Talk:2019 South Bend mayoral election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

1. Well-written

Prose clear, concise, and understandable checkY
Spelling and grammar checkY
MOS lead checkY
MOS layout checkY
Buzzwords/fiction/lists checkY Tables and lists well-laid out, endorsements sourced.

2. Verifiable

No original research checkY None apparent
Inline citations from reliable sources checkY The two social media site links are from the figures' official accounts and are making official announcements, so are acceptable under the Perennial sources guideline as primary sources. The article also cites from BuzzFeed News, which, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources is generally considered to be reliable (in contrast to BuzzFeed). However, the sources guideline states that editors may want to use caution in citing BuzzFeed News articles written after January 2019. I'll make a recommendation to replace the source, but if you believe it is reliable, keep it. I don't see this as a sticking point.
No COPYVIO checkY
List of references properly formatted checkY
Citation overkill ☒N Okay, so I am aware that WP:OVERCITE is just an essay. However, I think limiting the citations to a maximum of three for most statements (unless a claim is really complex or controversial) would definitely improve the article. I think the biggest area of this is in the candidates section, where several candidates have four or five citations demonstrating that he or she either ran or declined to run. It's my strong suggestion to try to reduce that area to one or two citations per candidate. If you would like, I can ask for a second opinion on the topic, since WP:OVERCITE is just an essay.

3. Broad in coverage checkY

Covers main aspects checkY
Stays on topic checkY

4. Neutral checkY Neutral prose, balanced coverage

5. Stable checkY

6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright status checkY
Media relevant checkY

Putting on hold[edit]

Since it's been a few days without changes, I'll go ahead and put this one on hold now. @SecretName101:, if you disagree with my statements on the possible citations overkill, I'm willing to request for an uninvolved third party to comment on what they think about it. 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I somewhat disagree with the citations overkill being much of a problem. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SecretName101: I'll ask for a third opinion then. Hopefully somebody clarifies soon. Great job on the article! Hog Farm (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to second opinion The only disagreement with the article is whether some statements within it are overcited or not. Hog Farm (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically citation overkill is not a GA issue in itself. It is more a red flag for original research (using multiple cites that say something to draw a general conclusion) or that a statement is poorly supported (a group of poor cites does not make up for one good cite). Looking at the article I can see why this has been brought up. We don't really need cites in the lead, but we have five for one statement there. I don't see why we need multiple cites for each named candidate either. They do make the article a bit messy. Is there any particular reason why we need so many cites? AIRcorn (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: Pinging submitter. Hog Farm (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For some of the overcites, I think there were reasons. But not most. SecretName101 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to trim back some of the cites that are not needed? Aaron Perri for example seems a good place to start, four of the cites are to one paper and it seems like a pretty simple sentence to source. While I don't see this necessarily as a reason to fail it is bordering on spam territory and it should be a relatively easy fix. I think it would improve the article overall. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Would you recommend that I pass the GA now, since it's not a GA issue, or should I place it back on hold until the excessive citations issue is fixed? I'm a relatively new GA reviewer, and I haven't run into this situation before. Hog Farm (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably pass it. As long as you are happy with everything else and that it is not a cover for original research or an excuse to use poor quality sources as I mentioned above. Thanks for reviewing articles and feel free to ping me if you want further advice on any reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SecretName101: I'm going to pass the article as is, per experienced reviewer User:Aircorn's statement that the citations are not a GA issue. However, I would recommend that you look into reducing some of the more extreme excessive citation issues. Thanks for your work on the article! Hog Farm (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns[edit]

@SecretName101: Hi SecretName101, I've been mulling over the 2023 Carmel mayoral election deletion discussion and I think the results from it are extremely relevant for this article as well. It was established in that deletion discussion that local, routine election coverage for mayoral elections does not meet EVENTCRIT and that there must be national coverage highlighting the impact of the race (because local, routine coverage does not meet the standards for inclusion here). I think most of the South Bend mayoral articles that exist meet this criterion because of widespread coverage of Buttigieg's candidacy, but I think that this one is basically limited to Indiana sources and doesn't have a wider impact (I think as an ATD it could easily be redirected to Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana).

This, however, is a GA and I think it'd be super unseemly to just nominate it out of the blue. Before I throw it to AfD, is there coverage that would meet the precedent that we've set in that AfD (showing national coverage or impact outside of regular coverage)? Nomader (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader I think the notability of this arises from Buttigieg establishing/extending his legacy by endorsing a handpicked successor who was successful. It illustrates the city’s dealing with whether to continue the Buttigieg path or diverge. SecretName101 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there was national and even international coverage about how Buttigieg extended his political capital on the election and his hand-pick successor was elected. I will compile a short list once I am in in front of a laptop SecretName101 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader
Also received coverage across broader Indiana media, such as this story by KPC Media Group SecretName101 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, clearly enough coverage and I'm glad that I brought this up here! Would have been a disugsting WP:BEFORE violation. Thanks for all that you've done for both this article and other election pieces, and sorry to make you dreg all this up -- you had me at the WSJ example, honestly (but the others are extremely helpful too). Nomader (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader Not a problem at all. SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_South_Bend_mayoral_election&oldid=1196839663"