Talk:Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District

Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by Gb321 (talk) at 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Short description: Historic district in Los Angeles, California

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 April 2020 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force.

Film: Filmmaking / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ForksForks (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gb321 (talk · contribs) 04:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 15:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to fail this article because it fails the third criteria of the WP:GAFAIL criteria: a maintenance tag that is unquestionably still valid. This has to do with the unencyclopedic quantity of images in the article. No prejudice from me against renominating once these are fixed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-nominating for Good Article

feedback from previous nomination was addressed (not sure why I wasn't given any time to address the feedback before the previous nomination was failed, the feedback was not difficult to address)

hope the re-nomination works Gb321 (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gb321, I don't think these were reasonable quickfails, no. If this happens to you in the future, try talking it out with the reviewer and see where that gets you, and if the answer is nowhere, come to WT:GAN for advice. By the way - I think the lead here is too short and should summarize more of the article; your reviewer will probably bring that up, so you might as well expand it a bit now. -- asilvering (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gb321 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: NoobThreePointOh (talk · contribs) 20:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this and add comments in a while. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm quickfailing this article for these reasons:

The tag on the top has not been removed, as mentioned by the reviewer in the previous GA review and per the third criteria in WP:GAFAIL.
There are still too many images which can distract the reader from the article.
Some of the images, like the 1902/03 and the 1905 images are also not placed in the correct sections, which results in certain paragraphs being considerably quite squashed together and unreadable.

Please feel free to renominate once the article seems like it meets GA criteria. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-nominating for Good Article Again

Re-nominating again. Is this really the best way to do this? To have the article rejected then have to re-nominate after changes are made? Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_4:_What_to_do_during_a_review says "You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner," which seems to imply there is another process that is supposed to be happening, rather than immediate fails for items that aren't too difficult to fix.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gb321 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SirBrahms (talk · contribs) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article. Just giving it a basic look it's looking stable and I haven't spotted any cleanup tags. I am also unaffiliated with the article, so I should be fine as well. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Hi SirBrahms! asilvering mentioned in a comment above that he thinks the lede in this article is too short. I've been brainstorming what to add to it and have some ideas, would you like me to add them before you review the article or would you like to review the article as is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb321 19:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC) (talk • contribs) [reply]

Please add your ideas, ping me when you're done. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done! Gb321 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Review: Criteria 1a and 1b are definitely met. The article reads concisely and seems to comply with WP:MOS.

Criterion 3a is also met in my opinion. It is, however, arguable whether that many buildings should be listed for each architectural style (Criterion 3b). For example, the paragraph about Classic Revival lists 16 different buildings.

Criterion 4 is met, the article seems to be written from a neutral point of view. It is also stable (criterion 5) and the images are placed correctly, have helpful captions and I don't see any copyright violations.

As for criteria 2a, b, c, and d I have not yet finished checking all sources. Although Tthe copivio detector did detect some larger overlap between source 1 and the text (especially in Description) but it doesn't appear to be plagiarism outright. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a spot-check of the sources I am happy to mark criteria 2a, b, c, and d as passed. Leaving only criterion 3b for consideration (I am inviting discussion, but I am of the opinion that the excessive number of buildings enumerated detracts from the focus of the article). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the number of buildings listed for each architectural style, I simply listed each contributing property for each style. I think this is pertinent info, especially since it is in the "Contributing properties" subsection, however I am open to a better way to present the info if what is currently there does not feel right. Maybe mention the most prominent contributing properties in text, followed by all of the contributing properties in a table or bullet pointed list? I'd be interested to hear more thoughts. Thanks! Gb321 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking of something similar. Maybe the other properties can be put in their own subsection (like Other properties or something) with a table containing all relevant info. If the other properties are gonna be "integrated" with the text, I'd suggest using a bulleted list. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm thinking about it, it might also be viable to move the other properites into an external list? SirBrahms (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is an external list? Do you mean another article that is a list article? Gb321 (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly SirBrahms (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created and linked to this. I still need to add pics to that article and also adjust the text on this article to reflect that that article now exists. Give me a couple days. Thanks! Gb321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Please notify me once you finish your changes. I will mark the article as on hold until then. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]