![]() | Pero Me Acuerdo de Ti has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 5, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Erick (
talk) and
HĐ (
talk ·
contribs)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
Check for
WP:LEAD:
|
![]() Check for
WP:LAYOUT:
|
![]() Check for
WP:WTW:
Check for
WP:MOSFICT:
|
![]()
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]() Check for
WP:RS:
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
11:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Pero Me Acuerdo de Ti has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 5, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Seabuckthorn (
talk ·
contribs)
16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator:
Erick (
talk) and
HĐ (
talk ·
contribs)
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
16:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
Check for
WP:LEAD:
|
![]() Check for
WP:LAYOUT:
|
![]() Check for
WP:WTW:
Check for
WP:MOSFICT:
|
![]()
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
![]() Check for
WP:RS:
|
![]() Check for inline citations
WP:MINREF:
|
![]()
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a.
Major aspects:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
b.
Focused:
![]() |
---|
![]()
|
4: Neutral
![]() 4. Fair representation without bias:
|
5: Stable: No
edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR)
Images:
![]() |
---|
![]() 6: Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
6: Images are provided if possible and are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
|
I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article:
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. You've done great work, and I am quite happy to assist you in improving it. All the best,
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
11:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status.
--
Seabuckthorn
♥
01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)