The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during his mayoralty of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg faced controversy when he fired the city's first African-American police chief for wiretapping?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Hi @SecretName101: I saw this article listed on WP:GAN. I don't have capacity to pick up the review at this time, but I just wanted to leave a quick note and state that the lead section should be revised and expanded. It is currently too short. Per MOS:LEAD, a lead should provide an overview of all of the article's main points. Additionally, I note that there are citations currently present in the lead. This is likely acceptable under MOS:LEADCITE, but I question whether his nickname of "Mayor Pete" deserves mention in the lead section.
Many single-sentences eliminated. Some still exist for information that is important to incude, but for which multiple sentences seem excessive, and for which no related information makes sense/exists that can be merged to form a larger paragraph
Phrasing revised
A number of grammar and spelling errors resolved
Retitled the section titles that previously shared a name
A number of suggested edits undertaken
Some City of South Bend citations removed/substituted. Others remaining are supplemented by non-primary source citations, or are items for which the official source makes sense, such as line items on a municipal budget, numbers reported by the city (contextualized that they were reported numbers within the text), and what the advertised/stated goal of municipal projects were
@SecretName101: Thank you! I'm currently pre-occupied with another article, and I also am busy in real life with personal errands. However, I will be happy to pick up this review at the earliest opportunity, if another reviewer doesn't beat me to it. Edge3 (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: I have implemented a number of changes based off the feedback you have already suggested. A few concerns that I found with your feedback,
I disagree that the section on the "Vacant and Abandoned Properties Initiative" is puffery.
Describing it as a "signature program" is not puffery. It has been described as such by many media outlets, and indeed was a signature project of his first term. Much like one could say that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a signature legislation of Obama’s first term, without running into puffery concerns, one could call this a signature program of his first term without running into puffery.
Describing that it met its goals, and at a faster rate than promised, is not puffery.
"Established by his predecessor, Luecke, in 2009 to assess ways to reduce city's negative impact on the environment". You are wrong, I believe. No comma is needed after "2009". Without the part clarifying that his predecessor was Luecke, would the sentence not be written “established by his predecessor in 2009 to assess….” rather than "established by his predecessor, in 2009, to assess….”?
Also..
"A significant example was the former Bendix Corporation headquarters and factory, which the city sold to Curtis Products in 2014". This indeed was a significant example of a city-owned property which was sold off. Does not seem to be puffery. Nevertheless, I removed the word "significant" and just described it as "an example"
@SecretName101: Hi! I'm not the reviewer this time around. I think you meant to ping Bait30, which I've just done for you. I'm thrilled that another editor was able to step in! I've been super busy in real life, and this article is quite long and requires a lot of time to read, which is why I haven't picked up this review. Edge3 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
ALT3:... that a key initiative of the mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg saw Pete Buttigieg(pictured) set the goal of repairing or demolishing 1,000 blighted properties in the city in a period of 1,000 days?
Overall: New GA; I made a quite number of copyedits but the article is otherwise well sourced and neutrally written after the GA review. For any of the hooks, you should replace the main link with his mayoralty to reduce duplication. I like the original or Alt3 best, except remove "a period of" since we know 1,000 days is a period of time. Alt2 should be "came out as gay". Reywas92Talk00:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I think ALT3 is kind of boring. ALT0 is fine, though the caveat "... with a population over 100,000" makes it feel a little weak. ALT1 is also OK. My preference would be for a condensed version of ALT2. Perhaps one of these: › Morteetalk01:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: the review by Reywas92 ticked everying except for QPQ. Is this one of your first five nominations, or have you reviewed another nomination? Also, anything to add about which of the various ALTs you prefer? › Morteetalk22:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SecretName101 and Reywas92, I chose to promote hook 6, incorporating Reywas92's suggestion re: "his mayoralty" and changing "for firing" to "when he fired" to avoid having the word "for" twice in quick succession. If this change isn't okay, please ping me. MeegsC (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]