Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago/GA1
Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- The lead section is too short.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Most main issues are covered only superficially. The "History" section is far too short, and "Collection" consists almost entirely of a short list.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
I have expanded the article about 25%. Let me know if more is needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work, I believe the article is now good enough to be kept as a GA. Lampman (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)