# Talk:James R. Thompson Center

Rather than deleting the Atrium article it should be merged here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James R. Thompson Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209093725/http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ to http://www.isbe.state.il.us/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James R. Thompson Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.ilhousegop.orgs/
Added archive https://archive.is/20130130113711/http://travel2.nytimes.com/top/features/travel/destinations/unitedstates/illinois/chicago/sight_details.html?vid=1083747034409 to http://travel2.nytimes.com/top/features/travel/destinations/unitedstates/illinois/chicago/sight_details.html?vid=1083747034409
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:James R. Thompson Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The article is well-sourced, timely, and gives good architecture and criticism. However, I feel the lead needs to preview the controversies and redevelopment status; some claims must be clarified to distinguish proposals vs confirmed plans; and adding more visual media and critical / preservationist perspectives would improve completeness. These are fixable in the GA hold period.
Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Crystalite13 (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I can take a look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I've added a few comments from preservationists and clarified the article to distinguish former vs. current plans. I can work on expanding the lead and adding images tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Great! Crystalite13 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
I've now expanded the lead and added another image. Please let me know if there's more that I should do regarding the good article criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Crystalite13: Your comments to the nominator are good and appropriate, but this review will need more substance to qualify as a valid GA review. Please let me (or anyone else) know if you need assistance, and thank you for your interest in assisting with the GA process! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Bgsu98! I've started a more in-depth review above just providing comments on other criteria. When it's completed, will it qualify? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
We are giving you credit for the reviews you have completed toward the competition because we believe you were genuinely acting in good faith. I am sure more thorough reviews will be well received. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
) Good to hear. I'll ping you when this is done.
Crystalite13 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Happy with all prose, spelling and grammar. Maybe minor copyediting in some places. Complies with MoS, no issues there.Y
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Checked with Earwigs Copyvio editor. Sources come from reliable sources from as far as I can see. Y

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Already reviewed, broadness sufficient Y
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Complies with neutral pov policy Y
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Looks good to me! Y
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Checked all images, licensed correctly, captions appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Spotcheck

Ref 71: Goes directly to correct news article clipping Y
Ref 91: Also good, directly mentioned Y
Ref 3: Good Y
Ref 61: Good Y
Ref 59: Good Y

"water exchanger" link is dead, I removed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalite13 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC) 

Congrats @Epicgenius, article will be promoted! (@Bgsu98 I'm done here) Crystalite13 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)