Talk:Kim Janey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a review posted for this within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, the review is posted below. The sourcing and coverage are good, but there are some prose and structural issues to be addressed before this can be considered a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101 Checking in since it's been a week. I see a lot of progress has been made. Any thoughts or concerns about where the article is at now, or about what's still to be done? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien I think I should be ready for re-review by the mid-week.

A few comments I have in response to the review was:

Just to clarify/note: reason that there are multiple images of Janey with the same politicians is because nearly all Commons images of her were ones that I was able to find by scouring through the official accounts (Twitter, Flickr, etc.) of officials for whom works by their offices would be inherently public domain. There are only so many of those individuals that crossed paths with Janey at official events at shared photographs with her on their official social media (both of Boston's U.S. House members, Mass.'s two U.S. senators, as well as governor Baker). Though, as you said, this is not really much a problem.
I’ve improved the margin of pronouns to Janey’s name. Though I will note, your search for the term “she” was misguided. It forgot that “she/she’s” is not the only gender-specific pronoun that applies to Janey. There’s also “her/her’s”. So the balance was not quite as skewed as you thought. Still making changes related to that nevertheless.
For the would expand significantly to $40,000 passage, the Daily Herald did not indicate the original amount it was increased from. Just that it was significantly increased. I might try to find if another source did report on it with that info though.

SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, any update on the article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien Plans to give it attention last week went south, but I assure you that I do intend to give it attention in the coming few days (as early as the next 24 hours, if time works in my favor). SecretName101 (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, there hasn't been much progress on this article. Can we expect this article to reach GA status in the short term? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, intend to make some progress soon SecretName101 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101, I don't want to be the bad guy and fail this review if it's possible for it to get GA in the next few days. But the review has been open for over a month now, and it still looks like significant work is needed before this article meets the GA criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which work needs to be focused on? SecretName101 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked to see which specific notes have been addressed, but at a glance I see a lot of individual ideas that need to be pulled together into cohesive paragraphs that flow together. I'm hopeful because this is usually something that can be done relatively quickly. The "COVID-19 pandemic in Boston" is a good example of this issue. Similarly, the sections should have some form of flow as well, particularly under the acting mayoralty section, as I described below. Right now the article has a lot of good information, but the structure doesn't lend itself to presenting that information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this review as unsuccessful. It has been open for about seven weeks, and there are still issues with the article that prevent it from meeting the GA criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

General notes:

In the prose, "Janey" appears 172 times while "she" appears 63 times. I suggest replacing a good portion of those "Janey"s with "she"s. I'd expect the ratio to be the opposite, if anything.
MOS:PARA says that one-line paragraphs should be avoided.
"Claim" is used a few times, which should be replaced as a word to watch

Lead:

The lead is a bit on the longer side. It just needs to be a brief summary of her career, it doesn't need to list every policy or initiative she supported.
politician and organizer – Do the sources describe her as an "organizer" without any other descriptors or qualifiers? The next paragraph says "community organizer", which is a more helpful descriptor.

Early life and education

I know a lot of editors don't share this opinion, but I've never liked going into too much detail about ancestry if it's not important to what the person is notable for. The Underground Railroad bit is a good example of ancestry info I'd rather leave in.
She "has had family in the city of Boston for six generations". – I can't place why, but this feels slightly promotional.
I'd avoid the term inner city as it can be a WP:EUPHAMISM
Janey's father ejected her from his home – Do any sources say why?
Janey suffered from housing insecurity – "suffered from" isn't ideal, and the sentence doesn't provide any other context. Was this immediately after graduation?
Two uses of "in order to" in this section where "to" would work.

Career as a community organizer:

I wonder if just "Community organizer" would be a better heading.
for Parents United for Child Care and the Massachusetts Advocates for Children – What are these organizations?
eliminating the opportunity and achievement gaps – What does this mean in this context? What did she actually do?
she was given the position of senior project director – Avoid italicizing for emphasis. In this case, it can be read as sarcasm. Also, what was the significance of this position?

Boston City Council:

This section feels slightly out of order. She was just a member of Chang's transition team, and now we're immediately breaking down her role in city council. I suggest moving the election information out of first term and putting it at the top of this section. Even better if there's information about why she ran or what she was doing during the campaign.
Janes was regarded as a progressive member – I'm assuming this is supposed to say Janey?
replacing the current system of mayoral appointment – "Current" here suggests the present day rather than during her time as a councilwoman

First term:

with 25% of the votes – It should be "25% of the vote" or "25% of the votes cast". Don't ask me why this is common usage, I don't know.
55.5 percent – All other instances use "%".
made the city the, "first US city – Would be cleaner if it said "made Boston"

Second term and council presidency:

it attracted attention that – Can this be reworded?

Acting mayor of Boston:

This section seems to be in almost a random order. It starts off well with her taking the role, but then it goes to the end of her mayoralty in November, then to announcing her 2021 campaign in April, then to procedural issues, then to her legacy, and then to post-mayoralty. Then in the first subsection, we jump back to the days leading up to her mayoralty, then there are a bunch of subsections sorted by topic, then there's an unsorted "other matters" section, then we go back to her 2021 campaign, then we go to the final days of her mayoralty.

This section should have some sense of chronology. It can still have different aspects sorted by topic, or it can be condensed into an overall chronological summary similar to the "Early life and education" section. One option would be to pull the policy topics into their own section and have each subsection cover her positions and initiatives on the given topic throughout her career. The most important thing is that all of the information flows in a way that's easy to follow and read.

The individual topics suffer from WP:PROSELINE. Rather than lists of sequential events, these should be prose summaries.

any mayoral-style role – This looks like the article trying to find as many ways as it can to say "mayor or also acting mayor". Just "a mayoral role" would be better if no simpler wording is possible.

Transition into the role:

Two sentences in a row start with "By [date]" and two in a row end with "the role of acting mayor".
She and Walsh regularly talked – Without further context, this doesn't really say anything
she attended the twice weekly meetings of Walsh – Reword

COVID-19 pandemic in Boston:

Janey controversially compared – It would be better to describe what happened and what the controversy was rather than just describing it as controversial.
which would remain in effect indefinitely until the executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission rescinds it – "indefinitely" is redundant
It bans landlords and homeowners – present tense
Janey refused to implement – "refused" is strong language that could probably be replaced with a simpler description
Janey's platform called for an "equitable" recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic – Even though it's a quote, this could be read as scare quotes to express doubt or contempt regarding the idea of equity.

Homelessness:

This section goes into thread mode where it reads like a back and forth between people arguing.
Is there any more context for the comfort station closure?
Is the bit about ferries relevant? It seems like nothing came of it and it didn't receive significant coverage.
Two sentences in a row start with "however". Sentences almost never need to start with "however".
"Have" and "has" show up several times, making it sound like this is still ongoing. A look at the history shows that it actually was added while it was ongoing. This can cause problems not only because of tense issues like this but because the use of primary sources as they come out makes it impossible to determine weight. It looks like the same thing happened with the ferries, where it seemed relevant at the time even though it ultimately wasn't.
"in the area" is used twice in the same sentence

Environment:

which had been years in the works – This makes it sound like the article is critical or skeptical of the decision.

Policing:

to be head of the city's new Office of Police Accountability and Transparency – New as in created within the previous few years, or new as in created by Janey in that action?
White took legal action, challenging Janey's authority as acting mayor to fire him – Is there more information on this? Litigation against her while she was acting mayor seems like something that could be covered in more detail.
This marked a reduction from the previous year's budget. – Do we know what the previous year's budget was?
"budget" appears five times across three sentences.
aspects of it related to policing did receive vocal criticism – Can this be elaborated upon?

Transit:

Janey advocated that she wanted – advocated or said that she wanted
Two sentences in a row end in be made fare-free
laid a groundwork – Should be "laid the groundwork", but this is idiomatic and can be replaced anyway

Other matters:

would expand significantly to $40,000 – Do we know the previous amount?
state prevailing wages – This could be defined
In June, two female Latina American – "female Latina" is redundant. I suggest either removing female or switching it to Hispanic.
These changes provide – They were not in effect when the referendum was proposed. Maybe "would provide"
with more powering the creation – Is this supposed to be "with more power in"
a city commission on Black men and boys – Maybe clarify what this is
signed into law an that amended – dropped word
to those welcoming a new family member – It's unclear what this means, but it sounds euphemistic

Mayoral campaign:

to make the general election – Reword with slightly more formal language
was noted for playing-up her acting incumbency – Four issues: "noted" implies the article is agreeing, it doesn't say who noted this, "playing-up" could be interpreted as loaded language, and "acting incumbency" is used twice in this sentence
district city councilor & as at-large city councilors – Avoid italicization for emphasis
Three sentences in a row end in "rent control".
called for an "equitable" recovery – Even if it's a quote, this looks like scarequotes that are casting doubt on the idea of equity.
Transition to Michelle Wu's mayoralty probably doesn't need its own heading. MOS:PARA discourages headings for a single short paragraph, and it fits in with the mayoral campaign info.

CEO of EMPath:

It's unclear whether EMPath is a public or private organization
EMPath is an "economic mobility organization" with a staff of 120 people. It operates one of Massachusetts' largest family emergency shelters. – This reads like an advertisement
In December 2022, EMPath launched AMP Up Boston – The actions of EMPath itself aren't really relevant. This should focus specifically on Janey's direct role in any initiatives.
The program has had the support of Mayor Wu – This could say that Wu gave support to it so it's in past tense
It could be made clearer what the Boston Foundation is
with working with – Reword
In what capacity did she serve as a teaching fellow?

Personal life:

I'd suggest deleting this section. Being a specific race isn't usually something that's noted for its own sake; it's notable because she was the first African American (acting) mayor of Boston, which is described higher up. Roxbury and her daughter are also mentioned higher up. That she leaves info about her daughter's life, which is a bit out of scope.

Awards:

This could be divided up into the article chronologically, but if not then it's also acceptable as its own section. Alternatively, this section could be broadened, and the paragraph about "100 Most Influential Bostonians" could be moved down here.

Verifiable with no original research

This is to be expected to a certain extent because everything she's notable for is from the last few years, but this article has a lot of primary sources, which especially require close attention since this is a BLP. The best sources would be retrospective summaries/analyses of her acting mayoralty, which have presumably seen at least some publication at this point.
Boston Political Review is written by students, so it might not be reliable, especially for a BLP.
Northendwaterfront.com says that it does not have an editorial staff on its about page, so it's probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.
There's no consensus as to the reliability of Ballotpedia. It doesn't have to be replaced or removed, but it might not be necessary if the Boston.com source it's paired with covers everything.
Likewise, MSN doesn't need to be swapped out, but as a news aggregator, it's not an ideal source (also two of the three MSN links are dead).
The New Boston Post seems to be an expressly partisan outlet. This doesn't necessarily make it unreliable, but given that it's used to describe a policy she supported, I'd prefer a more neutral source.
What makes Global Live Media a reliable source?
The lead says her name is Kim Michelle Janey, but the source in the body only supports Kim M. Janey.
It's sourced in the body, but since it's in a footnote, it wouldn't hurt to add a citation for O'Malley's position in the lead.

Spot checks:

[3] WBUR-FM (2020) – Good.
[12] GBH News (2021) – Good, though the source goes into a little more detail about the community response to the desegregation plan that might be relevant (namely the racism the students experienced).
[33] Adams (2019) – Good.
[65] Hager (2021) – Good.
[114] Boston.gob (2021) – Good, though the source has more info that could provide context about what this was.
[139] Van Buskirk (2022) – Where does this source say that The organization had previously been supportive of Janey during her political career? I'm wondering if "support" was misread here, as she received support from the organization while she was pregnant.

Broad in its coverage

The article covers her life up to the present.

Neutral

A few wording issues, but they're covered above under criterion one. No other issues.

Stable

No recent disputes. No major updates are expected that would require significant changes to the article.

Illustrated

Most images are public domain, the remaining few are Creative Commons. All images have relevant captions. This isn't relevant to GA, but I do notice that there are three images of her with Charlie Baker, two with Ayanna Pressley, and two with Elizabeth Warren. It makes sense that she's in lots of pictures with them given they're all prominent Massachusetts politicians, but it wouldn't hurt to swap a few out if there are other options.