Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byron Brown/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

Byron Brown

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article is greatly improved. It has depth and breadth. I think it may be ready. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hi Tony, nice read. But could you link double to something that explains what a double is in the context of "Brown was raised in Hollis, a southeastern neighborhood in New York City's Queens borough in a double that his family shared with his grandparents". Clearly its a type of home but its not a phrase I've heard before, is it US specific? WereSpielChequers 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article, some quibbles jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't like bare minority. What about member of any minority or similar? jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for his proclivity to wear suits. or, perhaps less old-fashioned, from his habit of wearing suits.? jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine with me jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is very wide and looks awful. I would have put the districts across the top, and parties down the side.
    • I agree that in New York State, where third parties are non-trivial, it looks odd. This is the standard format for election result tables that I have seen. I have just never seen more than 4 or 5 parties before. I am not married to this table since I could not find mayoral results on the public record. I was able to call the board of elections and get them to send me an email, but I can not source such info properly for the article in a way that is not WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if that's the standard, let it be unless others object jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed something Talk:Byron_Brown#Election_results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SPECIAL COVERAGE ON THE PASSING OF TIM RUSSERT: Read the transcript from the special coverage". MSNBC.com. Microsoft - must we have the caps?
Any comment on this one? I'll support soon, just want to get the remaining bits sorted one way or another jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the "suit-and-tie guy" point, it used to just read that way. In the GA review, I indicated that I didn't really know what that meant - I assumed it had something to do with a state of mind or a political style or something - and suggested that it could use some elaboration. Once Tony clarified, I suggested the whole thing just be removed, which remains my favoured option (I just don't think it's that notable that a high-ish level politician wears a lot of suits and ties). But I wanted to make it clear that the wording you take issue with is my fault, not Tony's. With regards to your third last point (two years ago, what happened then?), I also raised that point in the GA review, and Tony indicated that subsequent developments didn't receive third party coverage. In light of that, I suggested that that whole incident be removed (arguing that if it wasn't important enough for the media to follow through on, it might not be important enough for a Wikipedia article), but Tony felt that it was notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fault? I'm not blaming anyone for anything, just suggesting improvements. I tend to agree that both could go, but let's see what the nominator thinks jimfbleak (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was probably more for Tony's benefit that I said that. I could just see himself throwing up his hands and saying "the GA reviewer says add that in, the FA reviewer says take it out..." and then maybe going insane and writing that Brown is secretly one of those Inter-Dimensional Reptilian Shape-shifters. Which would be kind of awesome, in its way, but not really what we're going for. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comments on the kid and the car are above. As far as the suit and tie goes. I mostly saw him on Saturday mornings and still recall seeing him in Suits. If people want personal info on the guy this is kind of interesting, IMO, if we can get it worded grammatically. I would prefer it kept than removed unless it would keep you from supporting the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My preference is to remove both the car incident and the "suit and tie" thing, but these will not, in isolation, have any bearing on my decision on whether to support listing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess the rule that I used for this artile was that once he became a State Senator all stories about him had to be in The New York Times to be included in the article. This left two stories primarily about other people in the article during this time period. For the rest of his life and for stories relating to him but primarily about others the Buffalo News was a sufficient source. Thus, I think a story about his son that makes the Buffalo News is encyclopedic regardless of whether we can determine every detail about the story. In this case, we have a fairly complete story except for its conclusion. Determining what is encyclopedic content for a person of this notability is difficult. I think if Byron Brown had a car accident that was only covered in the Buffalo News it would not be encyclopedic because important stories about him should now be carried by the NYT. However, stories about his son are different, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the suit and tie guy bit comes from an article that provides a lot of color about the guy. It is an interesting story that as a first grader he went to school in a suit and tie. It adds a lot more color to the article than the following sentence "After PS 134, he attended PS 109, a junior high school, and then August Martin High School."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, I am willing to remove both, but think they are interesting for people looking for some personal stuff. Is there a rephrasing of either story that would make them more encyclopedic to you--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I said above, I conducted the GA review, so quibbles I had were worked out there. I've just taken another look over it, and I think it's FA-quality. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The only concern I have is with the very last reference, the one that was recieved by email. I don't think this counts as a printed source.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no publicly available record of the 2005 Mayoral Election Results. We have three choices: 1.)Include 2005 election results received by email upon request with notation that they were receiveed upon request as anyone could do; 2.)Include 2005 election results without any citation; Exclude 2005 election results. I think on WP:AGF a reply from a reference librarian at the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library on Buffalo Mayoral results is acceptable, but I am willing to change to one of the other two alternatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They did not report it in the newspapers? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not final official results. Read the letter on the talk page from the reference librarian.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I think it's not a good idea, but I'll leave this one for other reviewers to decide for themselves. I myself would not include it in an article I was writing, but that's my choice. Other reviewers may have different ideas. (unwatching FAC page now) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of publicly available data, Official Results for the Buffalo Mayoral election that are available upon request to the Board of Elections are very much in the grey area of OR. In this case, I think the data is sufficiently important that the borderline activity is acceptable. Two others have said this was O.K. on my talk page and one at Talk:Byron Brown#Mayoral Election Results.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the article's talk page, I agree with Tony here. It seems to me that we require sources for two major reasons: ensuring accuracy, and allowing readers to verify the information they see. The source is obviously authoritative, which takes care of accuracy, and provided the organization is willing to send this information to anybody who asks, that takes care of verifiability. Plus, if enough people ask, maybe they'll put the information on their damned website. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1b 1c (for now). I have a really hard time believing this Mayoral Election information was never published. Every podunk county in the US publishes election results on their web site and in the local paper, and this is Buffalo. The current solution is not ideal. Prose review forthcoming. --Laser brain (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the email on the talk page from the Buffalo & Erie County Public Library, I have tried and they have tried to find a published source. Your objection is only actionable by removing data that is not controversial in the sense that it is likely to be challenged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. I don't think something is necessarily missing because a reference librarian can't find it. I bet it was on a web page, and I bet an archive can be found. It's not that it's likely to be challenged, but if Wikipedia is going to be the only readily available source of the information, it's all the more important it be verifiable. Tabular data must have a proper source. --Laser brain (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are many cases where I might believe you over a Buffalo & Erie County Public Library research librarian, 2005 Buffalo Mayoral election results are not one. I can not find the results in the Buffalo News archive. Where else do you think they would be if neither the state or county board of elections does not continue to post them. The point is that there is no proper source. The data is available upon request from the county election board. It is that or nothing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to believe me. However, as the nominator, the burden falls on you to find a proper source. If the FA director deems my point invalid, it will be disregarded. --Laser brain (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to find the data and requested the assistance of an expert to find the data. It does not seem to exist in common public formats. Thus, it is included like it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT is this some sort of revenge of the POV-Pushers. Are you also interested in adding a bunch of Artvoice stories. There is nothing that is missing from his article. I have gone through the dozens and dozens of articles from The New York Times and nothing is missing from the international encyclopedic perspective. There may be some local stories missing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate your addressing/responding to my items quickly. As I noted, these are indicative of article-wide problems and the whole text needs treatment. I find the prose is correct in most places, but not compelling. We need a fresh copyeditor to give it a facelift and improve the tone and style. --Laser brain (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article went through the second most extensive WP:GAC review and copyedit (2nd to Jesse Jackson, Jr.) of my 140 WP:GAs. It is here as one of the broadest and deepest articles on a Mayor in all of wikipedia. If you are not compelled to read about this by the end of the first paragraph, then nothing will ever satisfy you about this person short of attaining higher office. Also, in terms of compelling, this article presents comprehensive coverage of his life with unique detail. The prose quality is quite readable and largely grammatical. It seems that if you like to contribute your time to improving prose, this is an article you could work with. I have a deep feeling that your opposition here is as a blindly devoted follower of Sandy's attempting to give your leader support rather than as a devoted promoter of WikiPedia who is interested in supporting the devlopment of shared knowledge. This article presents shared knowledge at a level that is extremely rare for a Mayor. If you want to promote shared knowledge you would surely take the time to help refine research of this quality with prose this close to what is needed/wanted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on election result

  1. FAC goes overboard on referencing compared to any academic journal. You are required to give references for material that may be challenged. Is laserbrain saying that these are not the correct election results?
  2. Even in professional journals, person communications are included in references where appropriate
  3. We accept emails to verify copyright status, so why not to act as sources? In a bio article I wrote, I emailed Pamela C. Rasmussen to get personal info that was not available on line (like her middle name!). I'm not planning on bringing this article to FAC, but presumably if I did an email from Professor Rasmussen would not be an acceptable source?
  4. I have no reason to doubt Tony's honesty in reporting the election results, and presumably anyone could do what he did to verify the results by email, so it's not as if there is no way of checking. It's more easily checkable than a reference to an out-of print book.

I do not have a problem with this section jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection of Tony's points about the matter and your thoughts, I've stricken my 1c objection. Thanks for weighing in. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so now all three supporters and the lone objector are satisfied with the references, including the one in question.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently leaning Oppose This article is getting a little hagiographic around the edges, don't you think? See forex: "The rising number of homicides and continuing decay in the city a year after the election of Byron Brown was disappointng for residents both in the city and in the suburbs. Though Byron Brown gave himself an "A" for his first year performance, critics have pointed out that he failed to address the issues that are vital to the quality of life in the city (Meyer 2006)." What's all this about him playing trumpet, and his son's hobbies, and.. the whole "personal" section, with the exception of the car theft incident? Trash the personal section, give the car theft its own section [Please don't resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to defend the fluff in this article]. See Guofang Li "Culturally Contested Literacies: America's rainbow Underclass and Urban Schools". I would prefer if this nom were withdrawn, then some time spent washing off all the sugary icing. Then spend time looking for criticism. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)In what sense is it a hagiography. The only sense in which it might be a hagiography are some artifact awards that predate my involvement in the article. I would freely remove them if that is your problem with the article. Most experienced reviewers usually say that an article lacks breadth if you do not add any personal stuff. Are you attempting to make some sort of joke that suddenly personal sections are not appropriate. Usually a review would say something like you don't tell us anything about pre-professional periods of his life. In this case, when I find out that he was in the school band in high school and you say remove it. This is contrary to most conventional review advice. Your whole review misses the meat of the article.
    • Generally, when I do politicians, I go through Time, Newsweek, U.S News & World Report and The New York Times. Then to fill in early career information I look for local newspapers. I haven't really done national figures who have lots of books written about them. In this case, I used the Buffalo News as a primary source until he became a New York State Senator. After that I required a story to be in NYTimes to be included if it was directly about him. The only controversies are about the preservationists. It is not POV. There was nothing else controversial in my normal sources. Check them out. I was surprised to see you found a source from a text for Brown. However, I know of no reason why your source is not a WP:RS. I will incorporate it.
    • Other people have questioned the accident and supported other stuff. You say the accident is important. I have tried to include a balance of things. A hagiography would not include his kids auto accident or the preservationist so I don't see your point and it is pretty hard to follow any advice it includes. What part of WP:WIAFA is this really violating in your eyes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Full Oppose. Please consider withdrawing nom. Please do your homework. See the following, but don't forget to delete the fluff in this article:
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that I have found the Li source to be quite dubious, I am not sure what if any credence to place in your objection. You have offered no WP:RS that would support any sort of hagiography. Again, I invite you to review any and all articles in the sources I list above especially the New York Times to point out any controversial topic that has been omitted or portrayed in a POV manner. You have asked me to remove things that people commonly request be added. You have asked me to emphasize things in their own sections that other reviewers have questioned the importance of. Your review seems to be lacking a sense of normalcy. Furthermore, it is quite rare to request a withdrawal of an article and feel your advice on this topic is meritless.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • SANDY if I am missing anything actionable about this OPPOSE let me know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for outlining your research approach. It's obvious to me that by sticking solely to the mass-market magazines you miss a great deal. Forex the Li book, written in 2007, contains an interesting discussion of Buffalo. It contains a number of cites to different sources. I suggest you track down those sources (all of them) and see what they have to say (here's one: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=424439&page=3).
    • Like I said all the sources in Li seem to have been published so early that I can not in good faith regard it as a WP:RS. As far as mass media goes, I hold both Republican and Democrat articles to the same standard. Note for Jack Kemp's entire political career, he was too prominent to use the Buffalo News as a primary source for encyclopedic content, IMO. (He is currently at WP:PR, BTW if you like BFLO politics.) The Meyer piece is probably a rare exception to my rule on BFLO politicians that if you can not find it in the NYT or better it is not encyclopedic. I will incorporate it as a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I look more closely at Meyer and consider my policy, I view his article as a neutral WP:RS on the "state of the city" after his first year. I continue to believe that any individual act or story by him as a Mayor should appear in the NYT to rise to sufficient encyclopedic notability for WP. I will incorporate it broadly. I am not going to delve into Buffalo politics that are not notable enough to be mentioned in NYT that directly relate to Brown. I think below you make specific mentions. As widely published as Brown was in the NYT, this is a reasonable standard. I would do the same for Republican Kemp.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what "sense of normalcy" you think I am lacking.
    • I have tried to clarify my comments above. In general, you seem to be POV-pushing a piece that relies on sources that undermine its own credibility as far as Li goes. Meyer is a good source, but I have attempted to keep references to the encyclopedic level. I will call other reviewers back for thoughts on your suggestions because I am not sure what to make of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the fluff in the article, you cover a large amount of info that is perishingly irrelevant. His son's info, aside from the car theft, is irrelevant. Much of his life—the "suit and tie" guy schtick, the marching band in high school etc.— is irrelevant. Wikipedia wishes to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, and you're adding stuff that belongs in puff pieces from entertainment mags. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as his son goes, I devote less than 300 characters to introducing him prior to a controversial story about him. Maybe I would cut some of it if he was not going to be a relevant character later in the article. I think they should know he was a local basketball star. I think the second paragraph in personal is relevant info. It is largely the type of personal info that is hard to find, but if found is welcome content to broaden an article. I don't think making this an article that focusses entirely on his political career is correct. This is a biography, not a career summary. Although nothing in that paragraph is notable, it does take us beyond his political life in a way that rounds out our picture of Brown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentioning that his son
  • 1b concerns as well:
  • Probe of Brown critic raises issue of motive. Buffalo News, The (NY). February 1, 2009.
  • SUNY Student Chapter Takes Buffalo Mayor to Task on Economic Issues. Iannaccone, William G.; Iannaccone, William G. Guild Notes (0148-0588) 12/1/2007. Vol.33,Iss.4;p.25-25
  • Race Plays Silent Role in Campaign for Mayor of Buffalo. JONATHAN HICKS. New York Times (1857-Current file); New York, N.Y. (0362-4331) Oct 13, 2005. p.B6
  • All Eyes on a Black Candidate in Buffalo's Mayoral Race. JONATHAN HICKS. New York Times (1857-Current file); New York, N.Y. (0362-4331) Jun 4, 2005. p.B2
  • No mention of CitiStat program
  • No mention of Department of Economic Development, Permit and Inspection Services,etc.
  • Etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Li is not "quite dubious". It cites periodicals, not books. Feel free to read all the sources. But see above for 1b etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Skip this. I looked them all up for you; there's nothing in them but a bunch of useless generalizations. Some of the other articles above have useful info though. Email me if you want some of them. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not People magazine. This is an international encyclopedia. Please take out all the silly horsecrap about marching bands and bowties. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope to give this article a little more time later. On a quick readthrough of the first few sections I found a chronological confusion in the Early life section. According to the previous section Brown graduated from college in 1983. He worked for a year as a sales rep, which brings us to 1984. Then, 2 years as aide to Ashe, up to 1986, 2 more years as aide to Blackwell, up to 1988, two years working for Eve, up to 1990, and eight years as director of Erie County Equal Employment Ops Commission. This brings us to 1998, yet he evidently resigned this directorship in 1993 to run for public office. The ten years between college and resignation appear to encompass 15 years of employment. Please clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like Brown took some time off from college and some of his legislative aide time must have occured then. He started college at age 17 (probably Fall 76 and graduated Spring 83 instead of Spring 80). He must have worked full or part time as an aide in college. I will go back to the sources and see if I can dig anything up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ref 2 says he worked on three campaigns in college and then later says he worked as an aide for three people after college. There may be some sort of chronology mix up in this story. From secondary sources, I can do no better than what is in the article. However, there is no explanation as to why it took him seven years to graduate. He must have had to work to pay his way through school or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Here are a few more suggestions:

I have also done some small copyedits Brianboulton (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Different topic)

  • Comment on my Opose (which was struck at 04:06, 7 February 2009): My problem with this article is not the existence of fluff per se, but the fluff-to-content ratio. A bit of fluff is often acceptable. Let's say forex Barack Obama played Sousaphone in high school, and the editors wanna throw it in as some "Gee I'm just a regular guy" fluff. Well, you know... that's probably fine. There will unquestionably be many truly substantial issues to be covered. The Sousaphone bit would just be garnish. In the case of this article, however, we have a guy who is solely and only a local politician. On the national scene, he's only barely notable (he's very clearly notable for Wikipedia's purposes, don't get me wrong). The editor of this article has made an editorial decision that explicitly limits the info he has decided to cover: "I used the Buffalo News as a primary source until he became a New York State Senator. After that I required a story to be in NYTimes to be included." That sounds like a principled stand; even a reasonable one. But the problem is, that leaves us with a very short article... unless we prop it up with "regular guy" fluff. And in this case, for the reasons given above, the fluff has become a significant part of the wordcount. When fluff weighs nearly as much as content, alarms start to go off, and the whole thing begins to have a definite odor of "hagiography"... so my point is this: If you're gonna bring a local politician in to FAC, then no problem: but be prepared to use a larger proportion of local sources. It's common sense. Also, watch out for the fluff-to-content ratio, since content is (by definition) relatively low on local politicians. Lower your geographic standards—Byron Brown hasn't done too much NYT-worthy. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a short article. It is probably the most developed article about a politician whose highest elective office was mayor on WP. AFAIK, there are no mayor FAs and this is more developed than the three other GA mayors that I have written (Tom Weisner, Arthur Schultz, and Scott Smith (mayor)). I am not sure you understand what the point of the source decision. Buffalo is a very significant city in the context of New York State politics and its political dealings are well-chronicalled in The New York Times. There is very little of international encyclopedic merit about Buffalo politics that can not be read in the NYT. A very simple rule to prevent POV-pushing for this bio is to say if it is encyclopedicly notable for an international encyclopedia it is in the New York Times. Look at the length of this article. Basically, as a wannabee POV-pusher you are complaining that none of your push content is considered of worth to be published in the NYT, but that you want to fill this article with that crap. You are arguing about a bunch of Artvoice (Buffalo's Village Voice). If you were writing an article about Michael Bloomberg that was approaching sufficient quality level to be at FAC and someone came by with a handful of Village Voice articles that were not supported by any other source what would you think. You should appreciate this article as the most well-developed Mayor article on WP and stop trying to add a bunch of unencyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops wow, I'm a POV pusher! That's not good. I'm not gonna instigate a hailstorm of WP:NPA links. Instead, I'll strike my Oppose and unwatch. I am so sorry that you took this to the personal level, and I deply regret creating the impression in your mind that I push a political agenda... despite, as I mentioned in my email to you in which I sent you several sources, having spent a nontrivial amount of time working to improve articles whose political position I disagree with quite strongly. Striking Oppose. Unwatching, but not with a bitter heart. :-) . I am deeply sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to call names. I apologize if you think it is namecalling. I also greatly appreciate your removal of your oppose. I just don't think Artvoice omissions are significant in the international context of writing encyclopedic biographies. Also, you really have to fight for mayors around here. Mayors get badly disrespected here on WP. I am constantly fighting about Mayor templates. Look at Scott Smith (mayor) and jump to the bottom to see what you learn from his templates. People have fought with me as if the templates have no merit. There is a current TFD about another Mayor template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't strike my Oppose because I conceded the points of the discussion; I struck it for the good of FAC's reputation as scrupulously adhering to NPOV. I w/drew because you called me a POV pusher. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On further review today of the sources Ling.Nut posted, I have added criterion 1b to my opposition above. I'm not convinced we've given this subject its proper treatment. I concede the point that it is a comparatively thorough Mayor article, and I have no idea what the ramble above about templates is supposed to signify, but comparison to like articles is not an FA criterion. Further, I can't help but to notice that many of the sources Tony is trying to dismiss as insignificant don't exactly cast Brown in a positive light. Given Tony's claim that he knows the subject personally, there is a possible conflict of interest here. Tony is also claiming these sources don't meet our policy on reliable sources, but this is a red herring. --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oi, there you go with the "POV pushers" meme again! This forces me to make my second highly undesirable link to WP:NPA. I passed GA for Alexander Berkman and Norman Finkelstein. I put in a fairly large amount of work for the latter. You're gonna force me to start calling for verification of these claims. Please do stop. Please... rethink your opinions. This is not a passion play, and you are not the noble but beleaguered hero standing up to the nefarious baddies. This is just a bunch of anal reviewers going over a more or less standard nom. Nothing more, nothing less. Please rethink the scenrio you have playing out in your mind, and please do take the time and make the effort to re-label the participants to something a bit closer to the actual case. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're saying that because he's only a local figure, you need to include more of the local coverage, both good and bad. In fact, those files I sent you covered several positive facts about Brown, mixed in with a few dirty socks. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by karanacs. This article is not properly balanced. It contains an excessive amount of irrelevant information (some downright trivial) yet does not discuss enough what accomplishments and failures the subject actually had as an elected official. The article also seems very, very positive - I find it difficult to believe that a mayor of any city won't have a fair share of detractors or controversial positions. These are either not covered in the article or glossed over. On a lesser note, the prose needs work and their are MOS issues that need to be addressed. Please note that the prose examples given are EXAMPLES. Fixing only the examples given is not enough for me to lift that objection.

  • Birth location should not appear in the parentheses giving birth date.
  • I don't believe Mayor should be capitalized in the article. Unsure about State Senator.
    • This is a tricky one. When refering to an office like Buffalo Mayor or New York State Senator, it is capitalized. However, the word in general such as "one of the original 15 mayors" should not be capitalized. I could use some help distinguishing between the two.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose needs a lot of work still.
    • could definitely be tightened. EXAMPLE only: "went on to become" -> "became"
    • Watch pronoun agreement. EXAMPLE only: 2nd paragraph of Background section, who is the He in second sentence? Direct antecedent is Brown's father, but that makes no sense.
    • noun agreement in general -> "Brown and his sister" don't equal "generation"
    • Not enough context in some places. Who is Randy Smith? I shouldn't have to click a wikilink to find out why someone would have admired him.
    • Vary the way sentences are started. EXAMPLE only: First paragraph of lead every sentence starts with "He". In the second paragraph, 3 of 4 sentences begin with He or Brown.
  • Does his endorsement of candidates during the 2006 gubernatorial election really belong in the lead? That seems a bit trivial in the grand scheme of things.
  • I echo the reviewers above who think there is too much trivia here. How is it important (or encyclopedic) that he is a Mets and Knicks fan? Same with the trumpet and the exact names of the schools he attended before college. Why do we need to know that he was a delegate to the 1992 Democratic National Convention?
  • First paragraph of Early career section reads like proseline. Is there any other information that could be added or taken out?
  • The Grassroots details are not relevant to this article (but definitely to the Grassroots article). We don't need to know how the organization's appeal grew to understand Brown.
  • Don't wikilink half the name of something!!! That is confusing to readers. And why is Martin Luther King, Jr. Award italicized? See wP:ITALICS
  • Some of the small sections on his early political career should probably be combined. At the VERY LEAST, state senate election and service sections need to be combined.
  • I think there may be too much information about the elections. As a reader, I'd much rather see information about what he did after being elected.
  • Make sure things are properly attributed. He was envisioned - envisioned by whom?
  • I don't see the relevance of the Harlem Clubhouse reference (I don't really understand the Harlem Clubhouse reference).
  • Did he do anything else as part of the state senate? The only thing mentioned is casinos. This is where local newspaper references are most critical - the NYT is not going to cover anything but the biggest accomplishments of state legislators from other parts of the state.
  • By 2004 it seemed clear that he was eyeing the mayor's office - How was it clear? What did he do?
  • relevance? even though the city had not elected a Republican since 1961
  • There is very little in the article to really talk about his impact on local matters as mayor. Did he do anything else besides the crime stuff that is mentioned?
  • Seriously, ordering flags at half mast for Tim Russert is encyclopedic and deserves an entire paragraph in the article????

Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Byron_Brown/archive1&oldid=1138456773"