Talk:Daniel A. Gilbert/GA1

Spot check

Going to switch up my usual process and start with the spot check, just to see how that workflow feels. I've randomly generated a selection of a dozen as follows:

• 8a, c, and d: All looking good
• 8b: I would suggest noting that he actually sued to force it changed, not just "had it changed" - not an error, just for more clarity

Done in this edit

• 11: source says "MJ Mose", not "MJ Ross" - if the source is in error you may want to footnote this
• 14: Good
• 16: Good
• 18: Yes on the district number, although the source calls them "divisions" not "districts" - which is correct?

Sourcing differs on whether they are districts or divisions since they are interchangeable words. Changed to divisions in this edit

• 28: Good
• 40: Good
• 41: Good
• 54: Good
• 56: Good
• 60a and b: both good
• 62: Good
• 68: Good, although I might provide context for Daley and Keenan, otherwise it's a question of "new dudes who dis"

Spot checks looking good! No errors, just a few nitpicks. Will move on to prose shortly.

Prose

I generally review looking for places to streamline or clarify the text. I can be pretty nitpicky, but am generally open to discussing any comment or suggested change, and I will never fail you for anything that isn't strictly on the GAR.

• Opening sentence feels overly long, I'd split it at "1950"

Done in this edit

• Do we know when he married Elizabeth? When they had their child? It feels odd to stick these details in his early life in between being nicknamed Tubbo and joining the workforce at 11
• Suggest linking Teamsters, and also making clear the connection between Local 725 and the Teamsters, which isn't necessarily intuitive
• "exonerated for the shooting" you can trim "for the shooting", the reader should understand

Done in this edit

• Bit of context for Bliss? Even just "journalist" will do

Done in this edit

• Does Bliss say how he controlled the Teamsters? Considering this extends well into his police career, it strikes me as unusual that his involvement in union stuff is never expanded on or mentioned again in the article
• Per note in the spot check, suggest noting that he sued to have the birthday changed. Might also move this chronologically to when the suit happened , rather than sticking it in here out of order
• Do we know why Gilbert went back to his old job after only a few months in what was presumably a demotion?
• Context for John Factor, Roger Touhy, and John Dillinger? Dates for these events?
• Who is Frank Nitti and why is golfing with him an allegation? Why is this attached to a statement about him being a pallbearer for another guy in 1928?

Divided the two statements in this edit and added "organized crime figure" before Frank Nitti in this edit. You play golf with people that you either have a business connection to or are friends with.

• Generally I'm finding a tendency to introduce bluelink names as if the reader should know who they are and why they're important, which isn't necessarily true for all readers. Some context would be helpful, even when it's just one or two words
• "Newspapers referred to Gilbert as the world's richest police officer" - when? Through his career, afterward, beginning after a certain allegation...?
• The paragraph about his wealth could also use some expansion. It seems to heavily imply that Gilbert's wealth was suspicious without establishing it as such in the body. When, where, and why is he making all these claims about where he got his wealth, for example? To newspapers, to federal investigators, to his mom? It changes the tenor of his claims if it's him bragging to friends who told newspapers vs if he's crying about it at some federal inquest.
• "during Clinton Anderson's tenure" which was...when?
• "Gilbert claimed ..." why no currency conversion here when there's generally one elsewhere?
• Indicted by whom? The feds, presumably?
• Do we know why Woodward dismissed the charges?
• "Dalpe was" is probably better rendered as "Dalpe had been", because it's the past relative to the lawsuit.

Done in this edit

• Do we know why the SC reversed Dalpe's conviction?
• Do we know why Lucas and Douglas opposed? Presumably because he was unbeliveably sketchy, but let's say it and not force the reader to infer
• Have linked Political machine at "the Cook County machine" for anyone unfamiliar with the concept

I might have added it in an edit, but forgot which one. It is currently linked.

• What does Gilbert's hay fever have to do with his sheriff nomination and the various machinations surrounding it?

He was not able to campaign for office as he was on the opposite side of the country due to his hay fever. This is a rather important thing.

• The Sun-Times endorsement of Babb feels out of place considering we haven't mentioned the Republican nomination of him yet

Moved this section to be after Babb gaining the nomination in this edit

• "During Gilbert's testimony at Estes Kefauver's committee in 1950" what committee? Who is Kefauver? Why is Gilbert testifying at this committee?
• "The two candidates" which two? Gilbert and Babb, or Gilbert and Lucas?
• Rudolph Halley new guy, who dis?
• Presumably Brennan worked for the Sun-Times? Can we be clearer about this?
• The paragraph starting with July 1941 is super jarring and feels lacking. Where did this sheet come from? Giving the paragraph a summary sentence to start might help, something like "Gilbert's political opponents attacked him for his perceived/alleged/whatever corruption and incompetence." and then you can get into the substance.
• With respect, the entire "1950 sheriff election" section feels very disorganized. We go from nomination (in one sentence) and opposition to hay fever in one paragraph. Then we're off to endorsements except we haven't established the opponent that his paper is endorsing. Then the opponent is introduced, but we're on to debates. Suddenly he's testifying at some commission. Did this happen mid-election? Who knows? The date of the election is never mentioned. Then we're on to his opponents attacking him. Then...the election is over? The fact of his defeat is never mentioned, we simply surprise the reader with it in a paragraph that discusses how it caused everybody else to lose too.
• "Gilbert's defeat was alleged" - by whom?
• What are "straight ballot tickets"?
• What is the Sanitary District? Why does it matter?
• It might be helpful to establish that Arlington Park is a racetrack
• Did Maurice lose the job to give it to Daniel or what?
• Who is Daley. Who is Keenan. Why does it matter that they attended his funeral.

Generally, the impression that I get from reading this article is that you know a lot about the milieu around Gilbert, and you are writing under the assumption that the reader will as well. Unfortunately, it is a really frustrating read if you don't have that deep background. There are a ton of places where I've had to stop to click on some other article to figure out why so-and-so matters. You don't have to go deep into the backstory of every tree branch, but you do need to feed me enough that I can understand the article without having to go elsewhere. This is a serious GA1a issue, in my opinion.

I also have some concerns with broadness. The article makes him out to be deeply sketchy, heavily implying corruption and mob connections, but never firmly establishes this. The union stuff never comes back into play. Perhaps this is a sourcing issue, but it feels like there should be more meat here.

Images

• Although the funeral image is more interesting than the district map, strictly speaking, the order should be swapped, as Brennan isn't mentioned until well after the district thing is, and it's a bit confusing trying to figure out his relevance (see MOS:SECTIONLOC)
• The image of Al Smith is weirdly placed in terms of the article's internal timeline (takes place earliest but placed last), and since Smith isn't mentioned in the body, it's confusing to the reader. Who is this guy and why is he being escorted?
• If possible, I'd identify Gilbert in these photos - "third from left" or whatever is perfectly acceptable
• No licensing concerns
  • Mostly legitimately PD-old with two exceptions.
  • The map is own-work from a PD-no-notice source (although I might suggest making that more explicit on the description page, which currently contradicts itself by saying the source is "own work" but linking a newspaper)
  • The Arvey image is also validly PD-no-notice

Conclusion

With apologies, Jon698, it feels like this article will need a great deal of work to meet the GA criteria. However, if you're game to make changes , I'm willing to see it through, especially since this sat in the queue for so long. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos I will start work on this around the end of the week. I am going to complete another one of my GA noms and finish a GA review. Jon698 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to briefly divert from this nomination in order to do Talk:Bradley Smalley/GA1 and Talk:Peter Brownell/GA1, which are far shorter. You made a lot of great comments and I can't wait to improve the article with them. Jon698 (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I am rather busy at the moment and you are correct that there is a lot of work needed to reach GA status. You can fail the review at the moment. I will use this in the future to improve the article before nominating it for GA again. Jon698 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jon, sorry to have been late in replying here. Per your wishes I will mark this as a fail. I do hope you come back to it when you have the chance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)