Talk:Pullman Square

GA comment

Inline citations go directly after the punctuation. Go through the article and fix all occurrences. --Nehrams2020 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe all have been taken care of. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Infobox

There is an infobox that might work well here: Template:Infobox_shopping_mall. Any thoughts? Justen 10:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a mall with an anchor or many stores. It is considered more of a district than anything. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review comments

Per comment left at the peer view: General editing help would be appreciated, especially in the Construction and opening sub, where it was recently converted from bullet to paragraph format. I will be doing minor edits to see if it can be managed easier, but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can be better. I believe I have covered the history of the project extensively, and cannot see it being expanded further unless there are new articles (which appear almost weekly it seems). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pullman Square/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The WP:Lead is rather "thin" and could do with expansion, but the article is generally compliant.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Yes, based on local newspapers.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, based on local newspapers.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Although the WP:lead could do with some expansion, I'm marking this article as "keep", so it keeps its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)