Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/GA2

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Gb321 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There were some grammar errors, but I fixed them myself. The article conforms to the MOS's guidelines listed above. No problems here

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   A spot check is located at this sandbox link. I will start the review soon. If you'd like, you can respond to issues on that page or here.

   I did the first batch of checks, and there is a handful of things that need to be addressed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 21:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   There are some sources from my spot check that need to be addressed. Please fix these problems. The spot check's link it above.

   Everything in the spot check has been addressed.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's highest percent was a 32.0%, but it flagged the use of "the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce" as being similar to other sources. Other quotations and lists of names have also been flagged. No copyright violations here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article includes everything I would want to know about the Walk, and nothing seems to be excluded. While the article gives lots of examples of things, nothing goes into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All claims that could give neutrality problems were given in a factual, straightforward way instead of leaning towards one viewpoint. Everything is okay here.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There have been no edit wars.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Lots of images here! All images have their copyright status, and the only fair use image has a valid rational. All the images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are some things that need addressing. If the nominator doesn't respond within 2 weeks, I may fail the article.

   pinging @It is a wonderful world: and @MSK: for a final check (I'm sorry for requesting another review on top of a different one) Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

   Failing per IAWW's rational. I'd be happy to review the article in the future once all the issues are addressed. Just ping either me or IAWW. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 19:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article as apart of the June 2026 backlog event. Please note, I am considered a newbie, and I am being mentored by @It is a wonderful world: and @MSK:. If I make a mistake, please notify me (this will be the first article I've reviewed that is over 2000 words). Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking forward to help out where needed again! I will most likely be off wiki tomorrow however as I'll probably just want to sleep after my exam and work IAWW (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, take all the time you need. Hope you do well on your exam! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 21:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Everything from the past GA review looks to be fixed, but I'll look over it more once I really start the review. I mostly checked the image problems, and they are all fixed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Dragonhawk12: for reviewing this GA nomination! I've started addressing the refs you flagged; my notes are in the sandbox link, it's easier to do it there. I also did my own quick reference pass and found some others that needed fixing, so I went ahead and fixed them in advance of your review of them.Gb321 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12: I believe I've addressed all of your notes. Let me know if I missed any. I'm going to try and find some sources for the info that previously only had a picture as a source, for now I've deleted that info (none was so important that the article can't be a GA without them in my opinion) Gb321 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gb321: Everything looks good on my end, I just have to get a final check with my mentors. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dragonhawk12, just to keep you in the loop, I'll get to all my pings tomorrow and do final checks on this article then. IAWW (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dragonhawk12, I noticed there were quite a few issues in this article that have evaded being caught thus far, so I thought I'd do an independent review so you can see what you missed. Below I have begun that review, and I ran into major issues with source reliability. @Gb321, can you fix all of the source reliability issues in the article before we proceed? If you have any questions about how to do this, feel free to ask. IAWW (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I’ll look at your review and use these suggestions in the future. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 15:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed all the source reliability issues, my notes and comments are interspersed in the second review. Let me know if more need fixing. I'm about to go out of town until the 29th, so anything you flag I will fix then Gb321 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Independent review by IAWW

Prose (criteria 1a, 1b and 4) clock

Body

In total, 2,008 stars were unveiled: 1,558 for honorees[1] and 500 blank stars meant to acknowledge the Walk as a living monument: The math doesn't add up here. IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources clock

Health/formatting (criterion 2a) clock

Using the "External Links" tool in the GA toolbox at the top right of this page highlights many dead links. I am concerned that the nominator cannot have checked a significant chunk of citations for source-text integrity if so many are inaccessible like this. @Gb321, how much of this article are you sure has good source-text integrity? IAWW (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: I reviewed the "external links" tool and found two that were down/dead and did not have an accompanying archived link. I fixed them. For the rest, as far as I can tell they are either false positives or have an archived link; I ignored the false-positives and added "|url-status=dead" to the dead links that are properly archived. I'm not sure if this is enough though, particularly with archived links, as I'm not familiar with procedures for those. Gb321 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies for flagging this as more of an issue than it was. I could swear there was more than two when I originally went through, but I must have messed something up. IAWW (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliability (criterion 2b) clock

WP:CITEUNSEEN highlights six sources as generally unreliable and five as marginally reliable. There are also other unreliable sources like , , and not flagged by the script. The problems are extensive enough that every source needs to be checked for reliability to be sure no issues remain. IAWW (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaced all the generally unreliable sources except Huffpost, which per WP:RSP is considered reliable for non-political topics. Still working on the others. Gb321 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaced or added a second reference to all marginally reliable references Gb321 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Replaced or added a second reference to all references flagged as no-consensus except one from Mental Floss on Walk of Fame names that are currently misspelled. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any more reliable sources covering this info, but I also don't think the info should be removed because without it, the reader would most likely conclude something factually incorrect (that all misspellings were corrected and there are no names currently misspelled) based on the rest of the paragraph. Maybe someone can help me find a backup or better ref for this? Gb321 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That is fine I think IAWW (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleted info from source [1] flagged above, it's not pertinent info. Deleted source [2] and [3] as well, they were secondary sources and weren't necessary since the first sources were better and covered everything these secondary source covers. I'll do another sweep for more non-RS refs based on these notes. Gb321 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Did another sweep and fixed several items. Let me know if there is more that need fixing Gb321 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gb321, I'll be at work the whole day tomorrow (6:30–20:00...) but as soon as I get some time for Wiki activity, I'll respond properly here. IAWW (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I responded or if you responded? Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 21:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Both, honestly, I'll only cover anything you miss though, so you can find your blind spots. You also may find stuff I don't (we all have blind spots) IAWW (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

You've done a really good job of fixing everything. I see no further issues on source reliability. IAWW (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Since @Dragonhawk12's spot check highlighted several issues, I'll do another one tomorrow, to check any tsi issues are fixed throughout the article. Thanks for your patience with this and for responding to my comments so far. I'm spread quite thin over reviews at the moment so I can't do everything at once. IAWW (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Just realised I missed this. This is my top priority on wiki now and I'll get to it as soon as possible. IAWW (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Besides the spot check, is there anything else wrong that you can see? I want to try and pass this before next week, but at the same time no rush. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 05:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gb321 and @Dragonhawk12, I just completed a small spot check below. Almost every citation I checked had source-text integrity issues, meaning I found eight issues in just a small portion of the article. I did not check entirely randomly (I checked those with longer passages and those I felt might have issues), but this is a really bad result and heavily indicates this article has widespread source-text integrity issues.

As such, to be confident this article meets criterion 2b, it really needs a full source-text integrity check (all the text need to be compared against their citations to ensure accuracy). Since this article is quite big, I would say that's beyond the scope of a GA review, and I recommend this review be failed.

Gb321, once you have done a full source-text integrity check and are sure no issues remain, you can renominate. I'm quite certain it will then pass, barring any major issues with the prose which haven't been apparent to be on a quick look over. If you do this, feel free to ping me or Drangonhawk as likely one of us will likely be able to give it a quicker-than-normal review as we already have familiarity with the article, and it will avoid you likely waiting ages for a normal person to review it. To avoid this situation in the future, I would recommend only nominating articles you are sure have good source-text integrity, as that is one of the biggest hurdles to an article reaching GA. IAWW (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Spot check (criteria 2b, 2c and 2d) clock

Citation numbers are based on this version.

The following issues were found using this automated tool and then manually checked:

[11a]: Doesn't support Stars face east or west on Hollywood Boulevard and north or south on Vine Street IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[15b]: A list of all the special stars is not adequate to support the secondary statement Awards of Excellence display emblems unique to those honored, especially since the source doesn't display the emblems. IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[33]: Doesn't support an association with his Austin Powers roles. I suspect one of the previous citations just needs to be moved along a bit to fix this. IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The following citations were checked manually:

The categories are not supported. IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

it does not refer to seemingly competitive events where entertainment is prioritized and competition is not. is unsupported IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[9, 10a]: Y

[21a]: Y

[4e]: Unsupported. Also is it actually true? It seems that there was 5 individuals, not 6, as Lionel Barrymore had two stars? IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[10b, 11d]: Doesn't support an application fee ($275 as of 2026) is paid or Posthumous nominees must have been deceased for at least two years IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[239]: an amount the Chamber claimed was a record despite it being less than Jackson's is not supported (WP:SYNTH). IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

[257]: Doesn't support the WP:EDITORIALised Other politicians' stars have not seen the same level of protests or vandalism; however IAWW (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio (criterion 2d) clock

Earwig flags this. represented by a single star is the estimated 122 adults and 12 children, city ordinance prohibits placing corporate names on sidewalks, and Commercial organizations are only considered for all being exactly the same as the source is an issue and they should be reworded. IAWW (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Gb321 (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Scope (criteria 3a and 3b) Y

Good enough for GA

Media clock

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

The article is missing strong sourcing, such as:

• The Hollywood Walk of Fame by Marianne Morino
• The Story of Hollywood: An Illustrated History

which contain scholarly information on the topic. These should be integrated and replace web/news citations where they can be used (WP:BESTSOURCES) IAWW (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The Story of Hollywood: An Illustrated History doesn't seem to have much on the Walk of Fame based on what I can see from its google preview, I added a couple refs but will need to get my hands on the book itself to see if there is anything more this source can offer. The Hollywood Walk of Fame by Marianne Morino doesnt have a Google preview so I'll have to track down the book to see what can be sourced to it.

This will take some time, especially since I am about to go on vacation until June 29. I'll start on this when I get back. Gb321 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I saw all the improvements you have been doing to the article, per IAWW’s suggestions. I am away until the 15th, but I may be able to review your comments before then. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 06:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gb321, that's fine. This is a suggestion anyways. It's beyond GA IAWW (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

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.