Talk:Lenox Square/GA1

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

Reviewer: / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues must be addressed within seven days or the article will fail. Even so, I'm not very comfortable with this nom for two reasons: the nominator has made one single (non-major) edit to the article; and the issues are serious enough that fixing them in seven days will probably not result in high-quality work.

Conclusion I'm closing this as unsuccessful due to: an unfinished expansion, the need for a good copyedit, and major sourcing deficiencies. When you believe all of these issues have been addressed, please re-nominate it for GA status. A peer review may also be helpful, and my comments below identify more specific areas where improvement is needed. Cheers, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Prose

 * Generally OK, after a quick skim. I'll give it a more in-depth read later.
 * "... 1986 - extensively ..."—the hyphen there should be an endash.
 * There are two links to dab pages.
 * "Several companies, such as AT&T Mobility[14], have their headquarters near the shopping center."—except with dashes, refs should go after punctuation as this is the style used throughout the rest of the article.
 * Lede
 * "Bloomingdales" in the infobox is missing an apostrophe.
 * "located in the city of Atlanta, Georgia"—"the city of" is probably redundant and unnecessary; if it was not in the actual city, one would write, "in the Greater Atlanta area" or "in the suburban Atlanta area", which are distinct from "Atlanta, Georgia".
 * "The mall is owned by Simon Property Group and has been owned by the Indianapolis-based developer since 1998, along with the neighboring Phipps Plaza shopping center."—This sentence is a bit confusing; has it been owned by Simon Property Group and Phipps Plaza, or does Simon also own Phipps Plaza? Suggest, "Since 1998, the mall has been owned by Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group, which also owns the neighboring Phipps Plaza shopping center", or (if Phipps has been owned by Simon since 1998 as well), "Since 1998, the mall and neighboring Phipps Plaza shopping center have been owned by Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group".
 * "most locally famous and acclaimed department stores in the area"—what exactly does this mean? What were they famous for, and was the fame exclusively local (if not, remove "locally")?
 * "four renovations would follow suit"—"follow suit" means to follow one's lead or follow an example. Which example(s) is/are the renovations following?
 * "of new retail"—unless you mean they added 36,000 square feet of new sales of goods, I think "of new retail space" makes more sense here. This also applies to "retail" in the "History" section.
 * "Lenox Square is home to several upscale stores that have their only locations within hundreds of miles."—I would hardly call twelve stores "several". Also, the wording is sort of awkward here—what about, "Lenox Square houses some upscale stores that do not have other locations within several hundred miles of Atlanta"?
 * "These include Ermenegildo Zegna, David Yurman, Nicole Miller, Diesel, Bvlgari, Fendi, Louis Vuitton, Cartier, Salvatore Ferragamo, Burberry, Hervé Léger, and Ralph Lauren."—Check the links here: Nicole Miller goes to an article about a person, as does Ralph Lauren, but I don't think either person lives in Lenox Square. In addition, "Bulgari" is misspelled as "Bvlgari", which is only a stylization of the name.
 * History
 * "a former developer from Kansas City"—which one? Kansas City, Missouri; or Kansas City, Kansas? They're two distinct cities, but of the same metropolitan area.
 * "Several items were proposed on the site"—I would hardly call a discothèque an "item". What about saying "features" instead?
 * There's some overlinking going on: Neiman Marcus, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, etc. don't need to be linked three or four times throughout the article. Once is fine.
 * "would never materialize"—why use the conditional here? Just use "never materialized". This applies to other instances of the conditional tense throughout the article.
 * "was bought and acquired"—sort of redundant; their meanings are close enough for this article's purposes that using either "bought" or "acquired" is enough, I think.
 * The first four sentences of this section could use some more chronological clarification—were the "several items" proposed before Noble bought the land, or after the mall was built? The fourth sentence ("The property was ...") could be merged with the first, i.e., "Lenox Square was developed by Ed Noble, a former developer from Kansas City, whose company Noble Properties bought the site in 1956". I use "site" over "property" because the latter could also refer to the building itself, thus contributing to some of the confusion that I mentioned.
 * "Groundbreaking of the shopping center began"—groundbreaking is not a process; it is an event. Unless it took them more than one year to put the first shovel in the ground and scoop out one shovel-ful of sod, then the article should say, "Groundbreaking ... occurred ...".
 * "the shopping center was fully completed"—"the shopping center" was used just a few words earlier in this sentence; a pronoun should be used. Also, "completed" implies "fully completed" (i.e., if something is completed, it is entirely completed—otherwise, one would say, "partially completed"), so the "fully" is redundant and unnecessary.
 * "Within weeks, Lenox Square would be a part of several major events"—within weeks of June 1963, or of August 3, 1959? If the former, using this phrase implies the movie theater contributed to Lenox Square's participation in these events; if the latter, the chronological aspect needs to be clarified.
 * "moved to the flagship store from Underground Atlanta, after hacing been held at the center for over a decade"—is the flagship store in Underground Atlanta, or in Lenox Square? Which one is the "center" referred to in this sentence? If Macy's Great Tree was moved to Lenox Square in 2000, perhaps there can be some greater clarification regarding the "[w]ithin weeks ..." bit, as 2000 is obviously not within several weeks of the 1950s or 1960s?
 * "hacing been held"—"having been held"?
 * "In 1985, Davison's merged with Macy's to form the Davison's-Macy's moniker, and in 1986, Davison's closed and was converted to a Macy's."—out of place chronologically, so sort of awkward to talk about 2000 and then rush back to 1985 and 1986.
 * "relocated their flagship store"—as "flagship store" is mentioned before this sentence, and there is no special discussion of the term here, linking the first instance of "flagship store" and de-linking this one seems to make sense.
 * "Downtown Atlanta" doesn't need the "Downtown" part capitalized.
 * "closed & the building"—"&" → "and".
 * "of the Macy's Central division"—remove "the" and "division".
 * "of the divisions of the company"—too many "of"s; change to "of the company's divisions".
 * "consolidated into one division"—remove "division".

Coverage

 * Sorta short ... I'm sure there's more info about the mall. Check Google News' archives.

NPOV

 * Seems OK.

Images

 * Images should have appropriate alt text.


 * Well, the Atlanta Task Force want to make this article a GA. Please suggest any corrections that need to be made, sir. Jim856796 (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the above issues are resolved, I'll give a more in-depth review. Remember that you have seven days for progress to be made. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, but please remember that at Wikipedia, editors don't work towards a deadline. Jim856796 (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it doesn't mean we can hold things indefinitely. WP:RGA states, "As the nominal hold period is 1 week (this is a suggestion, not a requirement) one rule of thumb is to consider whether the issues you have raised could reasonably be fixed within such a timescale." If some progress isn't made within seven days, then the article is probably not ready to be a GA at this time. But if many of the issues are addressed, then I have no problem with keeping this nomination open longer. Nominating an article for GA status means that you think it already meets the good article criteria, and if you're able to make a good amount of progress on addressing the remaining issues, then it's probably close to meeting the criteria. But if you aren't able to do so, then it's probably not ready yet. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On Friday May 27, I made a few corrections to the Lenox Square article. The GA nomination was a suggestion made by the Atlanta task force: "April 16, 2011 - Lenox Square article expanded! Please help to promote this article to GA status." You'll have to give that in-depth review now, I'm afraid. I wanted some editors from the Atlanta Task Force to edit and improve the article, but none have come forward. You are trying to get me in trouble and making sure that this article fails the GA nomination, that's not how a GA review works. I made my first GA nomination at the Constitution Center (Washington D.C.) article and it was kept open for less than a month (probably a few weeks). You made the following statement: "The issues must be addressed within seven days or the article will fail" That probably looked like a threat, and threats are not tolerated on WP. I'm afraid you'll have to give me seven more days to get an editor to make the improvements you stated above. I don't know how to improve the unsourced statements, and a quick-fail is going to put this nomination, and my career, in jeopardy. The buildings surrounding the mall exist, but not notable to have their own articles, so why do they have to be sourced? I do not want to have an unsuccessful GA on my resume, so please give me another week to ask an editor to make the corrections which I am unable to do. And please inspect this article a second time. Jim856796 (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "You are trying to get me in trouble and making sure that this article fails the GA nomination"—this makes no sense whatsoever. Ignoring the massive assumption of bad faith on your part, I don't understand how you can get in trouble if this article does not become a good article at this time. A GA review is meant to ensure that the nominated article complies with all GA criteria. If it doesn't, then it fails; if it does, then it passes. I've not yet decided whether this article will pass or fail because I'm still waiting to see whether the problems are minor enough to be addressed in a timely manner, per WP:RGA. I've made no threats, but only backed up my statements by the appropriate guideline. If you don't know how to improve unsourced statements, then why did you nominate it in the first place? WP:RGA says, "Thus, when someone nominates an article, he or she is often saying, 'I have done all that I can so far to improve this article. I think it is a good piece of work'". Obviously, unsourced material means there is still a good deal of room for improvement.


 * In addition, the article is not being quick-failed. It's currently on hold. If you continue working on it—you don't have to fix everything—then you have plenty of time. I was simply saying before that if no work is done in seven days, then the article will be failed. As you already started some copyediting, then there shouldn't be a problem, right? Re. your question, "The buildings surrounding the mall exist, but not notable to have their own articles, so why do they have to be sourced?", the logic there is flawed: it doesn't matter whether the buildings are notable themselves, because reliable sources can exist regardless of notability. Verifiability is the most important part of Wikipedia, not truth, so we must have reliable sources verifying that material. You'll also note that it is GA criteria #2.


 * What is more distressing to me is your statement, "and my career, in jeopardy". Could you please elaborate on this? That is, do you mean your real-life career? Also, the statement, "I do not want to have an unsuccessful GA on my resume" perplexes me. Do you mean to say that you include GAs on your real-life resume, and could you explain what is wrong with nominating an article for GA unsuccessfully? It is nothing to be ashamed of; I've nominated articles for FA and FL unsuccessfully. But if it's related to your real-world job, that's a different matter.


 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant my editing career on Wikipedia is put in jeopardy. Obviously, neither of us are from the Atlanta area or work for the Atlanta Task force. I checked the list of participants in the task force, and none of them are inactive, so this nomination will be put in jeopardy. Why I have nominated this article was it was a statement by the Atlanta task force to have the article promoted to GA status. (I become angry if I have to make the same statement several times.) I was going to ask the user DAP388, who expanded the article, but he hasn't edited since May 25. Also, I have made four edits since the nomination began. Jim856796 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why you nominated it, but I still don't understand what it has to do with your on-wiki-resume or your wiki-career. If an article is ready for GA, it is; if it's not, then it's not. Career or resume is irrelevant, and a failed nomination certainly isn't putting anything or anyone in jeopardy. In any case, I will continue with the review as planned, but I can't keep it on hold indefinitely. If the article ends of being failed, then you can re-nominate it once other task force members are able to help. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's okay with the nominator, I would like for the nomination to be removed, atm. I wasn't done expanding the article, and I would like some time to finish up. :) DAP388 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2011


 * I'll grant you, the user DAP388, time to finish the expansion of the Lenox Square article. Until then, the nomination is hereby suspended. Jim856796 (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How long do you think you'll need, DAP388? If it's more than a couple of weeks, I'll close this current nomination as unsuccessful (usual practice with a premature nom or when the main contributor to the article isn't done with it), but if it's less, I'll keep it on hold for a little. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  13:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll probably take a few weeks to finish. I'm gonna try and see if there are any other sources in regards to the mall, and then I can expand/clean-up the article. The GA and peer reviews will be very helpful. DAP388 (talk) 02:31, 02 June 2011
 * I did say "suspended". I didn't say close the nomination altogether because a unsuccessful GA nomination would probably hurt my reputation. Jim856796 (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad it's not your call Jim856796, and too bad you still care about your "reputation". For heaven's sake—what is "reputation" on Wikipedia to you? Do you think that you need to have a good "reputation" to become an admin or something? "Reputation" is not based on how many GAs you nominated. Just like in real life, "reputation" is about your character—and right now, your attitude is definitely short of reputable or even sensible. The members of the Atlanta Task Force are not going to look down on you if the article doesn't pass! As the main author of the article says he/she needs a few weeks, I'll leave some more comments and close the nomination—because per WP:RGA, GAs are nominated when they're thought to be "ready", and DAP388 says it's not done yet. This is beginning to turn into the most ridiculous GA nomination I've ever dealt with. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On 16 August 2011, I made some of the requested corrections to the Lenox Square article. Too bad the user Fetchcomms for got to add the word "done" or check off the requested corrections to the article every time those corrections are made. Probably need a new reviewer. Jim856796 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)