# Talk:Virgin Hotels Chicago

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 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virgin Hotels Chicago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You will get the review shortly as time permits. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


### Criteria
### Review
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments and discussion
The article is in a good state and MoS and all looks good. But some points of concerns are:

There is no indication what for this hotel is famous -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD currently includes the following content "the first of the Virgin Hotels brand boutique hotels".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
A good deal of cuisine and/or some celebrities dining there will do better, though not as advertising. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see this in the first several sources that I have looked at so I don't think it belongs in a summary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Bar and lobby images should be stacked upon, not side by side, for aesthetic value. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why, but done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Some criticism of it will do good to keep neutrality, if there is any.. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's all what I could deduce from the article and all other, cites and layout looks good. Thanks. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


### Result
..Holding it till the reply..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 09:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Herald please review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 The article have passed the GA review. All looks good and the issues raised by me have been solved out. MoS and style, cites and layout, add other aspects looks at finest and fits good for a GA. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


### Additional notes