Talk:Hayward, California/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TeacherA (talk · contribs) 03:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: PASS IS ON HOLD PENDING A CO-REVIEWER
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: PASS IS ON HOLD PENDING A CO-REVIEWER
 * 1) Overall:
 * 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.

TeacherA (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)