Jump to content

Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shabehr (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 3 September 2020 (→‎Reference is also an External link (unusual, but correct): personal attack / self revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeHollywood Walk of Fame was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ▲  19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-Fail Good Article Assessment

This article was assessed against the quick fail criteria. This is how the article, as of March 13, 2011, compares against the quick fail criteria:

1. No obvious non-reliable sources?: Pass
2. Is it neutral?: Pass
3. No outstanding cleanup tags?:
4. Article is not subject of recent/current edit war?: Pass
5. Changing in article is not rapid? Pass
Reason for Closure Decision: All pass fine. No fails. Will move into the detailed review.

These items all need to say Pass by them in order for the reviewer to move on to the next stage of reviewing. If one said fail, there will be in indication as to why. The reviewer will indicate the final status here: ✓ Pass —  JoeGazz  ▲  23:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Detailed Review

 Hasn't yet been done 21:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Working on initial look over, review posted in 1-2 days.... 01:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


First I would like to Thank Fetch for stepping in with the suggestions, I have just placed this on hold to allow for some addressing of some issues.

  • Added 21:50 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You use some peacock words in there, like "fantastic".
    • Prose seems slightly off. You seem to have very short paragraphs that can be merged into other sections and make them more detailed.
    • You use very in-descriptive titles for your headings, instead of "Location" you should say something more formal.
    • Article has deadlinks.
  • Added 20:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Multiple Sections Lacking Sourcing (Can be failed for this, I will give hold time though)


These are just a few of the things I notice with this at the moment. I will give a more detailed review later on. I have placed this on hold for 7 days to allow fixes to these and other issues that will arise. I agree with Fetch though, a tad premature but may be able to be fixed.
This is to be closed as ✗ Fail on: 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) if there is no response where these changes are significantly fixed. Current status:  Addressing Issues

Suggestions

  • Well, Joe hasn't said anything for over a week, so I'm popping in to give a few comments:
    • There are quite a few unsourced areas, e.g., in the "Unique and unusual" and "Entertainers in politics" sections (and also elsewhere). This is Not Good™.
    • The prose is quite choppy; in a lot of places there are single-sentence paragraphs.
    • Not all the images have captions. In the case that a visually impaired user comes across this article, they won't know whose star is whose.
      • Alt text should also be added.
      • All the images are on the right side. Can they be distributed on both sides for a more engaging presentation?
    • Section titles are at times too informal; e.g., "On the outside looking in" and "Location, location, location".
    • Has anyone given this an in-depth copyedit? That might help resolve some prose issues.
    • Live performance is a dab page.
    • Some deadlinks that need tagging.
  • Personally, I feel this nom is a tad premature, but I'll let Joe handle that part :). Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Chance

I personally see no efforts to address these mistakes, which are just a few of many that I see. I am getting concerned that no one cares about this nom. Therefore, I am allowing only one additional day to fix these mistakes and if you wish a time extension, please email me.  JoeGazz  ▲  23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that you fail this right now, it has dragged on far too long. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons already mentioned (1+ month without work done), I'm failing this GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

I just read that Donald Trump has a star on the Walk of Fame. I think this qualifies him to be considered an unusual recipient as while he is entertaining, he has not had a big career in the arts. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the star was to honor him for his role as the star and host of the first 14 seasons of the original (U.S.) version of The Apprentice, which eventually grew into a global franchise, with versions in about two dozen countries. While most stars are awarded for contributions to scripted performances, reality TV is, for better or for worse, part of "the arts", and 14 seasons is a big career.47.139.42.34 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hollywood Walk of Fame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files of The Four Ladies of Hollywood nominated for deletion

I recently nominated two Commons images of The Four Ladies of Hollywood for deletion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Four Ladies of Hollywood. George Ho (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special stars/Bending the rules

The special stars and bending the rules sections seem repetitive to me. Proposing merging much of the bending the rules section into special stars. Info about unveiling procedure can be its own section IMO. Thoughts? I can use the sandbox if that's easier to see. Balle010 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Balle010: Makes sense to me. More broadly, those sections probably need to be trimmed anyway. This article does not need to turn into a list of special facts about every single star, which is what those sections feel like. Nolelover (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! Agreed on the need to trim. Unique and unusual, errors, and theft and vandalism could also use some work. I'll do my best to get started on those. Balle010 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify distances

Need the beginning, the article has an apparent discrepancy:

The phrase "1.3 miles (2.1 km) east to west on Hollywood Boulevard from Gower Street to La Brea Avenue, plus a short segment of Marshfield Way that runs diagonally between Hollywood and La Brea; and 0.4 miles (0.64 km) north to south on Vine Street between Yucca Street and Sunset Boulevard" means a total length of 1.7 miles (2.74 km), which corresponds to 8976 feet (2740 m).

The phrase "over 2,600 stars,[1] spaced at 6-foot (1.8 m) intervals" means the length is at least 15600 feet (4680 m), which corresponds to almost 3 miles (5 km).

Much father down, it mentions that there are now two rows of stars, which are staggered (alternating).

I assume the "6-foot (1.8 m) intervals" statement is how far apart the stars in each row are, so in the areas with 2 rows, each star is 3 feet (0.9 m) from nearest the stars in the other row.

I assume the length of the walk is given is as the length of street, curb, or sidewalk, counted only once even where there are two rows, not as row-miles (the total of the lengths of the two rows).

But this isn't really stated clearly anywhere in the article.

Somewhere who knows which the measurements are for each for each row separately and which aren't, please fix the article to make it clear. 47.139.42.34 (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unique and unusual section

@DoctorJoeE:, I appreciate the work you've done on this article but trimming this section and others like it is also something that I've done before and you have unilaterally reverted without any engagement as to my original reasons for trimming. This despite the fact that I've brought up the trivia-like and sometimes badly-sourced nature of much of the page both years ago and just this past summer. I would have appreciated your input then, and I'd like it now, because frankly the article still shows some of the same problems that killed the GAN all the way back in 2011: we still have a lot of single-sentence paragraphs, particularly in U&U, and there is still a lot of haphazard sourcing justified only by a bunch of hidden notes that just say "go read CALC". That's just not a recipe for improving this article. Lets take this most recent edit that you reverted. The justification is that an editor named the section Unique and Unusual, and that therefore justifies unusual facts, which you define as including 16 out of 2500. First, I'd suggest then that maybe the scope of this article shouldn't just be anything "unusual", and second, I see absolutely nothing unusual about stars being identified by their stage name or what they were most known by. If that is in fact unusual--which I grant is completely possible--it needs some level of citation backing that up (Edit: e.g., perhaps a rule that says that usually entertainers must go by their full name?). Otherwise we have an unsourced single-sentence paragraph included because of an editorial decision about the definition of the word unusual. This is, like, four problems rolled into one sentence.

I obviously don't care that much about that particular sentence, but I think it's very strongly indicative of the sorts of problems that this page and especially the U&U section has. Why aren't some of those unique stars in the Special Stars section? Why is the MJ story not in the Homage section? Is the Disneyland star the same type of unofficial star in the Special Stars section? If one-word stage names are unusual, shouldn't that be in Rule Adjustments? If the Chevy star uses the Chevy logo, shouldn't that be up with the Apollo 11 stars? I want to note that I don't even think that some of these facts are relevant enough to be in the article at all, but these are all just examples of how the lines between U&U and the rest of the article have completely blurred because it's just a trivia section with no clear boundaries. We simply have to have some way of differentiating important facts from unimportant ones, and I don't see that happening as long as the article exists in its current state. Cheers, Nole (chat·edits) 04:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have to revert - the last deletion of the external link to the official public art data website on the Public Art in Public Places archive was incorrect. Please note: WP:External Links in lists section "References and Citations" explain exactly this case as the acceptable exception: 1) this website serves as BOTH an in-text reference (K. M. Williamson's comments/data on specific points) and 2) this website also serves as an official source external link "specifically devoted to the topic" [per WP]. The external link website includes additional relevant detail [per WP] (technical data: dimensions, images, etc.) that "are too detailed for the article" [per WP:EL Reference and Citations]. Thank you, TashaB 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)

Assistance please: the following editor "Seraphimblade" is attempting to slam and harass my editing efforts and profile, refusing to respond to my explanation above of satisfying WP:EL criteria. This editor ACCUSES ME OF PAID EDITING with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
Please be respectful and address the issue at hand that I have detailed, instead of completely avoiding the specific points and justifications that have been presented on the Hollywood Walk of Fame TALK PAGE. My edits stand on their own merit. If I esteem the Smithsonian's online archive and strive to enhance WP articles with such, there is no meaningful difference. I believe you are unreasonable in NOT addressing the issue at all here, instead engaging in ad hominum derision and threat. TashaB 19:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
I already have. (I also note you avoided the discussion of undisclosed paid editing). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Please restrict your comments on this article TALK page to specific points of my edit's justification. Regarding your stand-alone personal attack above, I have clearly disclosed I have no relationship whatsoever with the Public Art in Public Places organization and archive. Unfounded attacks are uncivil behavior, and have no place on an article TALK page or on WP anywhere. Since you have twice declined to address the specific edit, you should self-revert. TashaB (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame&oldid=976599989"