Jump to content

Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead section is too short.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. 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.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Lampman (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]