Talk:Los Arcos Mall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jeromi Mikhael (talk · contribs) 07:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will review this article in a few days. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Checks

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No problems with either prose, spelling, or grammar.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead summarizes the subject appropriately without going into unnecessary detail, layout OK, the wording is appropriate, fiction and list policies are not applicable here due to the lack of both aspects in this article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	all references are listed in the Reference section of the article and all of the references used the same format
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	there are three different publications being used here: The Arizona Republic, AZ Big Media, and Directory of major malls. The former two definitely pass as reliable secondary sources, and the latter seems to be a secondary source. The last one is not an online source, so I have to AGF on that.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All sentences are cited with appropriate sources and no indication of synthesis.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig generates a clean result, so no possibility of copyright violation.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See 3b
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays into focus, covering the chronology of its building from its construction until its demise.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	All of the phrases and sentences covers the subject in a non-biased and objective manner.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nominator is the only major editor of the article, the others are just passing by, no edit war so far.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	there is only one image in the article and the image is tagged as non free - the tag is sufficient and detailed enough
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic (there's only one image and it is in the infobox - without any caption
	7. Overall assessment.	Following the adequate response to the inquiries and suggestions that I have given regarding this article, I think this article is now satisfactory enough to be rated as a Good Article. Congratulations! --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Inquiries and suggestions

@Sammi Brie:

Infobox

• Opening date: It would be better if you put both dates in the infobox: October 20, 1969 (anchor store)<br>November 21, 1969 (official)

  Done

• Closing date: Similar to the opening date, put both dates in the infobox: 1995 (official)<br>February 1999 (last store)

  The mall didn't close in 1995, so this is wrong

Lead

• Explain the meaning of Los Arcos, as mentioned in citation #5. Probably make a new section for the name?

  Done

Mall history

• After construction began in October 1968 - source says ceremony marking construction start of the construction's first key building was held on 29 September - probably change it to late September 1968

  September 29 (Sunday) source says the ceremony is Tuesday (Oct. 1)

• First paragraph: mention Kitchell Contractors who constructed the center

  not sure if contractor really belongs in text. This mall had two GCs, one for the anchor stores and one for the remainder of the property.

• an open-air center - no mention in the citation?

  Citation added

• #4 is cited twice for a single chain of sentence - is it necessary?

• better safe than sorry here, imo

• Among the inline tenants was a movie theater on the lower level; three out-parcel buildings were built for the two anchors' automotive centers and a First Federal Savings and Loan office. - Note that this sentence's source was made before the building was completed - it would be better if you mention that these were "planned".

  Changed (though these were all built)

• 1,000,000-square-foot (93,000 m2)-plus Fiesta Mall - no mention about this in the sources

  Source added

• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community - Indian Community -> Reserve?

  Not in this case. You might notice that's where the article is.

• Equity Properties of Chicago - expand to equity properties and development company of chicago

  Done

• The Broadway - is this referring to the broadway-hale stores?

  Yes, the stores themselves were always known as The Broadway though the corporate parent had once been known as Broadway-Hale. (Responses from here up: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC))

  @Sammi Brie: If that's the case then please harmonize the naming for the stores or clarify the relation between the two (e.g. The Broadway (owned by Broadway-Hale) or Broadway-Hale (corporate parent of The Broadway).

   Done

Hockey arena proposal

• but it was not until the end of 1996 that a potential buyer emerged: the Phoenix-based Ellman Companies, - could this sentence be reworded to remove the colon? Colon is not recommended to be used in conjunction with the dash.

   Done

• A year later, Ellman presented three revised plans. One of them was for a $140 million hockey arena to house the Phoenix Coyotes of the National Hockey League, along with proposals for a power center and an updated version of the 1997 concept.[19] The plan including the arena and power center survived[20] and was unveiled to the public on September 28, with a cost of $600 million. - this sentence is kind of confusing. Are the power center and the updated 1997 version part of a single plan or are these separated?

  Reworded for clarity. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Clarify the relation between Steve Ellman and The Ellman Companies.

   Done

• Since there are two Ellmans here (Steve Ellman and The Ellman Companies), please replace Ellmans that were referred to with he with Steve Ellman per WP:NCP.

   Done

Los Arcos Town Center proposal

• The collapse of the Los Arcos arena plan put Scottsdale back at the drawing board on plans to reuse the property. - replace Scottsdale with Scottsdale city

   Done

• That January, Ellman, which still owned the property, proposed a shopping center to be anchored by Walmart, Sam's Club, and Lowe's. Since Ellman would be mentioned several more times in this section, please clarify which Ellman in this sentence.

   Done

• councilmembers -> council members

  It is styled this way in a lot of Arizona municipalities and elsewhere in the US, as a replacement for the gendered "councilman". For instance, [1]

• under the banner of "STOP 'EM" -> banner is quite ambiguous here. probably under the "STOP 'EM" group?

  The group seemed a bit loose but it is a "group" per the article.

• to voters in March 2004 - because this would later be mentioned as the "9 March vote", I think this phrase should be changed to 9 March 2004.

   Done

• "administrative" - no mentions about the "administrative" state of the act in the source, even with apostrophe. Could you point this out?

  Citation added.

SkySong

• ASU never appears before this section, yet the university was suddenly mentioned here without any background. Is it possible to elaborate a bit on how did ASU get involved in this matter?

  A source has been added to discuss some of this.

• In 2004, the city of Scottsdale and the ASU Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Arizona State University, reached a deal: Ellman would sell the land for $41.5 million to the foundation, - Why is Ellman not a part of the deal? How could two parties reach a deal that involves a third party without the third party being involved in the deal. Should it be the city of Scottsdale, the ASU Foundation, and The Ellman Companies?

   Done

• (Paragraph 3) Where is SkySong 2? There is no mention about it.

  See the last sentence of paragraph 2: the first two office buildings on the property

• The university maintains offices and a business incubator in the center. - Should it be The foundation instead?

  The offices are for university units. This isn't the only building the ASU Foundation owns where actual university units occupy office space. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

General Assessment

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed