Talk:Hayward, California/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TeacherA (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: PASS IS ON HOLD PENDING A CO-REVIEWER
- Pass/Fail: PASS IS ON HOLD PENDING A CO-REVIEWER
I would encourage critical re-evaluation of the photos. Evaluate every single one. For example, does the Holiday Bowl photo add anything? Maybe not? Check to see that the old logo is not copyrighted. Taking a photo of it doesn't invalidate copyright protection. I suspect that it is not copyrighted, but check.
The lede is only one paragraph. Also re-evaluate that. See if you can make at least two paragraphs but do it for clarity and purpose, not just put a paragraph break in there.
The history is lopsided. You mean there is little history for the past 50 years?
Also re-evaluate the people listed. Why list such and such.
TeacherA (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This was removed by Wizardman. This is improper. If he did not think it was GA material, there is a nomination process. However, to work with others, I now am co-reviewing this article.
Please co-review it with me. The co-reviewer will have final say on the decision. My comments are advisory but have to be considered in good faith.