Talk:Century 21 Exposition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Century 21 Exposition has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
[edit] Edart Museum
The Official Guide Book to the fair credits the wax figures in the Paris Spectacular to the "Edart Museum in Paris". I don't know what that is, and can find nothing online. Does anyone know more about this? - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article does a good job of covering the bases, and while I think it just barely has enough depth, it's nearly at GA status. However, there are some minor structural repairs and copyediting that needs to be done first. I'm going to put it on hold for a week, so these repairs can be completed. If they're not, it will be failed on 24 November.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Needs some work. There are a number of one-sentence paragraphs, and the organization is odd. I assume the "World of Commerce and Industry" as a major heading is a mistake? The tiny subsections at the bottom ("Exhibit Fair", "Food and Favors", etc) should be combined into a longer and less-stubby section. There are also a number of sentences with awkward phrasing. One example: "Despite the plan to build for the long term for a civic center, more than half of the fair structures were torn down after the fair ended." Here, "for" is repeated twice in the first clause, and "fair" twice in the second. A thorough copyedit would bring this up to the GA bar.
- Yes, "World of Commerce and Industry" as a major heading was a mistake, now fixed. I'll see what I can do on the rest of the above. "Exhibit Fair", "Food and Favors" were given their own sections because they were each an official section of the fair (see the list in the fifth paragraph of Buildings and grounds). I doubt there is much of interest to say about them, and I can certainly combine some sections here, but I was trying to parallel the official structure of the fair. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- That makes sense for the larger items, but I think when we get down to the smaller bits, mixing them into a paragraph looks better and more encyclopedic than a run of tiny stubby subsections. I also think that given the fact that there are sections for each, the description in "Buildings and Grounds" doesn't need a list of these. Neither is a big deal, however. – Scartol • Tok 12:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Needs some work. There are a number of one-sentence paragraphs, and the organization is odd. I assume the "World of Commerce and Industry" as a major heading is a mistake? The tiny subsections at the bottom ("Exhibit Fair", "Food and Favors", etc) should be combined into a longer and less-stubby section. There are also a number of sentences with awkward phrasing. One example: "Despite the plan to build for the long term for a civic center, more than half of the fair structures were torn down after the fair ended." Here, "for" is repeated twice in the first clause, and "fair" twice in the second. A thorough copyedit would bring this up to the GA bar.
- B. MoS compliance:
- No major violations, aside from the above, some of which strays into MoS territory.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Could use more depth, but it's sufficient for a GA, in my opinion
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- So far as I can tell, having no experience with the subject. The Cold War context is interesting and well-NPOVed.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- The images are all right-aligned, which is distracting. Staggered images would be more appealing. That you made a map on your own is a commendable sign of dedication.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
[edit] Tommy Bartlett
This anonymous edit with no summary added Tommy Bartlett's Water Ski Sky and Stage Show without adding a citation. Effectively, it looks as if it is cited for by my citation at the end of the paragraph. I don't have that source handly at the moment. I can't say for sure whether they were there or not; I've never heard of waterskiing in Memorial Stadium, but I guess it could (barely) be done. Anyway, either the citation should be checked for this, or it should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
