Talk:Exelon Pavilions/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Beeby is also the designer of the Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance." - parenthetical... remove as it doesn't have anything to do with the Exelon Pavilions.

   I revised the text to clarify the significance of the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   "The North Pavilions are the first Chicago buildings to use building integrated photovoltaic cells, i.e., a solar energy system incorporated into the building's construction materials." - why the i.e.? That clause seems to be a definition of the term.

   I reworded this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   " the future expansion of the Art Institute of Chicago." - calling it the Modern Wing is probably OK; linking to it would be better. Spellcheck on "pavlions".

   There is no link for the Modern Wing that I know of.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "The pavilions provide sufficient energy to power the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses in Chicago." - checked the source, and sure enough, that's what it says. star-rated should be linked... somewhere. Energy Star?

   Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

   Need more details as to what that actually meant.

   At some point it should be noted that Exelon and ComEd are energy utilites/distributors (whichever is technically correct).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I tried to think of other major aspects of the pavilions, but couldn't really think of any. So it looks pretty good; just some minor issues. —Rob (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I addressed a couple of points, and now I think it meets the criteria. —Rob (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)