Wikipedia:Peer review/AT&T Plaza/archive1

AT&T Plaza

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because and I want to nominate Millennium Park for WP:GTC and this article needs to be audited as too short for WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Please see comments at the review here, particularly with regard to images and en-dashes.
 * Did I miss an ndash location?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to keep the images and hope the article grows into them. They explain the brief history of the space.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The infobox looks a little strange - is that a thumb embedded in an infobox? Is that necessary?  It makes the image have three frames...
 * One thing I could use for this infobox is the dimension either length and width or square feet of the plaza. Any help would be appreciated.  It is the only significant thing I can think to add to the article that I think should be available.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise thanks for the infobox suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image captions are sentence fragments so they don't need full stops.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "coral groups " choral?
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * " [2006]." why not "(2006)."?
 * It is a citation template. Is it incorrect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)