Talk:Hayward, California/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peripitus (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall the article appears sufficiently broad but even a relatively quick read shows some obvious issues that have to be resolved.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   While I am marking this ok it is because I believe it is close and that in fixing the other issues, the issues here will come good. Look for places where the text is short stubby sentences and you may find where it is not prose but a disguised dot-point listing.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   lead is too short and does not summarise the article. There is a fact in the lead that is not summarising one either in the article or the infobox. see WP:LEAD. The lead just gives a few snippets of information without covering many of the areas of the article. I am concerned about the formatting of the lists, but have not looked further into this except to note that they significantly break the visual flow.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   many many citation needed tags in the article and there are bits all over the place that are unreferenced (eg: last sentence in Parks and protected areas, last ½ of “Media”, some of the “People from Hayward”, much of the “Manufacturing” section and many other place) . There have been citation needed tags in the article since at least the GA nomination.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   In the attempt to make the people section cover so many people slightly associated with the area, the quality of the references has suffered. Facebook, findagrave are dubious. What also makes a company a reliable source about itself (eg: the statement “The economy of Hayward in the first half of the twentieth century was based largely on the Hunt Brothers Cannery.” Is sourced to the company – a dubious practice) ? Google maps is not a reliable source for the start of the retail section.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   appears sufficiently broad

   B. Focused:

   The businesses and people sections in the quest to be all-inclusive have become full of unnecessary detail. Wikipedia is not a phone book nor a business directory. I strongly suggest culling this section down to the entries that can be verified to independent sources. If only the company’s website mentions their presence that that is not independent.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   layout of the images needs some work. The interfere with the text in places (Education) and should not be places so that they displace level 2 or 3 headers.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article has had a lot of work done on it but has a issues to be addressed before it is ready to be a good article. Please see also to the reference formatting eg: Reference formatting issues – refs 19, 65,66 are bare google news links rather than proper citations.