It should be noted that I am aware that the
Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for
2016 Olympic Stadium and
2016 Olympic swimming venue. These are both buildings that may very well have articles in October 2009 but not be completed until October 2016. It would be possible that neither article can achieve
WP:GA until 2016. I am not sure whether either will belong in this topic or the subtopic, but these will have to be audited articles for several years in all likelihood.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a very impressive topic, much better than last time around. I find it amusing that we have here a topic where 5 of the 6 articles all have the same name! (As an aside, I am not convinced that the articles would be un-GA-able before 2016, but anyway, we'll have to wait and see who gets the Olympics because this might all come to nothing) -
rst20xx (
talk)
16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
CommentSupport. First of all, I must apologise for never coming back to this discussion after voting oppose last time. It must have slipped my mind, but was very rude of me. secondly, I think this is much closer to completion than the last one was. However I am reluctant to support because I see a problem in the lead article: the In literature section consists of two unconnected sentences and I am not be satisifed that this is compliant with GA standards. Can this section be expanded into a full prose paragraph, or if not at least presented in a more appealing manner? --
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I assume the community area is named after the park? And the park is named after George Washington. Is it possible to say that somewhere in the community area article?
rst20xx (
talk)
22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though -
rst20xx (
talk)
18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
It should be noted that I am aware that the
Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for
2016 Olympic Stadium and
2016 Olympic swimming venue. These are both buildings that may very well have articles in October 2009 but not be completed until October 2016. It would be possible that neither article can achieve
WP:GA until 2016. I am not sure whether either will belong in this topic or the subtopic, but these will have to be audited articles for several years in all likelihood.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a very impressive topic, much better than last time around. I find it amusing that we have here a topic where 5 of the 6 articles all have the same name! (As an aside, I am not convinced that the articles would be un-GA-able before 2016, but anyway, we'll have to wait and see who gets the Olympics because this might all come to nothing) -
rst20xx (
talk)
16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)reply
CommentSupport. First of all, I must apologise for never coming back to this discussion after voting oppose last time. It must have slipped my mind, but was very rude of me. secondly, I think this is much closer to completion than the last one was. However I am reluctant to support because I see a problem in the lead article: the In literature section consists of two unconnected sentences and I am not be satisifed that this is compliant with GA standards. Can this section be expanded into a full prose paragraph, or if not at least presented in a more appealing manner? --
Jackyd101 (
talk)
07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I assume the community area is named after the park? And the park is named after George Washington. Is it possible to say that somewhere in the community area article?
rst20xx (
talk)
22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)reply
No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though -
rst20xx (
talk)
18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply