Talk:Toyota Center/GA1

GA Review

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

I have reviewed this article based on the official GA criteria:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

• For the most part, the prose and grammar in this article is very good. I fixed a couple things here and there, and might fix a few more, but it's nothing too major. The writing is clear and concise in most parts of it.
• One little thing I did see was that the word "arena" is used 29 times in this article. Not a huge deal, but it is noticeable in some parts. Maybe mix it up with "stadium" and "building".

B. Manual of Style:

• The style of the article is also pretty good. One thing I would do though is make the lead a little longer. Instead of three sentences, I would try for 8-10, maybe with two small paragraphs. Other than that, everything is consistent and presented nicely.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

• The references are formatted very nicely (except for #30), but it's a little concerning that all 43 of them come from the Houston Chronicle. While the Chronicle is obviously a reliable source, it'd be nice to get a perspective from other sources as well. For such an important arena, it must be mentioned somewhere else.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• Every sentence that needs a source has one. Very nice to see.

C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

• The coverage on the history is good, but it'd be nice to see more prose in the Events section, and maybe even a new section that talks about some distinctive features of the Toyota Center. Some facts and figures other than the construction costs and attendance levels would be nice. As it stands, the article looks more like "History of the Toyota Center", than the "Toyota Center". But it is summed up very nicely, at that.

B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

• There is no conflict of neutrality in this article whatsoever. Good job.

5. Is it stable?

• No edit wars, etc

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

• The article has sufficient images that illustrate the arena in several different aspects.

Overall this was an enjoyable article to read. It could use some more content in the lead, and perhaps even a new section, but the content that is there is very good. And the images are also very good. The article is referenced throughout, and they are formatted nicely, but I think it could use some other sources than the Chronicle. It won't stop this from getting GA-status, but it's something that might be brought up down the line if it's ever nominated for FA-status. I'm going to place this on hold until the lead is a little longer and a little more content is added, but it's very close to GA at this point, so don't worry about it too much. --Sportskido8 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a little embarassed, you've caught me at the wrong time. You're right, there are still several sections that could be added or expanded. I'll continue to work on the article in the coming week, and hopefully I'll have it ready by then. Thanks for the review so far. As I'll still be expanding and improving quite a bit in the next few days, there's no need to review it again until I can say I'm all finished. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, is it possible to add info about amenities and ownership, like Rose Garden (arena)?—Chris! _ct 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, still working on adding and organizing. If I can find the necessary info, I will. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I've added everything I need to. I hope I'm ready for a review proper. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Were you trying to add another sentence to the first paragraph of the lead? It won't affect my review, I was just curious. --Sportskido8 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has been improved to GA quality, and I passed it. Congrats! --Sportskido8 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I had that fragment there. But anyway, thanks for the review, hard work like that is always appreciated. Thanks again, Noble Story (talk • contributions)