It's awfully hard to make any sort of decision if the data isn't made available, yes?
The article lists the four jurisdictions which had mandates: St. Louis, St. Louis County, Kansas City and Jackson County.
What more do you want?
It's fun to cherry-pick the literature:
"Our findings show that the Public Mask Mandate significantly lowers the incidence of developing all COVID-19 symptoms by 0.29 percentage points." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8379388/
"The mask mandate is consistently associated with lower infection and mortality rates in the short term. Early adoption of mask-wearing mandates is also consistently associated with lower COVID-19 infection rates in the long term, indicating the link between a government’s intervention speed and policy instrument efficacy." - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/puar.13426
If you look at the series the different in case rates started before the mandate, making me think it's more about behavior differences in cities vs rural areas than the mandate (makes sense).
I'm replying to the point that mask mandates do not imply proper mask usage, which is almost certainly correct. However the usage errors the general population will make with masks should show up in the overall case rates and be accounted for in the data and conclusions here.