Talk:Grainger Plaza/GA1

AT&T Plaza GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Though this article is interesting, it is to brief. Containing only 2.14 KB of prose, the article does not provide enough information. The article draws information from nine sources, but not all of them can be verified. The article is stable, and provides a neutral point of view. However, it is not yet of GA quality. With work, it could get there. Expansion is needed, and additional referencing. -- Jor dan  Contribs  14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The refs that you can not verify are from a book that has been widely cited in the popular press  .  You may find it at your local library or bookstore.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion - I agree with the reviewer's assessment. Additionally, much of the information in the article is already in Cloud Gate which is wikilinked in the article. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I found three sources with two new minor facts. I hope that gets us over the hump along with the improved infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this article should be merged with Millennium Park, Cloud Gate or some other related article. So far, there does not seem to be enough independent information not included in other article to justify an independent article for this subject, and not a GA, in my opinion. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been forked from Cloud Gate because of the hatnote difficulties and lead paragraph bold problems of merging the two pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just added the last detail that I could hope to find about the topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Though it seems to go against my better judgement, I conclude that this article appears to meet all of the GA criteria. It is balanced, neutral, makes good use of images, has no mistakes, and is overall cetainly correct. I have decided to pass it as a GA. Jor  dan  Contribs  19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)