Talk:Near South Side, Chicago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Near South Side, Chicago has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
March 15, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
January 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Illinois (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It was okay, could use a thorough copy edit or two for awkward wording.
2. Factually accurate?: The entire section 'Printer's Row' is riddled with stuff that screams OR. There are a multitide of weasel words to which affects the NPOV
3. Broad in coverage?: Pretty thorough, could use more on history, parks and redevelopment though.
4. Neutral point of view?: See above
5. Article stability? Looks stable
6. Images?: Way way way too many, they are formatted strangely too, along the left side of the page.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --A mcmurray 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass[edit]

Article was renominated for GA status by TonyTheTiger on 26 February 2007 (UTC). I have reviewed the article. Having viewed the rewritten article, as well as the original one from the article history, it looks to me like most of the above comments have been addressed. I made a few minor spelling/grammar changes, and changed the names & altered the order of 'references' (for inline citations), 'further reading' (for books not cited by the article), and 'external links'; to conform to existing standards of the order of these sections in wikipedia. Article is pretty thorough; could use a bit of expansion in some areas, like parks & redevelopment, before FA status, though. Dr. Cash 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Near South Side, Chicago GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Near South Side, Chicago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As an article on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps list, I am reviewing this article. And from the looks of its current state, it doesn't look like GA material. Here's why:

  • Un-referenced sections in the article.
  • I added [citation needed]s to the article to show what needs citations, though I may have gone overboard. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I missed this new comment. Yes quite a bit. I was a bit miffed for a bit. See comment below. I was not sure what you were doing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • An expansion of the Education section, if that's possible.

:*A big question is if some pictures in the article are nessessary.

I will take suggestions on images that you don't feel are necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I got nothing. GamerPro64 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

:*Also, the flag picture needs a caption.

Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
So if the problems don't get fixed in seven days, I will delist its GA-status. When the problems are done, contact me on my talk page for my opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not spending more time on this article this week. I have been visiting family and my nephew is quite an airplane buff (for a toddler). I have been working on Red Tail Project. Can I have an extension. I will be traveling tomorrow. This week I should be able to respond to concerns about the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

O.k, I'll extend it to another week. But when its January 5th, I will delist. Besides, I can relate. My family went to New Jersey and with my mother's fear of bridges, big problem. Happy New Year! GamerPro64 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you strike resolved issued. So I can see what you think about my responses to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In good faith, I responded to the initial GAR commentary. Subsequently, the reviewer took action which are completely outside the spirit of a WP:GAR. He asked for a citation for almost every sentence in the article. I have never seen a WP:GA held up to this standard although I quite often write WP:GA by concatenating sentence after sentence with inline citations for each. A good example would be my current WP:GAC nomination of Tai Streets. This level of citation is beyond what is required for WP:GA, but I do it anyways. I get the feeling from this review that the reviewer "knows who I am" and is in some way trying to make an affront by challenging me to unnecessarily cite every GD sentence in the article because I do it so often for other articles. Most recent FA promotions do not have every sentence cited and the conventional interpretaion of WP:WIAGA does not require it. I generally, request that GARs be brought up to a standard where each paragraph has at least one inline citation. I think this is a high bar for some older GAs to attain. I think this reviewer is requesting improvements outside of the spirit of GAR and intend to ask for a community review of this article if it is demoted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There, I Removed all citations. I would just like to say that I "may have gone overboard" (like I said uptop). And because I believe I have messed up on something in this review, I am requesting a second opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "a citation per sentence" or some requirement is what's needed, only that everything presented in the article is covered in a given reference. Verifiability means that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If a reliable source is presented near the claim that verifies the claim, everything is fine. Mm40 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks pretty good to me, I made two minor copy-edits for prose style. I think the Redevelopment section could do with a better citation, I don't believe that everything there is covered by the one reference at present. THe phrase about dynamic area could be considered POV. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I added some refs to the Redevelopment section. The article is not perfect, but it is better than many. Let me know if you have any further reasonable requests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
First off, I'm sorry if I worried people on why I haven't responded here in a while. But, looking the article again, I think that it maintains GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)