Result: Listed by reviewer.Geometry guy 23:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the inexperience of the reviewer and their follow up responses, I feel the reviewer is not as familiar as is needed with GA criteria. Thus I do think this meets GA criteria and should not have been failed. See above remarks for further details. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Reference to remarks is on the article's talk page, and the original reviewer has withdrawn their assessment. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a great short article which is almost, but not quite, up to GA standards. The original review correctly notes that the article misses the mark for criterion 3. It's curious that the article barely addresses the Hillsboro Civic Center's purposes and uses. Examine Ottawa Civic Centre, XL Center or Peoria Civic Center; they communicate raison d'etre.
That said -- the article is well constructed and come darn close to passing. Many GA reviewers would have placed the article on hold, allowing Aboutmovies the opportunity to address concerns. I'm sorry if I digress from discussing the merits of the article, but it's worth noting that GA-Hold is a good tool to employ in these circumstances. Majoreditor (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed the issues raised and will re-list at GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List. The article is now sufficiently broad in coverage. The original reviewer concurs. Everyone is in agreement. I recommend speedy-close. Majoreditor (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
