# Talk:Tishaura Jones

Just a comment, Jones' electoral history is probably just lengthy enough that it could warrant a split to its own article (i.e. Electoral history of Jason Kander and Electoral history of Kyrsten Sinema). It could also remain here until another election or 2. TJMSmith (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with splitting (though I'm kind of indifferent, TBH). If you think article size or readability is an issue, than I would definitely support. Kander is the more convincing argument to me, as he's another candidate in the same state who, like Jones, has taken on a higher profile than expected for the positions he has. Also, Jones currently has a longer electoral history than Kander. Seeing as the next election she'll be on the ballot for (STL mayor primary) is about two months away, and plausibly she'll be on the ballot again in April, I don't see the need to wait around for this change. Thanks for the comment. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@TJMSmith: I have created the page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I found a YouTube video of Tishaura Jones speaking in 2012, licensed under Creative Commons. I'm not sure how useful it is and, more importantly, how to upload part of a video, so I'm posting it here in case anyone is interested. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Content should be changed to reflect Jones' victory in the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election. Namely, change "Jones is a candidate in the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election, which she advanced to a runoff in against Cara Spencer on March 2, 2021." to "Jones will become mayor of St. Louis after winning the most votes in the 2021 St. Louis mayoral election, in which she beat out Cara Spencer in the polls. She will be the city's first African-American woman to serve in the position.", and change the "2021 St. Louis mayoral campaign" section accordingly. Goldenseek (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done, looks like this has been updated now. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tishaura Jones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) 19:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  Pass

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  Pass

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  Pass

B. All in-line 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:  Pass

C. It contains no original research:  Pass

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  Pass

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  Pass

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  Pass
Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
Overall, looks pretty good. I think the father being convicted is OK to mention, because a secondary source links it to a corruption scandal that Jones was involved in. I'd recommend the following changes to improve the article, if the GA author agrees: 1) Condense (or break into sub-sections) the "St. Louis Treasurer" section, which is a little long. 2) Reduce WP:PROSELINE in "St. Louis Treasurer" section, by removing some dates and focusing on summarizing important ideas. 3) Elaborate on this Craig Walker corruption allegation. In both spots where he is mentioned, it feels incomplete and I am left with questions. Was this a valid allegation? Did anybody do further investigation? What was the exact allegation? What exactly did Walker do that might be corruption? Thanks for submitting this to GA. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done first point, broke apart section "St. Louis Treasurer" into subsections. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done I have made some edits that I believe addresses the proseline in the "St. Louis Treasurer" section. However, given that this one is more subjective, more input would be appreciated if editors still find it to be insufficient. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done Added more content on Craig Walker, and pinging Novem Linguae now that these concerns have been addressed. To answer (briefly) some of your questions: Yes, the report was valid in that the treasurer's office did in fact do business with his company, but Jones and others argued that there was no wrongdoing and that the incident was blown out of proportion. No, there was no further investigation (it's hard to prove the lack of something, but I've looked pretty exhaustively here). There wasn't really an exact allegation in the report, which is noted by this editorial: "Importantly, there is no claim made or evidence provided in the Post report that Tishaura O. Jones mishandled public money in doing business with IFS Securities, a black-owned firm." Thank you both for taking on this review, and if you have any further questions or concerns do not hesitate to let me know. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
AllegedlyHuman, looks good to me. Thanks for being so open to feedback. Good luck with your review. Ping  CommanderWaterford. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  Pass
Will ask @Novem Linguae: for second opinion, I am little bit concerned about the size and the amount of details of her career, also regarding her fathers fraud etc. pp.
Please see above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  Pass

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Pass

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Pass

Overall:
Pass or Fail:  Pass

It seems to me this article needs a bit of restructuring.  The first paragraph provides the high-level stuff, but then there are four more paragraphs in the "lede", which seems to need a table of contents of its own.  The final paragraph of the lede describes her 2017 defeat, not her 2021 victory as mayor (over Lewis Reed, who pled guilty to bribery charges in August 2022).  I'm guessing that voters in Seattle are interested in this the way that Tishaura Jones became mayor, since Seattle is considering moving to a system similar to St. Louis's method.  What's the best way of making the fifth paragraph emphasize Jones' 2021 victory rather than her 2017 defeat, without splitting those paragraphs up and making the lede of this article even longer?  Should the subsections have lead sections of their own?  Is the article divided up into the correct number of sections?  Given that "Mayor of St. Louis" is her most significant achievement (by Wikipedia standards), shouldn't the bulk of the lede be about her current office? -- RobLa (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoegoffe (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Krodinehardy (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)