chico/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As WP:CHICAGO director, I decline to review this article and defer to a neutral reader. However, I will note that the WP:LEAD is malformed. It should probably be three paragraphs and need further wikification of things like public offices (Mayor of Chicago and United States Senator, with the proper link to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004.) Much of the rest of the article passes the smell test, but the LEAD is very deficient. The article may have progressed enough that the initial template is not longer warranted, but I will leave that for an independent review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen and worked on a lot of politician BLPs, but this one is really weird. It was created by one infrequent editor, Aaronjhunter, sometime after the Daley replacement derby started up and apparently after a previous attempt got deleted. It was immediately tagged by an experienced editor for COI and press release, and indeed it was pretty much pure puffery. Then not much happens for a while except for some reference formatting. Now a new SPA pops up out of the blue, Geread, and makes a ton of edits and decides to simultaneously: leave the tags on, nominate the article for GA, and post this message at WT:GAN admitting to unspecified COI and asking whether the nomination should be quick-failed. Then one of WP's most prolific editors of all doesn't want to touch it.
- Well, I doubt that Geread is really a new editor. The article isn't terrible ... it's less puffy than before, although phrases such as "Mayor Daley once again turned to Chico to lead" betray its origins. There are some strange wordings in the "2004 Campaign for U.S. Senate" section and it is presented out of chronological sequence. The sectioning needs improvement overall, and the lead is deficient as Tony said. The quality of the sources looks good in general, relying mostly upon Chicago's main newspapers, but I don't have enough knowledge of Chicago politics to be sure of how thorough and fair the treatment here is.
- Regardless, the strange provenance of the article combined with the stranger nomination sequence makes me believe that a quick-fail is indeed the right approach here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Although I am staying out of the final decision on this one, I would request a WP:WIAGA violation to attribute quick failure to. Niether provenance nor nomination sequence is a valid reason to fail. If no valid reason is presented I will, without prejudice bring this up at WP:GAR. It would not be because I believe that the article should pass or fail, but because it was not failed for a proper reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:RGA#First things to look for item #3 "There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid" applies here as one of the reasons a quick-fail can be done. Of the two main editors of the article, COI was suspected of one and admitted by the other, so the COI tag is still valid. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that the primary editor nominate this for a community GAR. I also suggest that the news blurb portion of the heading tag be removed. The article has gotten past that point. I think regardless of the source of the editorial contribution, the article should be judged against the WP:WIAGA criteria. Although the WP:LEAD was deficient at the time of the nomination, the required editorial adjustments were within the normal scope of a GAC review process. Nothing else jumps out at me as deficient per WIAGA. There are better (and a few worse) GAs. This should be judged on its merits and not the author or its provenance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the news release tag deserved to be removed. I have now made some changes to the article to reflect some of the stylistic issues that you and I have raised. But what I've done is only superficial; I haven't delved into the substance of the article. Your response didn't address the COI tag issue, which is the critical one. I still believe this article doesn't belong in GA consideration until and unless an editor works on it who is knowledgable about the subject matter, is without a conflict of interest, and has made more than a handful of edits in their WP career. You would certainly more than qualify; I don't know why you recused yourself from working on this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing against the man, but he is a ways down my list of subjects that I would expend extensive editorial effort on at this time. There are many Univeristy of Michigan-related, Chicago-related or hot babe-related subjects who come well ahead of him. Yesterday, I managed to restrain myself from jumping into editorial content that I discovered about Roselyn Sanchez's Vagina issues. I am trying to keep myself from getting involved in extensive new content although Ms. Sanchez's issue might be too hard to resist. Basically, I am avoiding extensive new content that will not lead to a cake DYK or cake GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the news release tag deserved to be removed. I have now made some changes to the article to reflect some of the stylistic issues that you and I have raised. But what I've done is only superficial; I haven't delved into the substance of the article. Your response didn't address the COI tag issue, which is the critical one. I still believe this article doesn't belong in GA consideration until and unless an editor works on it who is knowledgable about the subject matter, is without a conflict of interest, and has made more than a handful of edits in their WP career. You would certainly more than qualify; I don't know why you recused yourself from working on this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that the primary editor nominate this for a community GAR. I also suggest that the news blurb portion of the heading tag be removed. The article has gotten past that point. I think regardless of the source of the editorial contribution, the article should be judged against the WP:WIAGA criteria. Although the WP:LEAD was deficient at the time of the nomination, the required editorial adjustments were within the normal scope of a GAC review process. Nothing else jumps out at me as deficient per WIAGA. There are better (and a few worse) GAs. This should be judged on its merits and not the author or its provenance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:RGA#First things to look for item #3 "There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid" applies here as one of the reasons a quick-fail can be done. Of the two main editors of the article, COI was suspected of one and admitted by the other, so the COI tag is still valid. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)