Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/GA1

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

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ▲ 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick-Fail Good Article Assessment
This article was assessed against the quick fail criteria. This is how the article, as of March 13, 2011, compares against the quick fail criteria:


 * 1. No obvious non-reliable sources?: Pass
 * 2. Is it neutral?: Pass
 * 3. No outstanding cleanup tags?:
 * 4. Article is not subject of recent/current edit war?: Pass
 * 5. Changing in article is not rapid? Pass
 * Reason for Closure Decision: All pass fine. No fails. Will move into the detailed review.

These items all need to say Pass by them in order for the reviewer to move on to the next stage of reviewing. If one said fail, there will be in indication as to why. The reviewer will indicate the final status here: ✅ —  JoeGazz  ▲ 23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Detailed Review
21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First I would like to Thank Fetch for stepping in with the suggestions, I have just placed this on hold to allow for some addressing of some issues.
 * Added 21:50 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You use some peacock words in there, like "fantastic".


 * Prose seems slightly off. You seem to have very short paragraphs that can be merged into other sections and make them more detailed.


 * You use very in-descriptive titles for your headings, instead of "Location" you should say something more formal.


 * Article has deadlinks.


 * Added 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple Sections Lacking Sourcing (Can be failed for this, I will give hold time though)

These are just a few of the things I notice with this at the moment. I will give a more detailed review later on. I have placed this on hold for 7 days to allow fixes to these and other issues that will arise. I agree with Fetch though, a tad premature but may be able to be fixed. This is to be closed as ❌ on: 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)  if there is no response where these changes are significantly fixed. Current status:

Suggestions

 * Well, Joe hasn't said anything for over a week, so I'm popping in to give a few comments:
 * There are quite a few unsourced areas, e.g., in the "Unique and unusual" and "Entertainers in politics" sections (and also elsewhere). This is Not Good&trade;.
 * The prose is quite choppy; in a lot of places there are single-sentence paragraphs.
 * Not all the images have captions. In the case that a visually impaired user comes across this article, they won't know whose star is whose.
 * Alt text should also be added.
 * All the images are on the right side. Can they be distributed on both sides for a more engaging presentation?
 * Section titles are at times too informal; e.g., "On the outside looking in" and "Location, location, location".
 * Has anyone given this an in-depth copyedit? That might help resolve some prose issues.
 * Live performance is a dab page.
 * Some deadlinks that need tagging.
 * Personally, I feel this nom is a tad premature, but I'll let Joe handle that part :). Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Final Chance
I personally see no efforts to address these mistakes, which are just a few of many that I see. I am getting concerned that no one cares about this nom. Therefore, I am allowing only one additional day to fix these mistakes and if you wish a time extension, please email me.  JoeGazz  ▲ 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest that you fail this right now, it has dragged on far too long. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For reasons already mentioned (1+ month without work done), I'm failing this GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)