From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 ( talk · contribs) 05:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply


Comment: I have already read and copyedited this article. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 05:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Copyedited roughly ten days ago. All good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
    Plenty of WP:RS to back up information.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
    Covers the topic well and explains the key areas in detail
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Written neutrally
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
    A single, non-free image but with fair use rationales. Used appropriately
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very well written article. More images would have been good, but due to the subject of the article, good images are hard to come by.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 ( talk · contribs) 05:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply


Comment: I have already read and copyedited this article. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 05:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Copyedited roughly ten days ago. All good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):
    Plenty of WP:RS to back up information.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
    Covers the topic well and explains the key areas in detail
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Written neutrally
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
    A single, non-free image but with fair use rationales. Used appropriately
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Very well written article. More images would have been good, but due to the subject of the article, good images are hard to come by.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook