Talk:Lakeshore East/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review on 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Need to remove dead Wikilinks to pages that do not exist.
I see no deadlinks at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Lakeshore_East
I meant the internal Wikilinks that don't go anywhere... i.e. Magellan Development Group LLC, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicadam (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pretty big difference betweeen deadlinks and redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the redlinks only Magellan is likely to go a long time without an article, IMO, given the enthusiasm for creating building articles for this neighborhood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citations missing at the following locations. 1) Lead section, first paragraph ending "extends westward to Michigan Avenue." 2) History section, first paragraph ending "level forms the core of the development." 3) Overview section, first paragraph ending "Lakeshore East is within walking distance to the Chicago River (2 minutes north), Lake Michigan and DuSable Harbor (2 minutes east), Michigan Avenue (6-8 minutes west), Grant Park (4 minutes south), Millenium Park (6 minutes southwest)." Note: Don't put in times, only distances. Times are completely subjective based on how fast somebody is able to drive, walk, etc. 4) Overview section, third paragraph.
I have found refs for 1 and 4. For three I removed the minutes, but do not see any particular ref that describes this feature at this time. However the page has a map so it is plain to see. 2. sounds like a marketing spiel. I can not find the original idea at this time. The ref from earlier in the paragraph is somewhat related so I added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Since some items are missing citations, I can't tell what has come from where or if it's OR.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Nothing about transportation? Other things to do in the area?
Other things to do in the area is covered by 2B above, especially Millenium Park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence about the bus routes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Parts of the article sound like an advertisement to get people to move to the neighborhood. The first line, "Lakeshore East is an award-winning master planned mixed use urban development" sounds like it could have been taken directly out of the developer's investment brochure. To do: Work on removing the glittery and glowing language.
I am a non-resident (I live in Hyde Park, Chicago) and non-owner. I have no professional interest in the neighborhood. the term award-winning is a fairly common phrase to be used in a WP:LEAD. Singers use the phrase, sometimes preceded by the word Grammy or some such similar award. Actors use the phrase, sometimes preceded by Academy, Emmy, Tony, etc. The award section is fully reffed. This is a NPOV statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. note that the pedway controversy is already included. I did not see anything else.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I can't believe that there were no negative sides of this project. Part of being neutral is providing material on objections or problems. Such as, who lived here before these developments were being put in? Were there any funding problems?

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Heavy editing within last 30 days by a single user. Possibly not yet stable.
Currently, my 118 edits dwarfs the next highest editor who has 8 edits. This is common when a single user decides to take an article to WP:GA status. I do this all the time (see my user page). I have never been told that this is a problem. Feel free to leave this on hold for a few days if you are worried.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Too many pictures of buildings. Not every building needs to have a photograph. Most of them look similar and unremarkable.
It is fairly common for building/neighborhood articles to work in as many images as possible. See List of Chicago Landmarks, South Side (Chicago), and any number of lists at Template:US tallest buildings lists (especially the numerous featured lists on this template). I will remove if absolutely necessary, but I don't think this is anything unusual, especially given the the {{multiple image}} template is so new.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good work fleshing out the article, but I cannot yet recommend GA status. First and foremost, the article needs to sound like an encyclopedia, not promotional material handed out by the developer. Further, for each piece of information provided in the article, editors need to make sure that its both relevant and interesting. Most of the information provided here is, I believe, mostly uninteresting to general readers of Wikipedia. For example, the names of developers, what types of buildings are present and what they're used for. Not every building needs to have a mention, the list is especially ruinous. If there is something particularly noteworthy about the building, for example, historical significance, architectural/engineering marvel, etc., then mention it. Otherwise, it's best to leave it out. I'll put this under hold. Best, Epicadam (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Revision Pass or Fail:

Good stuff. Yes, I recognize that there are links to all the rewards material, etc. but that wasn't the part I had the most problems with, it's mostly just the glittery language to describe glitzy condos, etc. It just read like a investment pamphlet. I think the article's pretty set but since it was (comparatively) recently listed I'll stick a 2nd opinion tag on the review in case anybody wants to add their own 2 cents. If in a week or so nobody has any other comments, I'll move up to GA. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a second opinion, I think the article meets the GA criteria, and can be promoted. It reads very well, is well cited, and informative. Though the pictures are a little bit heavy, I don't think it's 'over the top'. The only minor issue is that you may want to fix the first sentence ... "Lakeshore East is an award-winning master planned mixed use urban development". While the 'award-winning' part is backed up by the awards section later in the article, the sentence seems to run on and on a bit, and could probably be rephrased to sound a little less 'flowery'. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the opening sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I think the article is ready for GA status, since all the concerns made by editors have been addressed. Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]