Talk:Sho Dozono

Potential conflict of interest

Recently, I made the following comment at User talk:Tintin77. It was deleted nine minutes later without a response or an edit summary:

Thank you for joining Wikipedia & welcome to the community. Some of the edits you made to the Sho Dozono article appear to have been made from a particular point of view. See WP:NPOV to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. If you have a conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. When removing large sections of cited and relevant information from a biography article, it is important to use edit summaries and the article talk page to communicate your actions. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith, and the pattern of edits suggests a new editor who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, the pattern of edits, and the fact that this article plays a role in an ongoing campaign, also suggests a potential conflict of interest. I would like this editor to feel welcome here, while still making clear that some of her/his actions are against Wikipedia's norms and codes of behavior. I am particular concerned about this edit, which I have since reverted. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting a subsequent edit made to the same section. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I, Tintin77, would like to apologize for what other editors perceived as poor form, since I am a new editor as was stated and am still getting used to the protocol. I was only responding to what I perceived as bias in some of the existing content, and made an unfortunate choice in the way I responded to that part of the content--I had intended to leave a comment explaining my action, but unfortunately saved the page before I did so. Like I said, I'm still getting used to this, and have been more diligent in my subsequent leaving of comments. I could as easily make the charge that those who had inserted the content in the first place were acting in a potential conflict of interest, but I too would like to think the best of people. I was also under the impression, apparently incorrect, that I had the freedom to delete any messages left for me, but I guess not if Big Brothers are watching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin77 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tintin77. And again welcome. You can sign your name by typing four tildes, ~~~~, after your comment. You do have the freedom to delete messages left for you, but it is generally better to leave them up or archive them. And yes, we're all always watching. That's the fun of it! I originally added much of the information you changed, and as I had never heard of Dozono before working on the article, I had no WP:COI. The most significant news coverage Dozono has generated to date has been the very long Oregonian and Willamette Week articles investigating his business dealings. The fact that you deleted this significant coverage in the this edit caught my eye. Most of your other edits seem to me to be reasonable and quite fair. We're always particularly vigilant about conflicts of interests during campaigns, as many campaign staffs attempt to edit Wikipedia articles. It is generally more appropriate for people who are affiliated with a campaign to express their concerns about any bias here on the talk page, and then other editors can implement it in the article. However, if you are not affiliated with the campaign and have no other WP:COI, feel free to continue editing the article itself. All best. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 03:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

I'm placing this article on hold, pending some suggested improvements. Below are my comments.

1. It is well written. Generally very good. A few things:

• "Recently, he was denied public financing, and additional scrutiny has been directed at his business dealings." - In my view, the word "recently" shouldn't appear in an encyclopaedia article. Also, the word "additional" has no reference point - additional beyond what?
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The word "additional" continues to lack a reference point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed it. I see your point now :) VanTucky 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• "...as well as establishing the Portland Schools Foundation, a private fundraising organization." - This reads ambiguously: did Dozono establish the Foundation, or did he organize a march in support of establishing it?
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "While initially Dozono had only expected..." - too many words. How about "Dozono initially expected..." or something similar?
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The word "while" is gone, but otherwise the initial wording remains. Do you object to my proposed wording? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Similar "Flight of Friendship" trips were organized..." - passive voice, with no active subject clearly implied. Did Dozono organize them? If so, say so. If not, this probably doesn't belong in the article.
  • I disagree, I think this is only phrasing to avoid repetition, and the passive voice isn't an automatically bad thing. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What repetition would there be of the wording changed to "He organized similar "Flight of Friendship trips..."? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Current mayor Tom Potter has endorsed Dozono's candidacy,[10] as well as the Multnomah County Republican Party." - This parses as "Tom Potter has endorsed...the Multomah County Republican Party". Suggested revised wording: "...as has the Multnomah County Republican Party."
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that "has" is no longer the appropriate word, given that the campaign is over, but I think "did" would be much better than "had". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "...suggested that Dozono was within a percentage point of Adams in supporters." - bulky and awkward. How about "...placed Dozono within a percentage point of Adams."?
  • I don't like that phrasing, because it suggest an automated telephone poll of only a minority of the population is infallible. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Disagree, but don't think the current wording is enough to scuttle the GA nomination. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "a judge reversed the Portland City Auditor's decision to award Dozono public financing following a lawsuit." - The way this currently reads is ambiguous, and appears as though the City Auditor's decision followed a lawsuit. I gather that it's the judge's reversal that actually followed the lawsuit, but this should be reworked.
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "...and he has stated that he will cap..." - too many words. Delete "he has".
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "The report stated that Dozono had occasionally mixed friendship with business, such as accepting loans from personal connections for his travel agency," - This doesn't work the way it is. The simplest fix I see is to insert the word "by", so it becomes "such as by accepting loans..."
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• "an incident which some sources have named as a contradiction to his claim to fiscal responsibility." - "named" is a peculiar verb choice. "Cited" might be a little better, but I'd suggest reworking that passage completely.
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Dozono is mentioned by name too many times. Convert some to pronouns or rework the sentences.
  • I've done my best on this, but it is his bio... VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Extremely minor quibble: Check currently goes to a redirect page.
  • Done. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass - no improvements needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Reasonably good. Some issues:

• There is no mention of the date of the election, which is important information.
  • VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No longer especially relevant, now that it's over. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• I would suggest a small amount of background information on Portland's public campaign finance system, unless there is another article that deals with this, in which case I would suggest that the wikilink currently pointing to clean elections be redirected there.
  • Clean elections explains how the Portland system works, that's what it's based on to my knowledge. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I like what wound up being done here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

4. It is neutral. Pass - no improvements needed.

5. It is stable. Seems to have settled. Pass.

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images. Good image, appropriately tagged and captioned. Pass.

This should become a GA with just a little more effort. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional issue

Now that the election has past, the lead's been rewritten, which is good. However, I think the second sentence ("Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams was the winner of the race, with Adams capturing more than 50% of the vote and Dozono with roughly 34%.") need rewriting. My suggestion would be "Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams won the election, capturing more than 50% of the vote. Dozono finished second with 34%." Right now, the sentence isn't grammatical, Adams' name is unecessarily repeated, and no mention is made of Dozono's placing (although it would be mathematically impossible for somebody to get 34% of the vote and finish worse than second).

My apologies for the time it took me to get back to this article. I promise to be much more prompt next time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The significant thing here is that because Adams cleared 50%, the winner was determined in the primary, and no runoff election was scheduled. Not sure about the best way to phrase it -- maybe more like "Dozono, who would have faced Adams again in November if neither candidate had cleared 50%, lost to him in the primary when Adams won 58% of the vote." -Pete (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the lead in this vein, using Pete's suggested wording. VanTucky 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, if you haven't noticed, I also left additional comments below some of your "done" marks above. I'm satisfied with Pete's wording here, however. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Election result and clean elections

As a purely technical matter, citing election results only to Multnomah County is not quite sufficient. Portland spills over (though in tiny portions) into Clackamas and Washington counties as well. (I guess citing a newspaper tomorrow, or the statewide results when they're certified in a month or so, would be the best thing.)

Also, regarding the public financing question in the GA review above: as a member of the Portland Citizen Campaign Commission, I can confirm that the clean elections article describes the general framework the Portland system is based upon, and is the only Wikipedia article I'm aware of that does so. Every system based on Clean Elections is a little different, but the general principles are the same. -Pete (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

How about beginning the "Campaign financing" section with a sentence like, "Portland has a clean elections system that provides X and X. Following a lawsuit, a judge reversed..." I agree with the good article review that the public financing piped link is not ideal.(WP:Piped link discourages easter eggs.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)