Talk:Philadelphia/GA1

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

Reviewer: OCL97 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to reading and reviewing this article. :) OCL97 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok I've done a quick check of a view things, and while there's no real immediate grounds for failure (no copyvio that I can see, no tags, no edit warring) there are a couple of red flags. First, the citations in some areas seem to be lacking, with whole paragraphs of the history of the city being completely unreferenced despite several different claims. Second, the nominator of the article isn't one of the major contributors to the article. They have only made one edit to the article in the last two years that I can see, which was adding a ref to a citation needed tag immediately before nominating the article. I think I'll have to fail the article, but I'll still go through the criteria to see where it still needs improvement. OCL97 (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2020 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Spelling and grammar is all fine, layout not so much. A few choppy paragraphs throughout the article, an empty section at notable people, and there seems to be too many unnecessary subheadings where just splitting into different paragraphs would be fine. Not much that needs to be fixed, but it's not quite there yet. OCL97 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Probably the worst aspect of the article. Like I said before, there needs to be a lot more citations in the history section of the article. I also did a random check of a few of the citations, and it didn't take long to run into a link that didn't work (the "inbound delegations visiting Philadelphia" link at the end of the article) and a link that redirected, showing a factual error in the article (the link to philly.com now redirects to inquirer.com but it's still mentioned in the article as philly.com). There's a lot of inconsistency with how the citations are formatted as well that needs to be fixed. OCL97 (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A specific example of this, which also is partially to do with the first criteria, is the Television section of the article. The middle two paragraphs share only one reference between them, which has a dead link, and the sections are repetitive, including some information that's also found in the first paragraph. OCL97 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Thinking mainly about the History section here, there is information added that seems kind of irrelevant to the main topic of the article. The first paragraph talks probably in too much detail about where the Lenape went after Europeans arrived, and the second paragraph (which is entirely unreferenced) doesn't make an obvious reason as to why this information is relevant specifically to Philadelphia. The locations mentioned aren't all in the vicinity of Philadelphia, so most of the information seems to be tangential and could be summarized better. OCL97 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the whole, the article is quite long and some sections could benefit with being cut down using WP:Summary style. Most sections already have articles linked that contain a more comprehensive view of the topic for people who want more detail (like History of Philadelphia, Demographics of Philadelphia, Culture of Philadelphia, Sports in Philadelphia, etc.). OCL97 (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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):
 * Some images still need their public domain tags to be checked (File:Benjamin Franklin by Jean-Baptiste Greuze.jpg, File:1752 ( 1850 ) Scull ^ Heap Map of Philadelphia ^ Environs (first view of Phillidelphia State House) - Geographicus - Philadelphia-sculllobach-1850.jpg, File:The Birth of Pennsylvania 1680 cph.3g07157.jpg, File:University of Pennsylvania Medical Hall and College Hall 1842.png, File:Detroit Photographic Company (0757).jpg) OCL97 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Still a fair way off being a good article I think. The article as a whole is mostly ok, the only problems that really need to be addressed are the length/relevance of some sections and the referencing, which given the length of the article could take a while.
 * if you're going to nominate an article in future, please make sure that either you are one of the main contributors to the article or that you've discussed with the main contributors whether or not the article is worth nominating. OCL97 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Still a fair way off being a good article I think. The article as a whole is mostly ok, the only problems that really need to be addressed are the length/relevance of some sections and the referencing, which given the length of the article could take a while.
 * if you're going to nominate an article in future, please make sure that either you are one of the main contributors to the article or that you've discussed with the main contributors whether or not the article is worth nominating. OCL97 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)