Talk:Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Los Angeles was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
Date Process Result
November 24, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
August 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
October 5, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article


"Chumash people lived in Los Angeles before Europeans settled there."

Conquered you mean? "Settled" does not match the history. They were violently conquered by Europeans. Not "settled." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: info box[edit]

Most city info boxes include ranking next to metro area population in the city info box. Please consider adding it to this page. So, instead of:

population_urban = 12,150,996[1]

population_metro = 13,131,431[2]

population_blank1_title = CSA

population_blank1 = 18,351,929[3]

These lines would be:

population_urban = 12,150,996 (2nd) [4]

population_metro = 13,131,431 (2nd) [5]

population_blank1_title = CSA

population_blank1 = 18,351,929 (2nd) [6]


Five or six 500 Fortune Companies?[edit]

In the section "Economy" there is written that the city is home to 6 Fortune 500 companies, while on the site it is stated, that it's five companies. (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For the 2014 Fortune 500, it's six for the city of Los Angeles. I added a citation for the claim. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Los Angeles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll take this one. Given the size of the article I should complete this one within 48 hours Jaguar 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time. - SantiLak (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]


  • At a first glance, some aspects of the lead contains some jargon and is slightly cluttered. The opening is bombarded with statistics and all of these different, umm, symbols! Is there really a need for three different pronunciations ("lɒs ˈændʒəlɨs/, Listeni/lɒs ˈændʒəliːz/, or /lɒs ˈæŋɡəlɨs/")? Can just one be used?
  • The lead could be better organised to summarise the main aspects of the article better. I looked at San Diego which is a GA, and its lead looks cleaner. For example, the first paragraph of Los Angeles could mention what the city is known for and what makes it famous?
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are usually discouraged from the lead if it doesn't cite controversial or statistical information. Statistics like "with a population at the 2010 United States Census of 3,792,621.[13]" is fine, but some simple instances such as "The city's inhabitants are referred to as Angelenos.[19]" and "Los Angeles was founded on September 4, 1781, by Spanish governor Felipe de Neve.[3]" could have their citations removed
  • "It became a part of Mexico in 1821" - link First Mexican Empire? (if this is correct)
  • Furthermore, the third (history) paragraph in the lead could be expanded a little to showcase more of LA's history. I'm sure it has a lot of history after 1850, so a small expansion shouldn't be difficult. It had an important role in World War II, right?
  • "Los Angeles is a global city, with strengths in business, international trade, entertainment, culture, media, fashion, science, sports, technology, education, medicine and research and has been ranked sixth in the Global Cities Index and 9th Global Economic Power Index" - could read better as Los Angeles is a global city, with strengths in business, international trade, entertainment, culture, media, fashion, science, sports, technology, education, medicine and research. It has been ranked sixth in the Global Cities Index and 9th Global Economic Power Index


  • I'm not very well versed on policies to do with images, but there seems to be too many images in this section that it disrupts the flow of the prose. Perhaps one or two could be cut for now, but then again I think it would depend on the reader's monitor resolution (width and height).
  • For such a major city in the world I think the history section itself could undergo an expansion, even South Bend, Indiana, another GA, has a slightly larger history section than this! Ideally, the history section could be split into sub-sections (I think San Diego again is another good example of this) and some more information on LA's pre-colonial history could be added. A fair expansion would be required to pass the broadness criteria
  • "New Spain achieved its independence from the Spanish Empire in 1821" - would be best to link New Spain
  • "Railroads arrived with the completion of the Southern Pacific line to Los Angeles in 1876" - this paragraph in particular could be expanded a little. What kind of role did the city have in the American frontier era?
  • "Oil was discovered in 1892" - sounds a bit vague. Where was it discovered? In LA's area? Sea or land?
  • "In 1910, not only had the city of Los Angeles annexed Hollywood" - what does it mean by annexed? Sounds like it was taken by force? Was it incorporated into the city limits? Also link Hollywood
  • "...and signaled the demise of the city's electrified rail system, once the world's largest" - this needs a reference
  • The Los Angeles riots of 1992 was a major point in the city's history, and could be expanded upon at the end of this section
  • "In 2002, voters defeated efforts by the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood to secede from the city" - is there really nothing else on contemporary history?


  • Be careful of WP:OVERLINKING in this section. Both the main section and the Landmarks section contains heavy overlinking
  • "Greater Los Angeles includes a number of enclaves and nearby communities" - what does this mean? Greater Los Angeles contains a lot of communities? What kind of communities?
  • The last paragraph in the Cityscape section is all unreferenced
  • Not only is the Landmarks unreferenced (and overlinked) but it contains almost no prose, but rather just a list of all the landmarks. Some prose could be taken out from National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California to put here.
  • "See also: Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles" - this category should be removed, per most guidelines
  • "Los Angeles is irregularly shaped and covers a total area of 502.7 square miles" - what is irregularly shaped? The city or its coastline?
  • "it is predicted to be the source of Southern California's next big earthquake" - what does this mean? Are the actually predicting an upcoming earthquake?
  • Second paragraph in the Climate section is unreferenced
  • I really shouldn't keep comparing, but look at San Diego's climate for comparison, though it is similar to LA's climate section it does contain more prose and details on climate change. I like the way LA's climate section is written, but I think the first half contains too many statistics, but that could just be how I read it?
  • Nothing on global warming or climate change in the Environmental issues section?


  • "...and 26,415 (0.7%) were institutionalized" - the end of this paragraph is unreferenced, is it mentioned in that census reference?
  • The third paragraph is also unreferenced
  • "provide examples of the polyglot character of Los Angeles." - could read better as something like {{xt|provide examples of the multiculturalism characteristics of Los Angeles.
  • "According to the 2010 Census, the racial makeup of Los Angeles included" - should this paragraph be here? Can't the exact figures just be mentioned in the table above?
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs are unreferenced entirely. Also can't that fifth paragraph be merged or expanded?
  • "Pacific Islanders make up 0.1% of Los Angeles' population" - all this could be merged into the fourth paragraph, as that talks about the ethnics
  • Please ensure that every paragraph of the Religion section is also backed up by a reference. Very small paragraphs could also be expanded, if possible
  • "Construction of the cathedral marked a coming of age of the city's Catholic, heavily Latino community" - when was the cathedral built? And what does a coming of age for the Latino community mean?
  • "(It is no longer a sacred space and is being converted to a museum and community center.)" - this doesn't need to be in brackets?
  • "Sawtelle district" AKA (also known as) Little Osaka. (so I've been told) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickryan (talkcontribs) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Extreme overlinking in this section too! I'm sure a lot of the non significant companies could be cut from this section. As I mentioned above, please make sure that the fourth paragraph contains prose instead of a basic list of companies in the city
  • Can the section be expanded a little too? Isn't the music and film industry second to none in LA? A lot of content from the Los Angeles County Economy could easily be put here


  • "L.A. has a long history of attracting cult leaders and cults" - Los Angeles
  • Can the Cults section be expanded? I know a few, like the Heavens Gate cult was in LA
  • Does the High percentage of creatives section need to be there? It could be deleted to make a nice opening
  • Why Did Brit Marling even get mentioned, cause of that one movie she did? It's not relevant.


  • At least three paragraphs in the Sports section are unreferenced
  • "These Los Angeles teams include the" - seems obvious, so I would cut the "Los Angeles"
  • "Los Angeles is the second-largest television market in the United States but has no NFL team" - how is a television market relevant here?
  • "It was also home to the Los Angeles Avengers of the original AFL" - was? What happened to it?


  • The first half of the prose contains no citations
  • "Los Angeles is a charter city as opposed to a general law city" - what's the difference? Is this common? And can "general law city" be linked or elaborated?
  • I don't know if it's my place to say this, but I would strongly recommend either deleting the entire Federal and state representation section or somehow merging the major points into the prose. Long and tedious lists such as the congressional districts is strongly discouraged from GA articles


  • Moar WP:OVERLINKING, no citations here! This section would require a copyedit or a reconstruction to meet the GA criteria, as in more facts and less statistics
  • "There are numerous additional colleges and universities in the Greater Los Angeles area" - why are they additional?


  • While I think the prose is generally better here, there is only one reference
  • "Los Angeles and New York City are the only two media markets to have seven VHF allocations assigned to them." - how are these two cities categorised as 'markets'?

Notable people[edit]

This section seems too short to be in the article, would you think it best to cut it and include the link to List of notable people elsewhere?


Close - not listed[edit]

SantiLak, I am so sorry to do this, I really am, and it was just because I love LA so much and I love the article that halfway through the review I had it in my mind to leave this on hold, but as the review progressed I feel like there are a lot of problems that stand in the way of this becoming GA any time soon. I know that this is a long review and at first it may seem overwhelming, but as to say I have had a lot of nominations like this too. At the moment there are a lot of prose issues and overall most parts of the article lack references and some sections seem too "listy" and state a lot of statistics rather than actual details. Take a look at San Diego and other California GAs to help. I think that in the mean time this article could be salvaged through a group effort, perhaps some people at WP:CALIFORNIA would be willing to help with this article? If you have any questions please let me know, otherwise good luck with developing this article. If you happen to renominate this, please let me know, I would love to review this again. Thanks! Jaguar 23:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar I appreciate the feedback and the review and I will take the necessary steps to fix problems with the page and cooperate with other editors including at WP:CALIFORNIA to be able to bring this article to GA. - SantiLak (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, SantiLak! I would also be happy to help out with this article. Jaguar 00:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar I appreciate the offer and I'd like to take you up on it most specifically with the History section or anything else you find. I am currently cleaning it up and dealing with things that you mentioned in the review but expanding the history section is something I could really use some help with. I have so far divided it into subsections to cover different periods but the periods before the American period are still lacking seriously in material. I am continuing to go through the other article to deal with the specifics of the review before I contact other editors about improving as to lessen the work. Again I appreciate your help with this, this is my first GA review and I can use all the help I can get. - SantiLak (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and sorry for the late reply as I've been a little busy lately. I'll clean up whatever I can find in the article and will perform a copyedit of the hitsory section Jaguar 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the assistance, GA has never been my specialty so I'm trying to learn and you've been a big help. - SantiLak (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: move Religion subsection from Demographics to Culture[edit]

There's too much narrative and not enough numbers for religion to be under demographics, and it's part of culture anyhow

No Opinion
  • Looks fine to me. (Wishy-washy, no opinion on this.) -- AstroU (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The California article puts religion in the "Culture" section. The New York City article does not give religion it's own sub-section, but the paragraph discussing religion is under the "Demographics" section. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • pbp 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The way that the WP:Community has written this section, it should definitely be under "Culture." There is some mention of the number of Jews but not any statistics for the other religions, or for the unchurched. This section is mostly about the culture of L.A.'s religions. I hope we can agree to change it as suggested above. Another option would be for a separate section for "Religion and churches." Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As per articles such as United States that list religion under demographics. - SantiLak (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think of religion as culture. The section on Culture needs to be beefed up with cultural aspects of Los Angeles--there is so much--but not with Religion. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:USCITIES suggests that religion goes under demographics. Bahooka (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015[edit] (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) aurangabad maharashtra.

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Incidentally, Aurangabad, Maharashtra is a city in India. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

creeping scope[edit]

While reviewing recent changes to the Sports section, I noticed the the scope of the article is creeping toward that of Greater Los Angeles Area. I understand the temptation to mention that the city serves as the core of the metro area. I understand the temptation to mention teams outside the city which have "Los Angeles" in their names. But Greater Los Angeles Area is a separate topic. The Rose Bowl and Edison Field are in a different city, a different county, even. It's hard for me to see why they should be listed in an article about the City of Los Angeles.—Stepheng3 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stepheng3 - This is an interesting issue. And I almost always agree with your editing, but this time I'll have to take the counter-point, to a certain extent. I do think mentioning the Rose Bowl and Edison field towards the end of the article is a bit of a creep, but the Rose Bowl is home to one of the major collegiate teams which are from Los Angeles. Edison is a stretch and should probably be removed. I look at other articles like Boston and New York, and when the brand is most closely identified with that city (Patriots for Boston, Jets and Giants for NY), the stadium receives coverage in the city article. NY also includes a brief mention of the New Jersey Devils and their arena. I guess my overall viewpoint is that if a team from the city, or identified with the city, then mentioning their arena/stadium is okay, but to do so in connection with that team (in other words, move the Rose Bowl up to where UCLA is mentioned). But to simply mention nearby venues isn't. Onel5969 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective, Onel5969. If other large city articles experience the same phenomenon, that doesn't convince me it's not a problem. On the other hand, I don't want to be pushy. I'll go ahead and remove Edison as you suggest.—Stepheng3 (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm completely on the same page about not doing something "just because", but I think in the case where a team from a city uses a stadium, there is a decent rationale for mentioning them in the article. I especially brought up Boston, however, since that is an FA article. Take it easy, Stepheng3 Onel5969 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Economy: Table of Fortune 500 companies instead of list[edit]

The GA review mentioned over-linking in the Economy section. One of the culprits is the comma-separated list of Fortune 500 companies, followed by another comma-separated list of other companies headquartered in Los Angeles. I propose we take those lists out and insert a table of the top publicly traded companies in Los Angeles, similar to the Economy section of the article for New York City. Does anyone have an objection to this? HollywoodCowboy (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Los Angeles[edit]

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)