# Talk:2011 South Bend mayoral election

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 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) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


### Criteria
1. Well-written

Prose clear, concise, and understandable  Partly done I corrected a couple minor tense and redundancy issues, but parts of the article rely on short, choppy sentences.  For instance, "Buttigieg out-fundraised his opponents.[44][45] Buttigieg began to lead the pack in fundraising as early as January 2011.[27][46]" could easily be combined into one sentence, such as Buttigieg out-fundraised his opponents [44][45], and began to lead the pack in fundraising as early as January 2011. [27][46]." There are many places throughout the article where consolidation of short sentences would improve the flow of the passage.
Spelling/Grammar Y
MOS Lead Y, although there's a possibility that the statement of Buttigieg becoming the youngest US mayor of a city with a population greater than 100,000 could be challenged, so a citation for that statement would be nice.
MOS Layout N The "Polls" section with table should be either expanded or the table removed. Several polls are described in the preceeding section, and adding more than just one early primary poll would be helpful.  Redlink to Craig Fry should also be taken care of.
Buzzwords/fiction/lists Y, but see comment on table above.
2. Verifiable

No original research Y
Inline citations from reliable sources  Partly done Several of the sources cited are to press releases from political campaigns.  While not necessary, it wouldn't hurt to replace some of these with verifying references in secondary sources.  I'm not familiar with what Nation Swell is, are you familiar if it is a partisan source?
No COPYVIO Y None I detected.  Google searches of random sentences and comparisons to sources turned up no COPYVIO.  The article is very thoroughly sourced.
List of references properly formatted N.  Article is extremely over-cited.  For instance, we don't need two citations to verify the date of the election, one is enough.  A lot of statements in the article have four or five (or more!) citations.  One or two (or three for contentious claims) citations is generally enough.  For instance, we don't need six citations to state that South Bend is a Democratic-leaning city.  Citation trimming will help this article.
3. Broad in coverage

Covers main aspects Y
Stays on topic N We go down the "What did Mayor Pete do this week" rabbit trail a couple times.  For instance, the article doesn't make it clear why Pete going to San Diego for his Naval Reserve Duties is relevant to this mayoral election.
4. Neutral N The prose is neutral, but the coverage of the article is skewed to focus on Mayor Pete.  Yeah, he won in a blowout, but he gets way more weight than the other candidates.  We learn a lot about his positions, but we learn nothing of the positions of the Republican candidate.  Patrick Farrell got almost 7% of the vote, so it seems that his campaign should be at least briefly referenced.  The coverage in the article is more about "Pete Buttigieg's campaign in the 2011 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election" than the election itself.
5. Stable Y
6. Illustrated if possible

Media tagged for copyright status Y
Media relevant Y
Additional media N I don't know if it's possible, but could you find a way to get fair use of a picture for both Curry and Farrell?  The results box at the top looks a bit odd with only one picture, and it would be nice to have pictures for both of the other important candidates.

I'm going to place this article on hold.  In order to meet the GA requirements, the article will need a substantial amount of work.  The biggest two areas will probably be reducing the reference overkill and balancing out the coverage of the candidacies more.  Based on the amount of work that needs done, if substantial improvement haven't been made within 7 days, I'll probably have to fail the article.

@Hog Farm: Some issues preventing recommended improvements.
MOS Layout: The other polls mentioned earlier do not have complete data, only partial descriptions. The poll in the table was the only complete poll I could find. Perhaps the descriptions of the partial polls should still be moved to the polling subsection rather than where they currently are, however.
Neutral The reason for the lack of information on Farrell and Curry is a lack of coverage of them in media. I could not find any sources that would say much of anything more than the fact that they were candidates. If newspapers ran coverage of them, they certainly do not appear to have made (or at least kept) those articles available/findable online. I also have not been able to find archived campaign websites for either of them.
So perhaps we agree to scrap the good article nomination. We seem to have have hit a wall, and have now identified that the lack of ability to create more neutral coverage is an impediment that cannot be overcome immediately, therefore this article foreseeable achieve Good Article status.
However, I'd appreciate a solid. Would you mind recommending whether this should be elevated from its current C-class status to B-class? Also, if you have the time, please consider reviewing the nomination for 2019 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election (which, off the bat, I can tell you DOES have fair coverage of other candidates than just the winner, and therefore does not have any major impediment preventing it from ever being up to par) SecretName101 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: I'll do that for you.  I'll fail this one, but then pick up the 2019 election one, which looks much closer to GA status. Hog Farm (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Your opinion would be valued. I would curious as to what your opinion would be. I made a recent breakthrough, finding an article that provided strong coverage of nearly all the candidates running in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, so the focus of the article is no longer overwhelmingly Buttigieg-centric. I also was able to finally find Curry's campaign website. However, there is still the obstacle of finding any article that mentions anything about Farrell beyond the fact that he simply ran as a Libertarian.
Upon a quick glimpse, is there anything you see as strong red flags at the moment? Would you recommend for or against ultimately nominating this again for the Good Article process? SecretName101 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support a renomination.  The two major party sections are well-covered now, so the balance issue has been corrected.  If that's all there is for Farrell, that's all there is for Farrell (third parties don't generate much coverage).  I think with the underlying balanced coverage issue taken care of, it should be renominated. Hog Farm (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. SecretName101 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PoliceSheep99 (talk · contribs) 19:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@SecretName101: The article has come a long way since the last GA nomination 6 months ago and it certainly looks GA quality from a general scan. I'll try and get this done as soon as possible, whilst still being thorough. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


### Summary
Well Written

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience 
No issues here
spelling and grammar are correct 
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections 
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout 
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation 
Verifiable with no original research

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline 
all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines 
My only concern here is that the section on the Republican primary relies heavily on one source, the Benton Spirit Newspaper, however there is nothing that would be likely to be challanged and the source itself appears reliable. From looking at the last GA review, it seems necessary to ensure a balance of coverage of both the Democrats and Republicans as all the sources are very Buttigieg-heavy.
it contains no original research 
No issues here.
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism 
No issues here.
Broad in its coverage

it addresses the main aspects of the topic 
This has been achieved, as mentioned in the previous section.
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail 
No issues here.
Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 
Stable

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute 
No issues here.
Illustrated 

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content 
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions 
My only suggestion here would be to attempt to find images of the other candidates if possible, as the last review pointed out.