Talk:Toni Preckwinkle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toni Preckwinkle is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 19:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a former Chicago Collaboration of the Week. Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. This week's Chicago COTW is List of Chicago Landmarks update. Please help us improve it to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
Good article Toni Preckwinkle was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on October 15, 2007.

Contents

[edit] Sources

Here are some sources I've found, use them as you see fit: Speciate 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Articles mentioned in DRV:

[edit] Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I'm sorry, but this article is just not up to standards yet. The "Early Life" section must be expanded, the lead must be expanded, and there is no image in the infobox. The article is way too short, and even though there are tons of citations, there is not much information to her. — ObentoMusubi - Contributions 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article was obviously written by a Preckwinkle supporter

VERY point of view. Allthewhile (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)