Wikipedia:Peer review/Chicago, Illinois/archive2

Chicago, Illinois
This article has gone through a previous round of peer review and several failed FACs. After attempting to address several issues relating to the previous FACs, I am wondering if there is anything that has to be done with this article so that it will succeed FAC if it were nominated again. PentawingTalk 01:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fix red links, convert "Related topics" lists to prose, eg. 1959 Pan American Games in Chicago, Arlington Park, Chicago Motor Speedway etc etc instead of a bulleted list. — Wackymacs 11:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. PentawingTalk 20:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question.


 * Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.


 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.


 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.


 * This article can use copyediting to ensure that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.
 * You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
 * Thanks, Andy t 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, a bit long though, some sections like sports can be made a bit shorter. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to summarize some sections. Is there anything specific that is needed? PentawingTalk 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work- this has come a long way since the last four times I objected on its FACs. (The time before that, I nominated it.) I think the only remaining issue is that the use of inline citations starts to wane by the end of the article. I think it's sufficient, but some people might think that a near 60kb article should have more than 36 inlines. Overall, though, excellent work. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 03:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

=Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Review
 * 1) Mos has to be followed (hyphens used as dashes)
 * 2) The climate table can be moved to the climate subarticle.
 * 3) text needs a copyedit to tighten the sentences
 * 4) during the younger Daley's administration have made world headlines – what sort of "world" headlines?
 * 5) =history= is choppy. Sentences needs to flow
 * 6) Beyond local elections, Chicago.. – entire para can be summarised into one sentence. Infact most of the section glosses over the fact that Chicago is a Democratic bastion. Can be summarised.
 * 7) In sites of interest, context needed for Navy Pier
 * 8) most respected -- according to who? (weasel word)