Talk:Jan Reimer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
|
 |
Jan Reimer was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: May 29, 2008 |
Somebody with an encyclopedic talent needs to add something about the beaver pelt incident, and possibly about her role in the Keillor Road scandal.
[edit] Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
- Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
- If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
- Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good article review
- Well Written: Fail. In general solid prose but the lead section is weak - the sentence on the sports team does not make sense and the rest does not read that well. Could be expanded to a couple of paragraphs to give a better overview of what is to come in the rest of the article. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)). You could explain what an alderman is, briefly, for those outside Canada. There are also numerous other sentences that don't really make sense on their own. E.g: "Reimer attempted to make use of the council's Executive Committee to advance her agenda, but was criticized for this by alderman and former ally Patricia MacKenzie." HOW did she make use of this committee to this end and WHY was she criticised?
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass. Good referencing. See 4, however.
- Broad in coverage: Pass.
- Neutrality: Fail. As noted above, the referencing is good but several sections seem to be putting a subtle but persistently positive spin on everything Reimer does. The main criticism of her by Terry Cavanagh is couched in such a way as to make it look like political point scoring (it may well be, but the point remains this is the only substantive criticism of her). This article needs the language moderated in sections and perhaps more of a critique of her performance in each of her roles. The mayoral section in particular seems to read "she tried to do [X] but was prevented by [the nefarious behaviour of opposition politicians]". One of the most interesting possible sections - why she lost in 1995 - merits less than one sentence.
- Stability: Pass
- Illustrated by images: Pass. Ideally, however this would have a picture for Reimer. Perhaps some other free image relevant to the topic?
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. TreveXtalk 22:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
