Talk:Grand Central Station (Chicago)/GA1

Grand Central Station (Chicago) GA Reassessment

Notified: WP:RR, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, Gws57 (leading editor) next most leading editors SPUI and Lordkinbote are now inactive and were not notified.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

There is no source given for the information in the last paragraph of Present day.
- I had originally sourced this in an April 5 2008 edit. This was removed, but I just added it back.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of that same same section: "The exact timing of the newly proposed development will most likely be a long-term project due to the current glut of newly constructed condos in the downtown market and the credit crisis in the U.S. as well" doesn't make sense. The exact timing ... will be a project? What does "current" mean? 2008? Which credit crisis?
- Yes early 2008. I no longer have the source, but I presume the credit crises caused by tightening of the mortgage lending markets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of The B&OCT Bascule Bridge is uncited.
- I added a ref that shows it was built in the 1930s after the river was widened.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the article causes me to notice that the articleis somewhat deficient in terms of citations. In terms of my personal standards for nominating an article for GAR, I probably would not have nominated the article. I certainly would not promote the article if it came to WP:GAC in its current state. I would probably describe it as a B-Class article. It is certainly possible that with a few {{fact}} tags I would classify it as C-Class. However, at GAR I have trouble supporting delisting. I only notice a few uncited paragraphs. However, it seems this was nominated as part of a GA sweeps. Thus, I believe it is probably below an agreed WP:GA standard. I am quite neutral on this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, this is not a community GAR that requires a vote; it is an individual sweeps review. The article will remain listed as a GA if the above issues are addressed. If they are not then it will be delisted, a decision that can be challenged at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding citations. I'm closing this review as a keep. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]