Talk:Hillsboro Civic Center/Archive 1

GA Review
I find this article refreshing and informative.

1. Prose- Pass

2. Verifiable- Pass

3. Coverage- Fail. The History section and matters discussed in it are very short and needs to be greatly expanded. This building might be a model for the planning community, but that is not mentioned. What was the buildings economic impact to the Portland economy?

4. Neutral- Pass. But if there was some downside or critic to the building's construction, it should be included. Try to find one.

5. Stable- check

6. Images- check Feel free to renominate the article once these concerns are addressed. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you do know that if there are a few minor issues you can place an article on hold, see WP:GA. Second, you do realize this is not even five years old, thus there is not going to be much in the way of history. Then, note that GA needs breadth, not depth, as depth is then FA. That is the history is covered that being one of "the major aspects of the topic", and 5 years takes up 2 paragraphs. As to any criticisms, I didn't find any, but I'll try. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really the history, its more of the background information about the building. Why was the company that built this building chosen?  What was the public response to the building?  Who was at the building's opening?  The article seems short in comparison to other good articles.  You can seek a second opinion if you like.
 * I failed the article because I thought it would take more than 10 days to address these concerns. If you address the concerns I have listed and renominate the article, I will approve it without you having to wait a long time.User:calbear22 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are not familiar enough with the GA criteria. I base this off of several things:
 * First, until this one, I was 12 for 12 on GA noms, with many passing with little or no comment, and about half after being placed on hold for a short time. This includes reviews by GA reviewers of the Week and other members of the GA WikiProject. That leads my to believe that I must be doing something right and have a good grasp of the GA criteria. Additionally, of the 12 or so GA reviews I've done of other people's nominations, nobody has said a thing about them being inaccurate. The only one that I'm aware of to re-list (Bobby Eaton) went through improvement before re-listing and still did not pass right-away on the second trip due to some of the same concerns I had expressed. The article has since made it to FA.
 * Second: you seem to have a thing for size. GA and FA are not really about size, its about quality. See this for a list of the shortest FAs and you will understand why I'm a bit frustrated by size comments. The smallest two FAs (yes FAs which are required to be "Comprehensive") are smaller than this GA candidate. Now size can been an indicator to a limited extent, but only for something that would be less than say 2000 bytes.
 * Third: Related, don't go by other GAs, go by the GA criteria. As I've told others, when doing assessments, do not go by other articles. Articles can and do change/evolve and the current "class" may or may not reflect the actual "class" it should be at. For instance my first GA has almost doubled in size since it passed GA, yet it is still listed as GA.
 * Fourth: As you didn't remove the GA nom tag when you added the GA fail, this tends to show a lack of familiarity with the process.
 * Fifth: Looking through your GA review history I came across one of the few you have passed: United States Senate election in New York, 2000. In the first sentence it says "an historic race" which is of questionable grammar and is not NPOV. It does not let the facts speak for themselves. Tell the reader it was the first Senate race in history to feature a sitting first lady or whatever the historical impact was, but do not tell them it was a historic event, as that is an opinion. That article is rife with similar issues concerning NPOV, including the use of scare quotes. Plus a few copy-editing issues. That's only after about a 2 minute look.
 * To conclude, I do not feel you have a firm grasp of what is and what is not GA, and would recommend requesting second opinions on articles until you are more familiar with the criteria. I can understand an article being failed for GA criteria failings, just like I dealt with my first FA nom being shot down. But it needs to be for specific GA criteria based reasons. As to the 4th part, I've taken care of it. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Please see the archived discussion for further information.

GA 2 pass, Part II

 * I reviewed the article before and you addressed the concerns I had. The reassessment identified what I listed as the only problem and it was addressed.  I should have put the article on hold.  I checked the rules, nothing really against putting article on quick approval.User:calbear22 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried putting the good article stuff into an article history, but I couldn't do it. I'll allow you to add this to the good article list as I'm not 100% sure as to where you would like it to be listed.  Architecture perhaps?User:calbear22 (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look. I took care of the banner items, and went with the architecture. Did you update the GA count? I'll take care of listing it in the right GA section. Thanks again. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I'll get on it.User:calbear22 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)