# Talk:1999 Baltimore mayoral election

The common narrative around this election is that O'Malley only won because the black vote was split between Stokes and Bell.  But look at the numbers: O'Malley got more than Stokes and Bell combined. Even if some single hypothetical black candidate had emerged and gotten the combined vote totals that Stokes and Bell got, O'Malley still would have won. --Jfruh (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the text to more clearly explain the important facts mentioned by Jfru above. Folklore1 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Baltimore mayoral election, 1999/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence should probably say who won. In fact, it seems highly odd that the lede never says who won!
The lead did say who won, but it was at the very end, so I agree it wasn't prominent enough. It's now in the first paragraph. Does that work? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Surely, somewhere in the article there should be a link to List of mayors of Baltimore (say, perhaps for "the 47th in the city's history"?)
I had linked to Mayor of Baltimore in the "Background section", and that's a redirect to the article in question. I took that link out and made the list of Baltimore mayors a "See also". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"as the prohibitive favorite" - I think "prohibitive" might be a bit much here. Just "as the favorite" would work
Okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Baltimore's large African American population made it seem likely that the next mayor would also be African American." - perhaps add "initially" somewhere in here, as O'Malley obviously isn't African American. Also, any way to cut one of those usages to avoid redundancy? Something like "that the next mayor would also be of that ethnicity"?
"Initially" added. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Baltimore was experiencing a high murder rate and a high unemployment rate." - I'd add "at the time", or "in 1999" somewhere around here. Otherwise it's an unusual way to start off a paragraph. And consider merging in the subsequent sentence about schools
Added "In 1999,..." to start the sentence. Merged school sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Baltimore experienced 300 murders a year" - as of 1999?
Yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"the second-biggest decrease during that time period in the United States" - what does this mean? Among big cities?
The source says "nationwide" – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"City officials considered raising the salary of the mayor, to make the position more enticing" - when?
April. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
" However, Mfume had signed a five-year contract with the NAACP in 1996. He considered running,[10] but ultimately decided that he committed to running the NAACP.[2] In May, Mfume opted not to run, remaining with the NAACP" - some redundancy here
Condensed – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you merge "O'Malley won the primary election with more than 50% of the vote." with -  "O'Malley received 30% of the African American vote."
Yes, done. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide some more info on the Republican primary? Like, when anyone announced? Who any of them were?
It's hard to, since they were all essentially no names, aside from Tufaro, who was not a politician. I'll try. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think some broader context would be useful. Perhaps change "The Wire" to "Aftermath"? Maybe mention when O'Malley was seated as mayor? When were the results certified? Were there really no third party candidates? I think it's worth mentioning that O'Malley won re-election in 2003, and later became governor.
I was wondering if O'Malley's political future belonged here or not. I can add some details. Oh, and there were no third party candidates. The BOE site shows the full results, and it was only the two. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is decent, but could use a bit of work. On hold for now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looking better already :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added a little more on the general election, added info on a debate that involved seven candidates (4 D and 3 R), and I'm trying to see if I can find more Tufaro/Adair specific content. Then I'll add more on O'Malley's mayoralty and gubernatorial election. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Aftermath and "The Wire" sections could be combined. The Wire section borders on trivia, but I do agree with it being included, so maybe just merge that bit? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I can put it all into one "Aftermath section". I do agree that the Carcetti/O'Malley parallels are noteworthy, as they have been brought up by members of the media. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Great, happy to pass then! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Baltimore mayoral election, 1999. 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:

Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/25/us/baltimore-leaders-sour-on-entire-mayoral-field.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20131113050328/http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/25/us/baltimore-leaders-sour-on-entire-mayoral-field.html on http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/25/us/baltimore-leaders-sour-on-entire-mayoral-field.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 21:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)