Talk:Post Oak Mall

A model for the article?

West Oaks Mall (Houston, Texas) is a grade-A article in terms of layout. It goes over brands that the Macy's offers, when stores like Aeropostale moved in, and all that without making it a directory. It talks also about the food court, which is very similar to Post Oak's layout...about half of the stores are now retail. While I still hold true to the "cinema issue" and the fact that Sears did not move from Manor East Mall, I'm keeping my mouth shut. AnmaFinotera, if you are watching, please respond!! TheListUpdater (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Un, that is a Start class article, not an A class article. It is far lower quality than this one, and almost entirely unsourced. The format of this article follows the basic ideas from the mall and company projects, looking at higher class articles, not lower class ones. While this article may not have the same lengthy store history, it is all sourced, which is far more important. For the rest, the sources still say otherwise (as do the memories of some older folks I know who live here who do remember Sears being at Manor East). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

I just looked at the GA review and it wasn't even properly done. I can't see a template filled out with justification and frankly without any images other than a satellite image, I can't see how this passed GA. As a mall it is more than possible to adequately illustrate this subject and it hasn't been done. This is a B class article, but it is not a GA without proper illustration. I'll give some time for someone to beef up the article, but if the criteria isn't met in a week, I'm going to set it to B-class.--Crossmr (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the GA review appears to be improperly completed as it does not have the justification or enough details to show it was reviewed against the GAC (though use of a template is not necessary, only helpful). I should have questioned it then, but was distracted at the time. From the time between his starting and finishing, its entirely possible he did a proper review but didn't feel the need to write out "passes all criteria". In either case, as it has now been listed, this needs to undergo a proper WP:GAR (individual or group) to note all GA criteria failing (if it purely one of not having enough images, I don't see that as being a valid reason to delist completely). You can't just reset it to B without a proper good article reassessment. I also think that in fairness a note should be left with the reviewer to alert him to the concerns over the lack of a check list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the template again, "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." Illustration is on the criteria and if an article doesn't meet all the criteria it shouldn't be passed and it shouldn't remain a GA, especially if it was passed when it shouldn't have been. I haven't put a do or die time limit on this and I'm more than willing to be reasonable. I'd recommend at least 4 good images. 1 for the info box, 1 to do with the renovations, and a good shot of the interior of the mall and exterior. 4 might be okay if laid out properly, but I might combine the reno/interior shot if the layout isn't good. I'll notify the reviewer. I know I said a week..but I often get distracted and it could be 3 months before I got back to check on this ;)--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the reviewer and I've left a note at wikiproject texas to see if anyone can take some pictures for us. If we don't get a response we might want to check through Category:Wikipedians_from_Texas to see if someone mentions living near there--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think 4 images is way too much and um, I live here why do you think I was able to write so much about this mall. :P I just haven't been able to get decent images of the mall to include and while images are good, I didn't think it was required for GA. There are no images of the reno, though, I can only take images of what is there now. If images is the only failing criteria, delisting it would be very extreme. Define a "good shot" of the interior (no one has yet to be able to do this) as the mall is laid out in three arms coming from the center. My plans were to take a picture of its main sign for the infobox and of the food court (the center), but beyond that, what else is there? A picture of Macy's really wouldn't enhance the article ;-) Be nice if they hurry up and start the new renovations planned...cause our mall is looking rather tired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the foodcourt would be a good start, whatever the main area of the mall is. The renovation section currently talks about the mall receiving the first digital signage system. This might be something that would make a good photo. With a photo in the infobox and the current photo moved + food court and digital signage that would be 4 photos. If the digital signage is in the food court you could probably combine those. If there is any other interesting architecture, lay out, etc in the mall you could consider that as well.--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The digital signs are basically little screens peppered throughout the mall concourse. I could get a picture of one...interestingly, I don't think there are any the food court itself LOL. Alas, most of the interesting architecture, like the fountain, are gone. Maybe the skylight in the food court to. ~scribbling a list~ I probably won't try until Sunday, though, while the mall is closed to avoid getting people in the shots, unless I get up early one day this week and go before work. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

that is fine, as I said, no do or die on it. If you can get in while it is closed, all the better for a clearer shot.--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, three images added. I also have another shot of the skylight, close up, but wasn't sure it wouldn't be overkill for the size of the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better. I adjusted one image as it was just hanging down and forcing the refs over and creating a huge white space on the lower left. It would still be nice to have the GA done properly, but overall it looks fine to me.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilson's -> Service Merchandise

The Wilson's keeping the nameplate was entirely false.

• I have a directory that says "Service Merchandise"
• There is no reference that states that Wilson's kept the name
• A Atlanta Journal article says (from Google News snippet):

"At Service Merchandise it's `expand, expand, expand' The Atlanta... Pay-Per-View - Atlanta Journal-Constitution - NewsBank - Aug 18, 1985 Temporary nameplates for Service Merchandise are on the Atlanta Ellman's stores, and all the HJ Wilson's stores now carry the Service Merchandise name, ..."

• Mall of Memphis also had a Wilson's (the facade is almost identical) that later became a Service Merchandise
• A newspaper article from Tuscaloosa further proves the Service Merchandise name swap...[1]

...and thus, I have changed the article to read that Wilson's did not keep the name.

Thanks, TheListUpdater (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, please remember that your "memories" and your original research are NOT reliable sources, nor does it matter what happens at any other mall. That said, as the source refers to it as a Service Merchandise location, I have reverted my original revert of your edit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, I never said anything that I remember it being Service Merchandise. I merely listed things to show that the Wilson's name was never used, but not an actual reference. That's why I referred to the Talk Page in the first place! TheListUpdater (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Claim of 1999

The report says that Carmike HAD closed the POM location sometime BEFORE 1999, not IN 1999.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Post Oak Mall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529233856/http://209.189.226.235/stories/021607/local_20070216002.php to http://209.189.226.235/stories/021607/local_20070216002.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://postoakmall.com/shop/postoak.nsf/storedir_all_cat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110529233639/http://209.189.226.235/businesstechnology/040404postoakmall.htm to http://209.189.226.235/businesstechnology/040404postoakmall.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theeagle.com/business/Growth-opportunities

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

GAR

Post Oak Mall

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• First off, the article has no photos of the mall. It should be trivially easy to get a picture of a mall that is still in operation, but the Free Image Search Tool yielded none. This alone should almost be an instant failure.

• "Stores" section has an "As of 2009" statement which reads incredibly outdated and goes into trivial detail.

• "As of 2008" in "economic impact" section needs updating.

• Anchors section needs a cleanup; far too many "In X, Y happened" sentences and overlinking of store names (Macy's is linked three times in the same sentence)

• "The Sonic closed in 2012" unsourced

• References 16 and 29-32 are all bare URLs

• Lots of dubious sources, including:

1. Texas A&M's website which has little to no relevance to the mall (source 9)
2. a water table with questionable relevance (source 10)
3. an uncredited press release (source 12)
4. The mall's directory of shops; malls constantly update their directories as stores come and go, so this seems like an inefficient way to document the shops present (source 17)
5. A book on movie theater chains, which seems to have no relevance to the mall proper (source 18)
6. A number of press releases from CBL Properties (sources 15, 17, 22, 23)
7. A newspaper advertisement (source 21)

I also think the article would benefit from a restructuring. Compare Colonial Plaza, Castleton Square, Forest Fair Village, and other GA-class shopping mall articles where the information is presented in a purely chronological fashion from development to present-day. I think that this kind of linear approach reads better than the way the current article covers development first, and then goes back and forth on which stores were where.

ETA: It looks like the entire GA review from 2009 was only a single sentence long, and was being contested even then. Images were added to the article in 2009, but inexplicably G7'd in 2010.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am so used to community GARs that I forgot to file this one as an individual reassessment instead. Because of this, I am delisting and possibly invoking WP:IAR in the process. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)