Talk:Near South Side, Chicago/GA1

Near South Side, Chicago GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

As an article on the WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps list, I am reviewing this article. And from the looks of its current state, it doesn't look like GA material. Here's why:
 * Un-referenced sections in the article.
 * I have added a lot of refs. Let me know if you feel more facts need citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added s to the article to show what needs citations, though I may have gone overboard. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed this new comment. Yes quite a bit. I was a bit miffed for a bit.  See comment below. I was not sure what you were doing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An expansion of the Education section, if that's possible.


 * I will take suggestions on images that you don't feel are necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I got nothing. GamerPro64 (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So if the problems don't get fixed in seven days, I will delist its GA-status. When the problems are done, contact me on my talk page for my opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not spending more time on this article this week. I have been visiting family and my nephew is quite an airplane buff (for a toddler). I have been working on Red Tail Project. Can I have an extension. I will be traveling tomorrow. This week I should be able to respond to concerns about the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * O.k, I'll extend it to another week. But when its January 5th, I will delist. Besides, I can relate. My family went to New Jersey and with my mother's fear of bridges, big problem. Happy New Year! GamerPro64 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you strike resolved issued. So I can see what you think about my responses to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In good faith, I responded to the initial GAR commentary. Subsequently, the reviewer took action which are completely outside the spirit of a WP:GAR. He asked for a citation for almost every sentence in the article. I have never seen a WP:GA held up to this standard although I quite often write WP:GA by concatenating sentence after sentence with inline citations for each. A good example would be my current WP:GAC nomination of Tai Streets. This level of citation is beyond what is required for WP:GA, but I do it anyways. I get the feeling from this review that the reviewer "knows who I am" and is in some way trying to make an affront by challenging me to unnecessarily cite every GD sentence in the article because I do it so often for other articles. Most recent FA promotions do not have every sentence cited and the conventional interpretaion of WP:WIAGA does not require it. I generally, request that GARs be brought up to a standard where each paragraph has at least one inline citation. I think this is a high bar for some older GAs to attain. I think this reviewer is requesting improvements outside of the spirit of GAR and intend to ask for a community review of this article if it is demoted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I Removed all citations. I would just like to say that I "may have gone overboard" (like I said uptop). And because I believe I have messed up on something in this review, I am requesting a second opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think "a citation per sentence" or some requirement is what's needed, only that everything presented in the article is covered in a given reference. Verifiability means that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". If a reliable source is presented near the claim that verifies the claim, everything is fine. Mm40 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good to me, I made two minor copy-edits for prose style. I think the Redevelopment section could do with a better citation, I don't believe that everything there is covered by the one reference at present. THe phrase about dynamic area could be considered POV. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some refs to the Redevelopment section. The article is not perfect, but it is better than many. Let me know if you have any further reasonable requests.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I'm sorry if I worried people on why I haven't responded here in a while. But, looking the article again, I think that it maintains GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)