Talk:1927 Chicago mayoral election
 | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
| 1927 Chicago mayoral election is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 4, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
rating request
Article is too short for anything but start class IMO. I can't tell if there was a primary and who the major newspapers endorsed, which are both fairly basic mayoral election topics.-
Voter turnout statistics
Are the voter turnout statistics correct? They seem rather suspicious.SecretName101 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I obtained them from the canvassing sheet microfiches that they have available at the Harold Washington Library. I too had disbelief in them, but I can upload some images if we are so inclined. -John M Wolfson (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson:, is it possible it was referring to something else? Canvassing response-rate perhaps (perhaps the remaining percentages were those who were contacted but declined to answer canvassers)?? Still would be high though. Or perhaps it was the percentage of those that voted in the municipal elections who voted in the mayoral race (the remaining percentage being those who left the mayoral race blank on their ballot)?? SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- The verbatim header for the relevant columns (Men, Women, and Total) is "Total Names on Poll Book". I agree the turnout percentage is quite high, but I'm not sure what else that could mean. EDIT: It could mean the total number of votes cast, but then the numbers don't quite add up in that respect either. I guess that it's the total number of votes cast, including spoiled ones. –John M Wolfson (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson:, is it possible it was referring to something else? Canvassing response-rate perhaps (perhaps the remaining percentages were those who were contacted but declined to answer canvassers)?? Still would be high though. Or perhaps it was the percentage of those that voted in the municipal elections who voted in the mayoral race (the remaining percentage being those who left the mayoral race blank on their ballot)?? SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1927 Chicago mayoral election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I started with the image review (big surprise if you know what kind of work I do here) and found rather a lot of problems with
This doesn't block promotion as I have removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement. The other two candidate photos are... very mediocre, but this isn't FPC.
So, criteria
- 1. Well written
- the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
Yes, it's quite well-writen and clear. Nice work.
- 2. Verifiable with no original research
As far as I can tell, yes.
- 3. Broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
Yes, though the section "Republican primary" feels rushed, without even a mention of Thompson. I'm sure that the idea was that he was already covered, but... seems like a brief comment should be made on him there.
- 4Neutral
I think so. All the main candidates are covered neutrally.
- 5 Stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Standard heavy editing you see before a GA run, but nothing that constitutes a dispute.
- 6 Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
The problem above beside, yes. The images made for this article are very good, by the way, it's only the historical ones that have any issues.
I'd say this is a clear. ✓ Pass. Minor issues acceptable at GA.
Ward table is off
@SecretName101:, I added up Thompson's wards and found a surplus of two votes relative to the accepted total. Could you please recheck your source Ward by Ward and try to correct the discrepancy? I'm doing mine but the numbers are handwritten and I couldn't resolve it. Dever's numbers are fine, and I haven't checked Robertson's yet. -John M Wolfson (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Are you sure it's a surplus rather than a deficit? Because (and I'm only up to the lower half-dozen of wards right now) but I found two missing votes in the ward counts already. The 46th ward. 9,513 is wrong. Should be 9,515. 06:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you meant deficit, because that was the only error I could spot having combed entirely through the Thompson column. SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I did, has it been fixed yet? If so, thank you so much. -John M Wolfson (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you meant deficit, because that was the only error I could spot having combed entirely through the Thompson column. SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Are you sure it's a surplus rather than a deficit? Because (and I'm only up to the lower half-dozen of wards right now) but I found two missing votes in the ward counts already. The 46th ward. 9,513 is wrong. Should be 9,515. 06:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Palm card?
In having close knowledge of a topic area, it often happens that one doesn't notice people have no clue what you're talking about. At least, the terminology is opaque. It turns out that Wikipedia (and thus me) has no idea what a
Nor can I find at
- Bukowski simply refers to them as "palm cards" without further explanation. Probably something like this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References section
I changed "Bibliography" to "Works cited" in the References section. The article is not a biography but does have links to many.
"Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"), so any confusion is avoided by using "Bibliography" in the appropriate section and using different wording under "References". It is a small maintenance change that should not cause any conflicts since it has valid reasoning. Otr500 (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with the reasoning or think that any confusion would be generated, but nor do I care about the change. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)