868:
I don't see that as an improvement. That it was "various" uses has been cited, so lack of sourcing is not an issue there. Some of the terms and phrases the reviewer called peacock terms were just paraphrasing of information from the cited, reliable sources – e.g., that the
Galleria was "popular" and that the opening of Pioneer Place was major "blow" to the Galleria. Those are not extreme, inflammatory phrases unsuitable for an encyclopedia, so if reliable sources have been cited for them – which they have been – why does the reviewer feel they should be removed? Phrases expressing opinion are perfectly fine in WP if respected, reliable sources are cited for them, are they not? Floors 4 and 5: The numbers should be spelled out? Really? For floor numbers? Floor numbers are normally expressed in numerals. If Knowledge's manual of style says otherwise, I might support changing it, but personally I'm not inclined to spend time looking for that info. in the MoS. I agree that multipage PDFs used for several citations ought to cite specific page numbers. I know it's possible to do that in the way that doesn't repeat all the common details (name of document, etc.) for every note, but personally I've not yet learned how to do that, particularly in a document (such as this one) that does not use conventional page-number sequencing (page numbers restart at 1 in every section). I hope someone who does know will tackle that point. Many of the details the reviewer requests are not given in any of the several newspaper articles and other sources I reviewed and cited, such as the name of the 1851 store and the height of the flag poles. If every such detail the reviewer requested is considered necessary for the article to reach GA, then the article will not ever reach GA. Some of the details he/she requested have probably never been published anywhere. (However, I realize that the reviewer
803:
557:
366:
253:
205:
778:
745:
693:
670:
649:
627:
594:
53:
876:
class to GA, but if review this is typical, I don't think I'll be nominating any more articles for GA. Maybe someone else will overhaul the article, but for the record I (the person who carried out a 7x expansion of it) don't have nearly enough interest to address such a long list of issues, so I'm not intending to spend any more time on the article.
875:
I certainly do accept that some of the reviewer's points are valid, but overall, I feel this review sets the "bar" a little too high – and I'm speaking as someone whose standards are much higher than those of the average WP editor. Perhaps it's mainly just my inexperience at taking articles from "B"
872:
not have been saying that every one of those omitted details are essential for reaching GA status.) The phrase "purchased into" it is taken directly from the cited source (NRHP nom., section 8, p. 2, bottom; everything else was carefully paraphrased), and I have no information enabling me to make it
912:
I have very little experience with GA reviews, as I acknowledged, but my impression from those I've read is that the reviewer expects the vast majority (sometimes all) of the points he has raised to be corrected before he will approve the nomination. Whether that impression is accurate is something
867:
earlier, so his/her suggestion is contrary to WP editing guidelines. In "supplanted by various other uses": Again, some detail is given later in the article, in the appropriate place, and very little detail has been published. I suppose the phrase could be revised to read simply "other uses", but
857:
Wow. Although nominating this was not my idea, and I expected some issues to be raised by the reviewer, I have to say I disagree with several of the points raised in the review, and in my opinion the reviewer also made some mistakes (mistakes that I don't feel are an indication that the article is
862:
is not intended to include a wikilinked "Portland"; the city name was not included in the original article, but was added when quoting the article for
Knowledge, to give proper context, and single brackets are proper usage in such cases. The reviewer says "Liberty House" should be wiklinked in one
858:
not sufficiently clear). For example, in my view, it's fine for the lead to say the store moved "several" times within the downtown area, because the details are given in the body of the article, and the lead is supposed to summarize. Under 1a, fourth item: The quotation from
580:"A MAX light rail station, Galleria/SW 10th Avenue station, was opened next to the building in 1986, across the street from its Morrison Street side. Since 2001, the Portland Streetcar line has passed the Galleria's west side, on 10th Avenue."
830:. There are too many issues to be resolved and I do not think that if I put it on hold they would be resolved in time as the issues are not minor, they are quite major. I am sure the article will pass after the issues have been resolved.
222:"renamed all of its stores Rhodes Department Stores, consistent with its own name change to Rhodes Western" I do not understand this, do you mean they renamed all of their department stores to Rhodes Department Stores?
913:
I don't know. I'm not angry, just frustrated and a little critical. Sorry if it came off badly (particularly my comment on floor numbers, which I should have toned down; I almost went back in afterwards to do so).
892:
I never said you have to correct every single issue, and also, why are you so angry with me? They are mere suggestions, you don't have to address everything, and everyone makes mistakes (with the wiki linking).
323:"were considered very modern for the time, at least in a city the size of Portland." I would consider removing this, it is very bias and hard to measure. How can you measure how "modern" something is?
577:, 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).
58:
288:"was popular with shoppers from the very start" Popular is a peacock term, please do not use peacock terms. (How can you prove it was popular? I would suggest removing this word.)
574:
214:
137:
278:
91:
133:
81:
63:
118:
762:
228:"the most exciting development in downtown merchandising in several decades" Wiki links use two brackets, not one. You should write ] which produces
282:
274:
110:
266:
238:"but never very far." How far do you classify "very far" Please clarify and be specific for statements that are likely to be challenged.
791:
302:"Olds & King again in 1944; and Rhodes in 1960." I do not understand this, can you clarify it? Does it mean it was renamed again?
270:
680:
86:
822:
status, so I will not be listing it at this time. Please consider the points raised above and after working on it, take it to
603:
37:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
934:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
754:
290:"was a significant blow to the Galleria" Significant is a peacock term, please remove it. (What makes it so significant?)
167:
126:
17:
338:"and fewer and fewer shoppers were coming to downtown" How many is "fewer annd fewer" can you be more specific please.
837:
I should have read the article more closely. Thank you for pointing out all the issues so I can fix them sometime.
766:
566:
570:
262:
305:"It is currently home to the Portland location of the" The word current becomes outdated, please re word this.
296:"Moving several times within the downtown Portland area" Several is too vague, how many times did they move?
758:
658:
351:
103:
706:
636:
320:"had expanded westwards" Did they only expand to the west? The west of Portland? Please be more specific.
823:
220:"The building remained vacant for some time." How much time is some time? Too vague, please clarify.
845:
787:
543:
527:
511:
495:
479:
463:
447:
431:
399:
918:
881:
415:
374:. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
902:
731:
727:
161:
735:
684:: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
332:"became a Liberty House store in late 1973" I would suggest wiki linking Liberty House.
241:
The grammar in the article could be improved. I would suggest asking for a copy edit at
922:
907:
885:
852:
375:
242:
182:
171:
389:: You cite this 27 times, for each time, you need to specify a page in each citation.
838:
827:
293:"supplanted by various other uses." Various is too vague! Who were the other users?
914:
877:
819:
311:"purchased into it" Do you mean bought into it? Invested into it? Please clarify!
895:
157:
657:. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
586:"John Wilson purchased the store in 1856" Do you have a citation for this?
308:"small store established in 1851" How small was the store? Please clarify!
225:"established under a different name in 1851" What was the different name?
705:: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
229:
299:"and continued to thrive for several years." How many years? Too vague.
326:"relatively simple terra cotta designs" Too vague, please clarify.
642:
The lead section could be longer to summarise the article better.
335:"floors 4 and 5" Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out.
395:: This needs to be cited more specifically. You should use
314:"large new store" How large was the store? Please clarify!
235:"at Front and Oak streets" What are front and oak streets?
411:: Is a web reference and should be formatted as such with
145:
114:
215:understandable to an appropriately broad audience
329:"a tall flagpole." How tall is the flag pole?
539:: Please format it correctly. You should use
523:: Please format it correctly. You should use
507:: Please format it correctly. You should use
491:: Please format it correctly. You should use
475:: Please format it correctly. You should use
459:: Please format it correctly. You should use
443:: Please format it correctly. You should use
427:: Please format it correctly. You should use
8:
41:
818:This article is not currently ready for
175:
863:phrase, but it was already linked just
72:
44:
384:: Multi page PDFs need page numbers.
317:"within a few years" How many years?
7:
826:again and then please renominate at
217:; spelling and grammar are correct.
33:The following discussion is closed.
213:. the prose is clear, concise, and
24:
930:The discussion above is closed.
801:
776:
743:
691:
668:
647:
625:
592:
555:
364:
251:
203:
626:
593:
575:could reasonably be challenged
1:
923:11:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
763:valid non-free use rationales
584:, please provide a citation.
18:Talk:Olds, Wortman & King
908:17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
886:05:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
853:23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
802:
777:
744:
692:
669:
648:
556:
365:
252:
204:
172:20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
949:
714:
612:
376:the layout style guideline
345:
190:
177:
715:
613:
346:
191:
181:
932:Please do not modify it.
178:
35:Please do not modify it.
790:to the topic, and have
261:. it complies with the
618:Broad in its coverage
609:Possibly, see above.
709:or content dispute.
604:no original research
357:no original research
635:. it addresses the
573:. All content that
813:Overall assessment
759:copyright statuses
722:, if possible, by
283:list incorporation
36:
834:
833:
792:suitable captions
765:are provided for
100:
99:
34:
940:
898:
850:
843:
805:
804:
780:
779:
767:non-free content
747:
746:
695:
694:
672:
671:
651:
650:
629:
628:
596:
595:
567:reliable sources
559:
558:
548:
542:
532:
526:
516:
510:
500:
494:
484:
478:
468:
462:
452:
446:
436:
430:
420:
414:
404:
398:
368:
367:
255:
254:
207:
206:
176:
150:
141:
122:
54:Copyvio detector
42:
948:
947:
943:
942:
941:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
896:
846:
839:
546:
540:
530:
524:
514:
508:
498:
492:
482:
476:
466:
460:
450:
444:
434:
428:
418:
412:
402:
396:
265:guidelines for
263:Manual of Style
187:Review Comment
131:
108:
102:
96:
68:
39:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
946:
944:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
890:
889:
888:
874:
873:more specific.
832:
831:
824:WP:Peer review
816:
806:
798:
797:
795:
781:
773:
772:
770:
748:
740:
739:
713:
712:
710:
696:
688:
687:
685:
673:
665:
664:
662:
652:
644:
643:
640:
639:of the topic.
630:
622:
621:
611:
610:
607:
602:. it contains
597:
589:
588:
578:
560:
552:
551:
379:
369:
361:
360:
344:
343:
341:
286:
275:words to watch
256:
248:
247:
218:
208:
200:
199:
189:
188:
185:
180:
151:
98:
97:
95:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
74:
70:
69:
67:
66:
64:External links
61:
56:
50:
47:
46:
40:
31:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
945:
933:
924:
920:
916:
911:
910:
909:
906:
905:
904:
900:
899:
891:
887:
883:
879:
871:
866:
861:
860:The Oregonian
856:
855:
854:
851:
849:
844:
842:
836:
835:
829:
825:
821:
817:
814:
810:
807:
800:
799:
796:
793:
789:
785:
782:
775:
774:
771:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
718:
711:
708:
704:
700:
697:
690:
689:
686:
683:
682:
677:
674:
667:
666:
663:
660:
659:summary style
656:
653:
646:
645:
641:
638:
634:
631:
624:
623:
619:
616:
608:
605:
601:
598:
591:
590:
587:
583:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
561:
554:
553:
550:
545:
538:
534:
529:
522:
518:
513:
506:
502:
497:
490:
486:
481:
474:
470:
465:
458:
454:
449:
442:
438:
433:
426:
422:
417:
410:
406:
401:
394:
390:
388:
383:
380:
377:
373:
370:
363:
362:
358:
354:
353:
349:
342:
339:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:lead sections
264:
260:
257:
250:
249:
246:
244:
239:
236:
233:
231:
226:
223:
219:
216:
212:
209:
202:
201:
197:
194:
186:
184:
174:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
107:
106:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
77:
76:
71:
65:
62:
60:
57:
55:
52:
51:
49:
48:
43:
38:
26:
19:
931:
903:
901:
894:
869:
864:
859:
847:
840:
820:good article
812:
808:
786:. media are
783:
753:. media are
750:
723:
719:
716:
702:
698:
679:
675:
654:
637:main aspects
632:
617:
614:
599:
585:
581:
571:cited inline
562:
536:
535:
520:
519:
504:
503:
488:
487:
472:
471:
456:
455:
440:
439:
424:
423:
408:
407:
392:
391:
386:
385:
381:
371:
356:
350:
347:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
319:
316:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
258:
240:
237:
234:
227:
224:
221:
210:
196:Well-written
195:
192:
164:
154:
153:
146:
142:
128:Article talk
127:
123:
104:
101:
92:Instructions
32:
865:eight words
757:with their
720:Illustrated
115:visual edit
352:Verifiable
59:Authorship
45:GA toolbox
582:Unsourced
544:cite news
528:cite news
512:cite news
496:cite news
480:cite news
464:cite news
448:cite news
432:cite news
400:cite news
183:Attribute
155:Reviewer:
82:Templates
73:Reviewing
27:GA Review
841:Jsayre64
788:relevant
726:such as
707:edit war
416:cite web
232:, not .
230:Portland
168:contribs
87:Criteria
915:SJ Morg
878:SJ Morg
681:Neutral
279:fiction
243:WP:GOCE
138:history
119:history
105:Article
897:Puffin
848:(talk)
828:WP:GAN
761:, and
755:tagged
728:images
703:Stable
281:, and
271:layout
158:Puffin
736:audio
734:, or
732:video
724:media
355:with
179:Rate
147:Watch
16:<
919:talk
882:talk
569:are
537:FN13
521:FN11
505:FN10
162:talk
134:edit
111:edit
870:may
661:).
489:FN9
473:FN8
457:FN7
441:FN6
425:FN5
409:FN4
393:FN3
387:FN2
382:FN1
921:)
884:)
815:.
811:.
794:.
784:6b
769:.
751:6a
738::
730:,
717:6.
701:.
678:.
655:3b
633:3a
620::
615:3.
606:.
600:2c
565:.
563:2b
549:.
547:}}
541:{{
533:.
531:}}
525:{{
517:.
515:}}
509:{{
501:.
499:}}
493:{{
485:.
483:}}
477:{{
469:.
467:}}
461:{{
453:.
451:}}
445:{{
437:.
435:}}
429:{{
421:.
419:}}
413:{{
405:.
403:}}
397:{{
378:.
372:2a
359::
348:2.
285:.
277:,
273:,
269:,
259:1b
245:.
211:1a
198::
193:1.
170:)
136:|
117:|
113:|
917:(
880:(
809:7
699:5
676:4
165:·
160:(
143:·
140:)
132:(
124:·
121:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.