Talk:Peter Brownell

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Brownell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this. — An anonymous username, not my real name 23:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   0.0% on Earwig — wow! Spot-checked refs 13/14, 16/17a, 23/24, 35, 42, 48, 49/50, and 54. I have a few small comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image appears good for copyright purposes.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, just a few minor concerns down below. Shouldn't take long to address. A well-sourced and accurate article overall.

Prose comments:

• Should be consistency in terms of whether the serial comma is used or not. It is currently varied.

Can you provide me some examples of the serial comma not being used? I cannot find any instances.

• Former Republican Mayor Robert K. Bing was happy with Brownell's victory while United States Representative Bernie Sanders, who served as mayor from 1981 to 1989, stated that he was disappointed by Clavelle's defeat. I really don't feel like this sentence does much overall. A Republican was happy and an independent was unhappy. Either flesh this out to something more vivid or just remove.

Removed in this edit

• Brownell victory in the 1993 election is the most recent time the Republicans have won election as mayor of Burlington. Grammatically a little off but more importantly, include {{As of|2018}}.

Done in this edit

• During the campaign Clavelle had raised $41,020 and spent $40,644, Brownell raised $22,263 and spent $16,527, and Paul Lafayette raised $16,152 and spent $16,040. I almost boldly changed the wording here myself but I wasn't sure what exactly you were going for. I don't think this needs to be in present perfect rather than past tense, but if you want to keep it in this grammatical tense, you probably needs more 'had's. As a sidenote, searching the text for 'had' reveals multiple instances where the word could probably be removed without changing the meaning to make the sentence clearer.

Done in this edit

• However, the city council later voted seven to five, with Brownell in favor, in favor of a resolution, which was sponsored by Brownell, praising President Bush and gave support to the United States's soldiers in Saudi Arabia. This is a run-on sentence. Also, having 'favor' twice like that seems awkward ('support' would work).

Made some changes to the sentence structure of that paragraph in this edit

• MOS:NUMNOTES specifically for voting tallies.

What edit are you asking for specifically?

• Just going to drop this here even though it's technically about references and not prose, but there is a rather obscure guideline (WP:CITESTYLE) that states that the use of sentence versus title case for newspaper articles should be internally consistent, not however the sources choose to capitalize. This is probably too minor to be necessary for GA and I won't demand this be done for the article to be passed, but many are not familiar with this guideline in the first place so I thought it couldn't hurt to raise awareness.

Source comments:

• Ref 13 has a little more to say about what he did while on the board. Probably wouldn't hurt to add.

I don't see anything major that could be added from this

• Ref 16 has some interesting information about his desire to bring his mathematical skills into politics. Could be worth a mention.

It would be interesting if there was more to his mathematical skills, but that is pretty much the only time he mentions it. As it stands now that is just generic political speak.

• Weird and minor, but can you tell if ref 42 actually says 25 acres? I'm seeing 26, although the scanned image is rather grainy. Compare to other figures on the page that are more clearly 5.

I checked the reference and it does say 25 acres

• Ref 50 indicates one of the Democrats would have sided with him on the issue but was absent. Could be worth a mention.

Done in this edit

— An anonymous username, not my real name 03:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review @An anonymous username, not my real name: I will be answering your comments after I finished two other GA noms that were started before this. Jon698 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name: I have responded to all of your points above. Jon698 (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698:, strangely enough, I didn't see any missing serial commas when I scanned through the article again. For NUMNOTES, Sport scores and vote tallies should be given as numerical figures (a 25–7 victory; passed with 7 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 abstention, though passed with 7 ayes, 2 nays, and no abstentions would be acceptable, instead of ... 0 abstentions). I see voting tallies in this article like seven to six, twelve to two, etc. That's really all that's left. — An anonymous username, not my real name 03:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name done. Jon698 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I caught one more, but I would say it's done now. Congratulations! — An anonymous username, not my real name 03:34, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Peter Brownell is the most recent Republican to serve as mayor of Burlington, Vermont?

• Source: "The Elephant in the Room: Are Burlington Republicans a Dying Breed?". Seven Days. February 7, 2018.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Olympic medalists for Liechtenstein Template:Did you know nominations/Antigoneia (Syria)

Improved to Good Article status by Jon698 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 115 past nominations.

Jon698 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: To start with, this nomination has an issue in that it states that the article was created on February 27, but in actuality it was elevated to GA status on that day. This should be changed. Concerning the article, it is long enough, neutral, well-sourced, and was elevated to GA status recently enough. The hook is cited, though I find it a tad bland. Perhaps adding when Brownell was elected would make it more interesting? Also, QPQ has not yet been satisfied, as two reviews are needed. Please ping me when these issues have been addressed and I will continue with this review. JJonahJackalope (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@JJonahJackalope: I corrected the nomination to be from its GA status rather than recent creation.

@Jon698: Given that two QPQs are required and only one has been provided, this may be closed within 24 hours as an incomplete nomination unless a second QPQ is provided.

@JJonahJackalope: How about this?:

ALT1 ... that Peter Brownell, the most recent Republican mayor of Burlington, Vermont, lost renomination to the Vermont State Senate over his support for same-sex civil unions?

It is mentioned in the lede, but the body does not directly state that his views cost him his seat, rather that he was targeted by a pastor over his views. If we go with ALT1 (or a reword of it, I think the actual wording could still be worked on), that has to be addressed first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification @Narutolovehinata5:. I forgot about this DYK due to work in real life and some Wikipedia discussions. I have added the second QPQ. I like the hook that you proposed. Pinging @JJonahJackalope: as well. Jon698 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: I have updated the review template to reflect some of the changes that have been made. If we are to proceed with ALT1 (or some variation), I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that some changes to the article would need to be made and that proper sourcing would need to be provided. Please reach back out to me when you are ready to continue this review. Also, courtesy ping for @Narutolovehinata5:. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@JJonahJackalope: I removed it from the lede in this edit. Jon698 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: have you provided sources for the claims made in ALT1? -JJonahJackalope (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Reference [63] sources this. Jon698 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The source provided provides a correlation between Brownell's support for civil unions and his defeat in the election, but not an explicit causation. This is also how the information is presented in the article, which states that Brownell was targeted Stertzbach and lost his election, but not that Stertzbach's targeting is what caused him to lose the election. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not see how that conflicts with reference [63] sourcing it. Jon698 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It poses an issue because ALT1 indicates causation, which is not fully supported by reference [63]. Reference [63] says that he was targeted over his support for civil unions, but does not state that that is why he lost his nomination, at least per my reading of the source. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jon698: Just wanted to ping you regarding this. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

How about this as a new hook @JJonahJackalope: using source 31 and 32 ALT2 "... that Peter Brownell won the 1993 Burlington, Vermont mayoral election despite having less money and volunteers than his opponent?" Jon698 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Citations are used in the article and confirm the information presented here. DYK status has been updated to approved for this ALT. Also, fixed a spelling error in that section of the article ("Brownll" to "Brownell"). -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry but ALT0 and ALT1 are not interesting and I don't see any approval for ALT2. I'm removing this from the approved list. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Curtest ping @Jon698 and JJonahJackalope:. TarnishedPath^talk 12:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Apologies if there was some sort of formatting error on my part, but I approved ALT2 for DYK. Let me know if there is a way I can update this submission to properly indicate that. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)