Talk:2013 Pittsburgh mayoral election

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Pittsburgh Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pittsburgh mayoral election, 2013/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I am having trouble understanding whether there is a pattern in the capitalisation of the 'm' in mayor (eg "both had run for mayor in prior elections" and "stated that he would run for Mayor"). See MOS:JOBTITLES for some guidance on this.
   • When referring to people you have recently mentioned, you can drop their first name and just use their last name (see WP:SURNAME)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A fair few dead links. See if some of these have been archived at [waybackmachine.org the Wayback Machine] or WebCite

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the election is well-discussed, there is no analysis of campaign issues or breakdown of results. I suspect this is because there is no coverage of this in reliable sources, but just thought I'd mention this in case you'd forgotten to look for it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • File:Josh Wander.jpg is from YouTube, I assume from [1], which is not listed as released under a Creative Commons licence. I have nominated this file for deletion, and removed it from the article.
   • I think it would be helpful to move the picture of Ravenstahl down into the Democratic primary section; it is a bit bunched up with the infobox and sidebar, and the caption is more relevant to this section as well.
7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A solid pass against the GA criteria. I have made a few suggestions for further improvement above. Well done! Adabow (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)