Talk:San Diego/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Many San Diego home buyers tend to buy homes within many affordable neighborhoods, while others…" should be "Many of San Diego's home buyers tend to buy homes within many affordable neighborhoods, while others…"  Done

   "…regular scheduled service in spring 2012, an economic loss to the region of more than $100 million." needs to say that it was "which was an economic loss" Done

   "Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) create funding for the City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture." should be have created instead of just created.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #33 was tagged as a dead link but still needs to be taken care of.  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The sentence about the study that Walk Score did is unnecessary.  Done - Removed.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   That is all, the article has changed a bit, but it is still doing well.