Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Post Oak Mall/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:50, 23 December 2009 [1].

---

Post Oak Mall

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Post Oak Mall/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. It is well written, as comprehensive as possible from available, high-quality reliable sources, very well researched, neutral, and stable. It follows all applicable style guides, and uses a proper, consistent citation style. Currently a good article, it has been through a second peer review since its GAN passed and all issues from it have been addressed and it is appropriately illustrated with free and public domain works. All of the images have the appropriate ALT text (though it should be noted that the shopping infobox in use does not support it, so while it is in the article, it is not working). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No dab links or dead external links, and dates are Month Day, Year throughout. (postoakmall.com is listed green twice in the link checker, but works for me.) Also put in a edit request for the box. --an odd name 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/8895.html a reliable source?
• What makes http://www.secinfo.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

SEC Info is a database of the SEC's EDGAR database that has been operated by Finnegan O'Malley & Company since 1997. Its a recognized repository for public access to that database of all SEC filings that are generally only available through a very limited subscriber system.[2] I removed the CinemaTour one. It was only added because a local editor was insistent that there was never a movie theater at the mall, despite the much more reliable source saying there was and those with better memories remembering it as well :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you use EDGAR itself as the source? These filings are there and SEC filings are publicly accessible. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh...never realized that. *blush* Updated the article to use the original SEC filing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support It appears as though the peer reviews have done their job. I could not find any pressing issues with the wording that would require immediate changes, and the article is thorough, stable, and well-sourced. I have to admit that reading an article on a mall is not my cup of tea, but there seem to be no issues that keep it from meeting FA criteria. Mrathel (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I just want to clarify, having become more familiar with the FAC process, that my support is based on wording and sources. While I feel that the article is incredibly comprehensive for an article on a mall, I am not confident enough in my knowledge of what such articles should include in order to be able to speak on the "completeness" of the entry. Mrathel (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment regarding File:Post Oak Mall - Aerial View.jpg: The Texas Public Information Act addresses the ability of the public to access information compiled, assembled, etc. by the government in the course of official business. It does appear to address the issue of copyright; indeed, that word (copyright) is mentioned only once (Sec.A552.228(b)(3)) and is used in a way that implies its retention. Making a work accessible does not, in and of itself, release its rights (think of a book in a public library; anyone can access it, but that doesn't mean the copyright is released). What is the basis for claiming this to be PD? The source site's Conditions and Use Policy says " Information and/or images which may not be copied without permission include ... third party applications". The image summary credits the author as "Land Info Worldwide Mapping"; wouldn't that be a third party? The page also carries the general disclaimer "© 2009 City of College Station. All Rights Reserved." This would not be expected to appear on a Texas government site if the Public Information Act actually released government copyright, no? Эlcobbola _talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can only guess when I added it that I thought its being released under the PIA and its being freely accessible information would make it public domain. Plus, the site contradicts itself on its disclaimer[3] "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the City of College Station website is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used with the City of College Station's permission. We request only that the City of College Station be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits, graphics or byline be similarly credited to the photographer, author or City of College Station, as appropriate. " while having a copyright notice at the bottom of every page. *head smack* If this is incorrect, I can remove it or add the appropriate FUR if it would fall under fair use? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as a building still in existence, it would not pass NFCC#1, as a free equivalent could be created (e.g. a federal satellite could image it, a Wikipedian with a plane could photograph it, etc.) - so fair use is out. The contradiction is indeed bizarre, but the image should not be used without clear license information. To retain the image (possibly), my suggestion would be to contact the city to inquire about the status and then, if it is indeed PD, file the city's response with OTRS. Absent an OTRS tag, however, it should be removed. Эlcobbola _talk 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There be many things I do for Wikipedia, but leaning out a plane is not one of them ;-) For now, I've removed and I'll contact the city to find out for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There's actually currently an article at FAC using an image taken by a Wikipedian with a plane. What is it they say, though; I prefer terra firma, the firma the better? If the city responds positively, let me know and I can process the OTRS permission. Otherwise, the removal resolves the concern. Эlcobbola _talk 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a response. Thye said they allow the imagery for use by non-profits and individual users, including Wikipedia, but not sure how the non-profit clause would affect its usability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It won't work. To be "free", a work must be reusable by anyone, including for-profit (i.e. commercial) entities. Эlcobbola _talk 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I'll go ahead and have the image deleted. Thanks for spotting that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is hardly comprehensive. The history section does not make mention of anything between 1985 and 2004, there is virtually no information on the financial and economic performance of the mall over the years, impact on the community is largely ignored after information on the initial opening of the mall, there is no information on any executives that operated the mall over the years, no information on how mall initiatives made good econmic times better or attempted to cope with more difficult economic times. I really do not see how an article on a shopping mall could ever be made comprehensive without actually researching the corporate records of the institution itself and digging deep into the paper/microfilm archives of the surrounding communities as opposed to just using what articles and resources are available on the Internet. This is an esoteric subject, so this kind of deep research is necessary to overcome a lack of information in the secondary literature. Indrian (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, I spent WEEKS at our local libraries going through the microfiche files for our local paper and digging through every local historical book that mentioned the mall. There IS no other actual relevant information to state. The bulk of the news stories between 85 and 2004 were event announcements, sales, etc. There were no other reports found discussing anything major, not even most of the store closings/openings were considered news worthy and this is the only mall of that size in this county. Every scrap of reliably sourcable financial and economic information that was available has been incorporated. Only 16 of its references are online ones, and of those, several are just online copies of the offline resources used. What executives, the manager? If you can find such records, please do so. Claiming it is not comprehensive without providing actual proof that something is lacking is rather insulting. This is not a huge mall that has a ton of information about "initiatives" (not that they have done many), "executives" etc. What difficult economic times? You mean right now? The problems affecting many parts of the country have really not hit this area that much, which has yet to see any real estate depression, major economical downturn, etc. Corporate records that are not publicly available are also not usable as sources and if you can produce some, go ahead. This is not an esoteric subject nor is Wikipedia the platform for publishing personal research. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, that was an overly indignant respose, and all it did was prove my salient points. If not enough sources exist to create a comprehensive article on a subject, then maybe it is not yet deserving of being featured. I am under no burden to provide sources; that is your job. If You cannot fill in the major gaps in the history and financial performance of the mall over the past several decades that is not on me. The comprehensiveness requirement is not waived just because there are not enough sources. I do appreciate the work you appear to have put into this, but there is no call to get huffy when I call you out on only using online sources when they represent all but four of the references listed in the article. I believe you that you did a lot of digging in local archives as well, but I could only comment based on what was in the article itself. Indrian (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 10 non-online sources, so I don't get where your count is. A major gap in history indicates that there was something noteworthy that actually happened. You are presuming there was, which would indicate you have knowledge there is so it is to you to actually demonstrate this knowledge, not claim the article is not worthy of being featured because of a mythical belief that there "must" be something more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Count for yourself how many of the sources have hyperlinks to web sources. I am sure you came across the newspaper articles in the original print as well, which is why you consider the count different, but an observer of the article who has no idea what your research methodologies were is naturally going to assume you did nearly all your research online. As for the historical gap, your claim that lack of newspaper coverage is prima facie evidence that nothing important happened is not particularly compelling. All this proves is that interest in what occurred at the mall was low in the community, and that implies this shopping mall may not even deserve an article in the first place. Now, I am not going that far in my own arguments, but no one who comes to this article expecting it to be among wikipedia's best if it were promoted to FA is going to believe that nothing important happened in those fifteen years, and you will not be there to tell each and every one of them that you went through the entire local newspaper archive and found no information. That is a disconnect in comprehensiveness I feel we cannot allow. Things happened at that mall in fifteen years, maybe even things of great import for the future direction of the facility, but just because this information is apparently locked in unavailable corporate records does not waive the FA requirement. As for my other point, a mall's entire purpose is to promote commerce, so if we are missing information on the financial impact of the mall on the community (you have some good material here, just not comprehensive) and/or the financial information on the mall itself, then we are missing vital information for understanding the insitution. Indrian (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying I should remove the links to the Eagle just because it, like almost any other worthy newspaper, actually puts its articles online? That is ridiculous. If someone wants to make such a presumption, that's not my problem, nor do I care. There are, in fact, FAs that do have all online sources, but it is neither here nor there. You are welcome to come to the BCS area and look at the three decades worth of newspaper articles yourself to see if anything important happened. Our library has every last issue archived and offers free printing (a godsend!). I've already done so and nothing did. Claiming it should not be featured because there is no information is also not in line with FAC. The FAC does not say "must cover every detail even if it doesn't exist". You can't just make up stuff to fluff out an article. If it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Yes, lots happened at the mall, but nothing of importance enough to actually note anywhere. It was robbed a few times, but that's not relevant content. What information is missing on its economical impact per you? How should it be more comprehensive? You are only offering vague, unsupported complaints that would be impossible for anyone to every meet and that are far above and beyond any of the criteria for being featured. The mall's financial impact IS detailed, it is there, per Wikipedia guidelines. There are no corporate records to refer to. You can't presume that there "must" and claim therefore the article is not comprehensive. WP:V works both ways. If you are going to claim that more information is available, prove it. Otherwise, this seems like a rather unhelpful and pointy oppose based on your idea of what featured articles should be versus the actual criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you insist on taking my statements out of the context of our entire conversation I am going to make one honest attempt to set the record straight. If you don't understand after this, I wash my hands of it. When I first opposed the article, I indicated that deep archive research was necessary and appeared not to have been done. This assumption was based on the fact that only four sources did not have hyperlinks, indicating a reliance on the Internet. You got rather irritated by this assumption and got rather snarky about the fact that you did not lots and lots of archival research. I indicated that I appreciated the work and explained my initial confusion. You got slightly huffy again through indicating my count of Internet sources was wrong. I expalined where an observer would draw the same conclusion I did. Never did I question the inclusion of hyperlinks nor the quality of the sources presented and I long before acknowledged that my original assumption about an overreliance on the Internet was wrong. I am quite shocked we are still discussing that particular point.

Now to the actual point at hand, namely a lack of comprehensiveness. I cannot tell you what happened at the mall between 1985 and 2004 because I am not an expert in this topic nor have I researched it. I wish I could tell you exactly what facts were missing from that period to help you fix this flaw, but I can only point out the deficiency. I can tell you that only by researching the corporate archives of the mall or the developer and/or interviewing people involved with the mall can this deficiency be cured. If an examination of those records showed that nothing of interest happened in fifteen years (unheard of in ANY subject I have ever researched myself), then I would agree nothing more could be done. If you are unable to acquire this material or if you believe it would constitute original research on wikipedia that really does not matter for the FA requirement that a topic be covered comprehensively. You are assuming nothing happened without consulting relevant sources, which is not a good research technique. I do think you have done a remarkable job finding information on this topic and have obviously put in a lot of hard work and I do not consider this lack of information a slight on you personally at all. Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indrian, I don't know whether or not your concerns about the comprehensiveness or sourcing of this article are valid or not, but I do want to point out that the argument "Some subjects just don't have enough available material to be worthy of FA status" is not accepted here. There have been extensive discussions at FAC talk (if you want, I can find the links later), about whether or not every article should have a chance to become featured. In the end, the community at FAC decided that every article should have that opportunity. A "comprehensive" article is therefore one that covers the published material (however inadequate that published material may be). Awadewit (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a decision had been reached. I still have a great many personal reservations about this article and feel that the project is only lowered if short and relatively incomplete articles like this are counted among our best works (again, not a slight on AnmaFinotera, but a lament on the lack of additional sources), but it appears that there are no policy objections to stand on. I therefore withdraw my objection, though I will not support. I thank you for providing a reasoned rebuttal to my points as opposed to some of the overly indignant commentary above. Indrian (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now by Karanacs. I did a double-take when I saw this name on the list - thank you, AnmaFinotera, for bringing me back in time a bit. (Disclosure notice: I worked at a store in this mall for a semester many years ago. I also shopped/ate there whenever I had funds, but haven't been there in a decade.) You've crafted a solid article, but I don't think that it meets the FA criteria yet. I'm especially concerned with the prose and the comprehensiveness.

• You might want to check this number: might otherwise travel the 2½ miles southeast to Houston for mall shopping
• should it be mentioned that the mall is used as parking for games? (this is actually in a reliable source [4])
• This source may be useful[5]
• Post Oak Mall was used as a study site for this article - not sure if it will be helpful [6]
• I found reference to a court case- Faizullah v. Post Oak Mall by CBL & Associates Texas Tenth District Court of Appeals Dated: April 27, 2005 but no details - this may be work further investigation
• There's no mention of effects of Hurricane Ike, which appeared to cause Dillards to close [7]
• Might want to consider mentioning this annual event [8]
• Should we mention the guy who lived in the mall for a while in 2003? [9]
• I think the article needs to begin with background on Bryan/College Station? That there is a university and a large community college in the area. Perhaps a bit about the geography - the cities are located in this part of Texas, X miles from Houston/Austin/Dallas, and that the two towns are adjacent to each other but not close to much of anything else? Perhaps mention that a state highway runs across the top of the cities?
• Can we mention in the text (not just the wikilink) that Earl Rudder Freeway is Hwy 6? That threw me at first, and I know the area fairly well - no one called it "Earl Rudder Freeway" when I lived there; it was always just "Highway 6"
• Was there any mention in the book (or any newspaper articles) why the site in Bryan was the first choice? What was it about that land that made it appealing for a mall. Why was the current site selected?
• Why was the city trying to buy the land? Why not a developer? Who actually owns the mall? The article alternatively says that CBL people was the manager and the owner. This needs to be made much more clear.
• Watch for wikilinking. Don't need a linkg to "fire", hair salon, video game, optical, etc
• Post Oak Mall was the first of four CBL-owned malls to receive this network, with four other CBL malls to follow -- this is unclear. Are there 8 malls with this technology or 4?
• The prose needs a lot of work. Examples:
  • Plans began for the opening of a large regional mall in the area... This is passive voice. Who began making these plans? Specific developers? City council? shopkeepers?
  • three screen Plitt movie theater, - need a hyphen between three and screen since this is acting as an adjective (this is correct later in the article). What is a Plitt movie theater? Is Plitt a company? ... I see this is specified later in the article, but I was still confused at the first mention
  • There is repetitive phrasing. Example: The mall also contained....The mall walkways contained..."
  • There is akward phrasing "locally started", "as well as water damage after water from the sprinklers flowed out of the store and into the middle of the mall walkway." and others
  • Sentences don't always flow - KB Toys was another of the mall's first occupants, and it was one of only four toy stores in the Brazos County after the other two toy stores closed after the mall was opened. This sentence could be rewritten to be more clear and less wordy
  • There are in places basic grammar issues. I fixed one spelling mistake, but I see other missing words "The stalls arranged around..." or wrong words/tenses. The article needs a good read-through and an independent copyedit
• KB Toys gets a lot of mention in the store section, while some locally notable business aren't mentioned. A lot of other stores have closed/left the mall too
• Bealls, became the fifth anchor when it opened a second location in Post Oak a few weeks after the mall's opening -- this is a misleading section. A second location ever (I know that isn't true), a second location in College Station, a second location in the mall, a second location in Brazos County...?
• As of 2004, both Dillard's locations, Foley's, J.C. Penney, and Sears were all independently owned, separate from mall ownership, and considered "stand-alone" buildings for tax purposes - Not sure why this is included. Foley's no longer exists now, so this is a bit weird
• How could Steve & Barry's be the 7th anchor? I only count 5 in the article (if you are counting Wilson's twice, that needs to bespecified)
• I saw a few articles on how the Chick-fil-A in the mall won an award in 2007 (sorry, didn't keep the link). This is probably at least as notable asthe McDonalds leaving.
• The economic impact is full of a lot of "hopes" and assumptions from when the mall opened. Not all of these are addressed at the end of the section. I think that some of the initial assumptions may need to be moved into history, with the economic impact section reserved for results.

Overall, it seems obvious that this article was written based on sources that you found, which leaves us with an article that is over-specific in some places (much text on KB Toys) and ignores other areas. If the article should be a series of anecdotes (which I really don't have a problem with), there are more sources/stories available per the quick Google search I did. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately did not includes its local events because they didn't seem significant (being a parking lot, random fund raisers, etc). None of the other admittedly few decent mall articles I found nor the rather sparse guideline indicating that such information would be relevant to the article, nor is it considered relevant for general corporation articles (which I took more guidance from). I tried to limit information from the sources found to what seemed significant, as the mall is mentioned in the paper at least once a week for various trivial things. Mall articles on Wikipedia in general seem much neglected, so had to go by instinct and other generally similar concepts to get any idea on what would be relevant. I would see no reason to include the city history/geography in this article, that's why the city article's exist. The reliable sources found didn't feel the need to mention it either, in direct context to the mall. Dillard's closing most of its stores in the area for Hurricane Ike is neither relevant nor worth noting about this specific mall. No, neither of the books nor the paper mentioned why Bryan was the first choice. I can only presume because it was a large open piece of land, and fairly centrally located. Nor was there much detail on the business end of why it was the city, and not the developer, trying to buy it. From more recent sources, however, I'd almost wonder if the city has some kind of partial ownership in the mall, as it is the one that seems to be spearheading the current renovation efforts and planning to foot the bill. Finding reliable sources on that, though, have also turned up nothing. I'll have to see if I can get a copy of the Transportation document to see what else it has. Will work on addressing the prose issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can find on the court case, the person filed suit, then never followed through and it was dismissed[10] Will dig further -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The mall itself counts both Dillard's as separate anchors, but have reworded the whole paragraph. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

From a brief look at your sources, it looks like the information either comes from books on the larger region (meaning that background information is included, just not necessarily with the mall information) or are more local newspaper articles, where it's generally assumed that the reader is already familiar with the region. For an encyclopedia article, I think it is crucial to provide enough background information. Some of what I asked for is in the article, just not near the front, which means the reader is left with gaps in their knowledge. A short paragraph (3-4 sentences) providing background on the region is necessary to fill those gaps.

As for the Dillards closing - we mention other store closings so it seems odd not to mention something like that. Perhaps there was more widespread closure at the mall for Ike? That would also be worth mentioning. Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It didn't close permanently, it closed for a few days and they closed all of their stores in multiple counties, not just Post Oak. So it wasn't specific nor really relevant to the mall. I've made some updates to the article to try to address some of your concerns.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.