Talk:Algo Centre Mall/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I shall review. ⇒ T A  P  11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "12m x 24m (39'-by-79') segment of the rooftop parking garage collapsed into the building" &mdash; I see no signs of this in the article, please include.
 * Oops. Fixed. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs small expansion to summarise the article.
 * Expanded, post-promotion. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * History
 * Merge paragraph 2, 3 and 4 into a single one, as they are short and linked slightly.
 * I've merged 1-2-3 instead, as the first three are about the mall itself, and things happening positively. The fourth has the theme of the community itself having troubles, resulting in the mall's decline. Is this merger also okay?


 * 2000s
 * Merge 1st and 2nd paragraphs into one.
 * Done. Agreed, the purchase and redevelopment plans are related enough to merge into one paragraph.
 * Last paragraph/bit is short, merge with another paragraph
 * I've made it a bullet point in the tenant list. The assertion that this is the main terminal is made in the transit authority's article itself, and I copied it over. While I'm sure it is the main terminal, there's no real reference confirming that, beyond unspecific transit maps.


 * Structural problems
 * "By 1990, the mall was starting to be plagued with leaks and water damage.[21]
 * In 1996, a report commissioned by the Town, Downtown Core and Industrial Area Improvements, presented a less-than-favourable assessment of the structure's exterior" &mdash; join both bits together.


 * 2012 roof collapse
 * Grand.

I shall put this On Hold until the issues can be addressed. ⇒ T A  P  11:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Wholey moley! I wasn't expecting it to be GA'd so quickly, I still have some updates to make tonight on it, to expand the lead as you suggested, for example. Wow, thank you for your vote of confidence in the work we've all done on the article. --  Zanimum (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think currently it just scrapes GA quality. ⇒ T A  P  17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For now, that's good enough for me. We'll certainly continue to polish the article, as time goes on. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)