Jump to content

Talk:Streeterville/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

This article is well-sourced and well-written, but I'm not sure it meets GA criteria for the following reasons:

Lead

[edit]

History

[edit]

Today

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

Like always, Tony, great job but the article could still use a little work. I'll put on hold to give you time to work out the items above. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

[edit]

I just have one last issue with the article before GA. I'm still not sure from the reading the article what happened to the area between 1918 when the Streeters' claim was invalidated and the construction of most of the area. Most of the buildings mentioned didn't start construction until the 1960s, some not until the 1980s (actually, the construction dates of the buildings should probably be mentioned as well). Did the area just lie dormant? A bunch of empty lots? That's still not clear. Since this is such a small article on a relatively small neighborhood, having a complete chronological history is important, I think. The final sentence "Today, the district is home to some of the most expensive real estate in Chicago.[7]" seems like it should belong in the the "Today" section, since it's not really history. After that it seems to be good for GA. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, at least the history section brings us through WWII now as opposed to leaving a 100-year gap! Only problem is, who is Arthur Rubloff?? And why is he redlinked? -epicAdam (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is named in the sources. I don't know anything that is not in the Near North Side and Mag Mile sources. I can delink him.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Just making sure he wasn't a mayor or somebody. The article says he's a developer, so I mentioned that in the article.

As for the final GA review. The article meets MoS standards, is well-sourced, has illustrative pictures, and is informative and broad in its subject matter, given the area's small size. I therefore think this article can be promoted to GA. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]