A fact from Constance Dallas appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
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 Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
I think we might need a sentence explaining the electoral system here; most folks will be unfamiliar with a group of candidates running for more than one seat.
The quotes opening and closing the first paragraph seem to be at odds with each other. I'd rather they were collected at the beginning of the paragraph.
"Dallas became involved in politics in the late 1940s. "My life in the outside world began after I was 40," she said in a 1979 interview" is at the beginning, and "She later said that she was not interested in politics at the time, and only ran when mayoral candidate Richardson Dilworth assured her that she would not win." is at the end of the paragraph. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't read so well. I'd suggest merging those sentences that I have highlighted, saying something like "Dallas became involved in politics in the 1940s. "My life in the outside world began after I was 40," she said in a 1979 interview". However, she wrote in 1979 that she was not very interested in politics at the time; though she ran for city council in 1947 she only did so when Dilworth assured her she would lose." And then go on to say "She was asked to run by..." etc. Does that make sense?
Thanks, but I think the second instance now needs a tweak to make sense: "She was the first...which brought challenges.." or something like that.
" organization Democrats with reform-minded independents" This is also an issue elsewhere, but let's discuss it here. To a person with no knowledge of Philadelphia politics, or the history of the democratic party, "organization" and "reform" mean nothing in this context. What did the organizationists stand for? What did the reformists want to change?
"By 1954, however, Democrat James Hugh Joseph Tate and others in Council attempted to weaken the civil service reforms of the new charter by allowing city employees to be active in party politics." slightly confused by this. I thought the charter was passed before the election? In which case, what does it have to do with conflict between the two factions of the winning coalition?
I'd much prefer "United States politician" to "American politician". I know it's conventional, but this is one of many instances where convention undermines our effort at being an encyclopedia with a global perspective.
Since Americans identify themselves as "American", I think that's the best way to do it and it's consistent with other articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, given that "American" is used in several other contexts as well; and given the common use of "North American" and "South American", this is a problematic convention. It is particularly evident when writing about Latin America as I do, and a lot of the ideologues there will use "America" to stand for what we call Latin America. I cannot compel you, though.
As I've mentioned above, "reform" without further context is a bit of a weasel word. What reform?
Since the reform in question seems to be quite straightforward: shifting power from a council to a mayor: I think you could afford to mention it in the lede.
I'm a little uncertain about the Brandt source; the publisher looks rather dodgy. Do you have prior experience with it?
I looked into it before using it, too. The author was a managing editor at Newsday, a major American newspaper, and the book was well-received by legitimate book review outfits, like Kirkus. That was good enough for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do the newspaper.com links need "subscription required" tags ?
This seems a generally well written and well sourced article. I mostly have just minor prose quibbles, which should be sorted out easily enough. Vanamonde (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a short article, I just want to confirm that you've added all the readily available content.
.jpg){kind=small}
