Talk:Millennium Park/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA comments
[edit]1. It is well written:
Yes. spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Nice Use of references, from good sources New York Times ect. . . I feel this page would pass any major challenges to its statements.
3. It is broad in its coverage: Yes.
Great work on keeping many of the parks features short and to the point, as most of them have there own page. Staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
4. It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias:
There were some parts of the page that had some wording that was not totally necessary (for example, the hottest zip code in the country, some thing more like: "one of the most popular zip codes"), so I reworded it and see no other major problems with viewpoints or wording.
5. It is stable:
It does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The Page is Stable, the page History did not show any such edit wars
6. It is illustrated, if possible, by images:
Great Photos! and the map is a nice touch. I did not look at all the images copyright status, but there looks to be no problems with them. Nice captions on the images.
Not many problems with the page, Nice work on keeping up with changes to the park, I saw that there has been work on the 2009 pavilion project. I liked the budget page but it may be a bit better with some more references, The references you have are correct so I would not for see any problems,
I feel that this Page in it present state has meet the requirements of GA nice work and thanks. Max ╦╩ (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)