Talk:Jacksonville, Florida/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mathew, I'll be glad to review this one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has a tremendous amount of quality information in it--thanks again to everyone involved in bringing it this far. I'm concerned, though, that it still falls well short of the GA criteria in some areas. This review will necessarily dwell more on weaknesses than strengths, but please don't take that as disrespect to the large amount of quality work already done here.

Here are the GA criteria that I think you should focus on in further revisions: 1b: Lead: The lead doesn't appear yet to provide a good summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Some information, e.g., "In 2010, Jacksonville was listed as a "high sufficiency" world city in the World Cities Study Group’s inventory, ranking alongside cities such as Liverpool and Las Vegas.[12] People from Jacksonville are known as "Jacksonvillians" or "Jaxons".[13]", appears in the lead but not in the body, whereas it should be the other way around--the lead should simply be a summary of the body. 1b: Layout: The article has a number of unconnected one- or two-sentence paragraphs, which is a problem under WP:LAYOUT. Organization also needs work. For example, why is the discussion of the submarine Jacksonville under "Economy" if it's based in Norfolk? The prose will need work throughout to create a logical flow. 2b: The biggest problem with the article at the moment is its lack of inline citations to reliable sources. There are many, many examples, but the problem is worst in the Demographics section, where whole paragraphs of statistics are uncited. The article will need much more thorough sourcing to reach GA, or rigorous cutting of unsourced information. 4: The article has occasional POV statements like "The city has a successful recycling program " --successful according to whom? Statements like these should be attributed in-text to reliable sources. Watch out especially for the word "notable", which crops up several times without sources to support it. "The 1980s were a quiet decade for musical talent in Jacksonville." -- according to whom? Etc.

Because these issues appear to me to need serious work, I'm closing this review for now so editors can work at leisure before resubmitting. I hope you are able to bring this one to GA soon, though. It's a high-traffic and important article that would be a terrific one to bring to higher quality; it'd also probably win involved editors a Half Million Award at least. Good luck, and just let me know if you have any questions; thanks again for your work here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)