Talk:Boise Towne Square/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I intend to undertake a Good Article Review of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to conduct a Good Article Review of this article. I will start by adding a framework listing the GA criteria, and then assess against each criteria. In all but the best and worst articles I expect to find at least minor ways that the article should be improved prior to getting the tick. It may take me anywhere from a couple of hours to several days to complete the initial review, depending on RL commitments. Each criterion will be marked with a red cross until I have assessed that the article meets or exceeds the criterion, at which time the cross will be changed to a green tick. When the initial review is complete I will let the nominator know via a message on his or her talk page. Thank you for your patience.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

• Resolved - "out parcel shopping center" - I have no idea what an "out parcel shopping centre" is. Could you either wikilink this to a helpful article or explain it in the article text please?

• Clarified to "adjacent strip mall".

• Generally - company/structure conflation - Is this article about the physical building "Boise Town Square Mall" or about the company managing the Mall, or both? Please make this clear in the lead and then treat it consistently throughout the article. Phrasing such as "the Mall owns" or "the Mall operates" suggest the article refers to the business. If the article is about the business, what is the formal name of the business, and who is its managing director? When was the business established? What is its annual turnover? Where can we locate its annual reports? Conversely, phrasings like "it was built" suggest the article is about the physical structure.
• Generally - "Boise Town Plaza" - There is confusion throughout the article about the relationship between the Mall and the Plaza, partly brought about by the conflation of the physical Mall with the company owning the Mall. At times the Plaza appears to be treated as part of the Mall (see the infobox issue below), while at others it seems to be treated as a separate shopping centre (its anchor store is not listed as one of the Mall's anchor stores in the lead). Could you please consider this issue and take steps to see the treatment clarified and standardised across the article?

• Working on clarifying that General Growth owns both the mall and the strip. The main focus is on the mall, but since the adjacent strip is owned by the same company, development on the strip is also relevant. Would it be better if info on the strip were all in one section?

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation;

• Lead - You have bolding on "Boise Towne Plaza" in the lead. Typically only alternative names for the article topic should be bolded; I understand Boise Town Plaza to be a subdivision or ancillary operation of the mall rather than an alternative name for it. If I am correct you need to remove the bolding; if I am not, you need to clarify the lead to make this clear.

• Fixed.

• Lead - The lead names five current anchor stores. The infobox lists the current number of anchor stores as six. Does the count of six include Old Navy at the Towne Plaza? If so please clarify in the infobox.

• This was fixed — the anchors are Dillard's, JCPenney, Kohl's, Macy's, Sears and Borders.

• Layout - You only have one level 2 header ("History") with the remainder of the article all being level 3 headers beneath it. If the entire article is history could you consider whether either (a) you need to have non-historical content as well, or (b) you should remove the History header and promote the remaining sections to level 2 headers?

• Could make it all level 2s.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

• Factual accuracy - The lead paragraph implies that Borders is still an anchor store in the mall. In light of recent events (the bankruptcy of Borders/Angus & Robertson) is this information still correct?

• Looks like Caldorwards4 got this for me.

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images in the article are now appropriately licensed and tagged.

Resolved - File:Boisepre2006entrance.jpg - does not clearly identify the creator of the work. It's presumably User:Caldorwards4 but this needs to appear clearly on the image page. The image page also does not contain a description of the image or the year it was taken but these latter concerns do not relate to the GA criteria. The other photos in this article by the same user are fine.

• This is one of Caldorwards4's first image uploads. I know that user made some (good faith) copyrighted image uploads early in his Wikipedia editing history, so I've asked him about it. I follow him on Flickr and I'm pretty sure he's got something somewhere.

• ETA: He says it indeed wasn't his photo and he uploaded it before he knew better. He also said he'll try to get a usable picture of the mall.

Resolved - File:Boise towne square.png - The image licensing claims that the purpose of this image is "to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey." Given that the logo is not in current use, and is probably not of much use as a disambiguator between similar "boise towne square" brands, I am not convinced that there is adequate reason given for using this non-free image. Could you either improve the non-free-use rationale or remove the image?

• Removed.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Subject to my concerns about non-free use of the logo above, the images are relevant to the article and appropriately captioned.

Overview - I am pausing the review here. I have identified significant confusion about what the topic of the article is, as detailed under 1a above. Is the article about the physical mall structure, the business that manages the mall, or about the geographic area in which the mall's operations take place? The answers to these questions have significant implications for what information should or should not be in the article and therefore I think they should be addressed before I continue the review. I am therefore placing the review on hold with several criteria unaddressed until I obtain a response from the nominator to these issues. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you believe you have responded to the issues. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• The reviewer is inactive, so I'll get a new subpage going so a new review can take place. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)