Talk:McDonald's Chicago Flagship

Latest comment: 10 months ago by 2600:6C56:6DF0:8230:CCF8:DF68:D82:5328 in topic Missing
Good articleMcDonald's Chicago Flagship has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 21, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Missing

edit

This article should mention Wesley Willis somewhere. Chubbles 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

oh, it does already, doh. Chubbles 05:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not anymore it doesn't…. It really should though 2600:6C56:6DF0:8230:CCF8:DF68:D82:5328 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article rating

edit

Congratulations... I passed this article because it is succinct, to the point, well written and referenced well. Jazznutuva 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suggestions for improvement

edit
  • Expansion of the Neighborhood section
  • Expansion of the Rock & Roll section
  • Expansion of the captions to be more descriptive. See WP:CAP for examples.
  • Removal of defined size for thumbnailed pictures as outlined in WP:STYLE under section 16. Images.

Point out the irony

edit

I assume this article is a joke, but many may miss the irony. -91.104.99.188 14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Name change?

edit

Has the name of the building changed in the last year? I am confused, as the Image:20070110 Rock & Roll McDonald's (3).JPG taken in January 2007 seems to suggest that the name is "Rock & Roll McDonald's". Seth Whales (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tear Down?

edit

They're tearing the damn thing down. Why no mention of that?

GA Reassessment

edit
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rock N Roll McDonald's/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Fine, I made a few tweaks for clarity
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Ok, I added subscription required to the Proquest cites
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    I would suggest that there are two many images, but I will not de-list it on that basis.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I am happy for this article to keep its GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rock N Roll McDonald's. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply