Jump to content

Talk:Helen Shiller

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHelen Shiller 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
May 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

[edit]

External links may not be biased and must be encyclopedic resources or mainstream, reputable media. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular "unduly self-serving" under "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author." These links were deleted by an editor during a temporary protection and restored as soon as protection was dropped. Please note this is a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and so requires strict enforcement. Hugh 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What possible reason could you have for not linking to the official website of the subject of the article? PETA links to peta.org. Microsoft links to microsoft.com. This woman is a city councilperson, so the article links to the city council website. BigDT 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unsourced. it is not at all clear that there is any relationship between the text of this article and the three "External links." Are the three links "external links" or "references/sources"? If they are sources please label them as "References" and conform to policy. The three links are unacceptable as per policy as sources. They are self-published. They have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. No one stands between the writer and the act of publication. They are self-serving and self-aggrandizing. Hugh 01:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of them - [1] - just gives her contact info and other basic info related to her office. I'm not sure how that one is biased. If you can find better sources, please do so and add them. Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked #1 says, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So I don't see any logical reason not to link to her official campaign site and official city of Chicago site. --BigDT 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you are saying they are external links. Do you agree they are not permissible SOURCES? So what ARE the sources of the text in the article? Fine, link to the three self-published sites. That still leaves the article unsourced and so a candidate for deletion. It's not a matter of adding additional quality sources, policy permits immediate deletion of unsourced material in biographies of living persons, don't wait for sources.Hugh 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are lawyering now. WP:BLP insists only in the removal of unsourced negative information. If there is any of that, feel free to remove it. As for official sites, there is no need to view them as unreliable sources for uncontroversial information. They are only dubious where they may be being used to whitewash a subject. What information in them (that we are including in the article) do you think may be biased? --Docg 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Not necessarily negative, just controversial. "Shiller has sponsored and fought for many new ordinances and programs." This is controversial as well as a violation of neutral point of view. The "many" part is not supported by the facts of Shiller's published voting record. Compared to the tens of thousands of administration ordinances and programs Shiller rubber-stamped that she did NOT sponsor, she can not be considered to have sponsored MANY ordinances or programs. Considering the two decades she has had the job of legislator, the handful of issues mentioned cannot be considered "many." Hugh 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Doc, BigDT thanks for your patience. I learned more about Wikipedia. Hugh 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


REQUEST ---> Can you protect the Helen Shiller page, at least until AFTER the Chicago Aldermanic Elections on February 27, 2007. THANKS! request mase 27 January 2007

REQUEST ---> Can you check this page again...it looks like more partisan politics (i.e. anti-Shiller writings) are at play. Note those changes by "Uptown Voter" should give you a hint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.137.13 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:HelenShiller.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:HelenShiller.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:HelenShiller.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Helen Shiller/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 18:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

[edit]

Some work required here:

  • Lead (WP:LEAD): very short; does not adequately summarise the article's content. Doesn't mention anything about her personal life, for example and is well under the general guide for lead length.
lead expanded, thanks Hugh (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout: "Education" is too short, I feel, and should be merged to early life.
ok, thanks Hugh (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage: Quite patchy. The article focusses heavily on some aspects ("Failed attempt to enter low-income housing consent decree") whereas whole years of her life ("Second term (1991–1995)") are barely mentioned. This is a big problem; the article must comply with:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
There are problems on both counts. I've given the worst examples, but the other periods of her life are also somewhat patchy. This ought to be improved. I'd stick to a "First term, Second term..." structure; clearly some events are more important than others but this ought to be a guide to the appropriate length.
The article reads patchy because the subject's life is patchy! with respect to footprint in rs. I like the organization into terms, too, but it has the unintended side effect of drawing attention to the under-the-radar terms, which is where let's face it most far less notable Chicago aldermen spend their careers. After a thorough review of Studs, newspapers, and magazines, I think the article does a decent job of reflecting coverage in rs. I've removed some detail and shortened the article.Hugh (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The article focusses heavily on some aspects (Failed attempt to enter low-income housing consent decree)" Editing 1st term for length. Hugh (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"whereas whole years of her life ("Second term (1991–1995)") are barely mentioned" Adding additional notable detail from rs to middle terms. Hugh (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the 1st term, and reviewed rs for the middle-term years, and I think the coverage in the WP article is reasonably proportional to rs at this point. Hugh (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are external links in the main body text.
removed, thanks Hugh (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images seem OK with OTRS permission.
  • Sourcing appears fine; web-links should have a retrieval/access date, however.
accessdates added Hugh (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few tweaks have been made, but there's still a lot of work to do. For this reason, I'm failing the article. Once the issues have been addressed, I suggest you nominate and the article will be in good stead: all failing does is give the article more time to develop. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Helen Shiller/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Suri 100 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.Lead Section

2. Well-written:

3. Verifiable with no original research:

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

  • Comments:- Only one image.

Overall:- Passed with GA status.Suri 100 (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helen Shiller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helen Shiller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Shiller&oldid=1205208775"