Talk:Palm Springs, California/GA1

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 05:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


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

Unfortunately, the article is far from being ready for a full GA review. My thoughts on a quick read through below while checking against the criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are quite a few lists and WP:PROSELINE sections in the article that could be better managed as real prose. The parks and recreation section should definitely not be a simple list, and there are too many subsections under the Government and Neighborhoods headings. Other sections like the People, architecture, and pop culture headings are very light on content and should have a reasonable summary of what the subpages describe. The huge table in the history section does not belong here and should be moved to an appropriate page or deleted outright for WP:OR.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * There are dozens of paragraphs lacking a suitable citation, and many of them will need multiple. The Sports section has an unresolved template asking for more citations, which I think is still warranted. The bottom half of the references section contains far too many links to primary sources (mostly those self-published from the subject in question) and are not formatted properly in a verifiable manner.
 * Earwig's copyvio detector also gives a fairly high match for the history section of the city's website, and there are more than a few distinct phrases that do match.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See above comment on the subpage sections. There are other problems
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article feels very booster-ish and as if it was written by the chamber of commerce rather than someone approaching with a neutral point of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The captions and choice of images need work. Far too many on random homes and almost none on the general cityscape or of historic places.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs a major cleanup before it can even get close to being worthy of GA status.
 * This article needs a major cleanup before it can even get close to being worthy of GA status.