Talk:Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District/GA3

GA Review

Passed. SirBrahms (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gb321 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SirBrahms (talk · contribs) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Just giving it a basic look it's looking stable and I haven't spotted any cleanup tags. I am also unaffiliated with the article, so I should be fine as well. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hi SirBrahms! asilvering mentioned in a comment above that he thinks the lede in this article is too short. I've been brainstorming what to add to it and have some ideas, would you like me to add them before you review the article or would you like to review the article as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb321 19:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please add your ideas, ping me when you're done. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done! Gb321 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review: Criteria 1a and 1b are definitely met. The article reads concisely and seems to comply with WP:MOS.

Criterion 3a is also met in my opinion. It is, however, arguable whether that many buildings should be listed for each architectural style (Criterion 3b). For example, the paragraph about Classic Revival lists 16 different buildings.

Criterion 4 is met, the article seems to be written from a neutral point of view. It is also stable (criterion 5) and the images are placed correctly, have helpful captions and I don't see any copyright violations.

As for criteria 2a, b, c, and d I have not yet finished checking all sources. Although Tthe copivio detector did detect some larger overlap between source 1 and the text (especially in Description) but it doesn't appear to be plagiarism outright. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a spot-check of the sources I am happy to mark criteria 2a, b, c, and d as passed. Leaving only criterion 3b for consideration (I am inviting discussion, but I am of the opinion that the excessive number of buildings enumerated detracts from the focus of the article). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the number of buildings listed for each architectural style, I simply listed each contributing property for each style. I think this is pertinent info, especially since it is in the "Contributing properties" subsection, however I am open to a better way to present the info if what is currently there does not feel right. Maybe mention the most prominent contributing properties in text, followed by all of the contributing properties in a table or bullet pointed list? I'd be interested to hear more thoughts. Thanks! Gb321 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking of something similar. Maybe the other properties can be put in their own subsection (like Other properties or something) with a table containing all relevant info. If the other properties are gonna be "integrated" with the text, I'd suggest using a bulleted list. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm thinking about it, it might also be viable to move the other properites into an external list? SirBrahms (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is an external list? Do you mean another article that is a list article? Gb321 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly SirBrahms (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created and linked to this. I still need to add pics to that article and also adjust the text on this article to reflect that that article now exists. Give me a couple days. Thanks! Gb321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Please notify me once you finish your changes. I will mark the article as on hold until then. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I made the changes. let me know if you think any more are necessary. Gb321 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I apologise for the wait.

I have reviewed your changes and I think the article can now be promoted to GA-Status. Thank you for your contributions! Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(As for the sources I checked: 1-15, 24, 25, 39, 130 and 136) SirBrahms (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.