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

Reviewer: Vacant0 ( talk · contribs) 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Krisgabwoosh, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 22:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 0% in similarity. This is because all sources are in Spanish.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add original Spanish text of the quotes in the article that have been translated into English immediately after the quotes in parenthesis, per MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE.
    •  Done Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:EMBED guidelines. There is no fiction here, so I am skipping MOS:WAF.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section (including an explanatory note, footnotes, and bibliography) with {{notelist}} and {{reflist}} templates is present in the article.
  • There was one referencing issue which I fixed (extra spacing in the table).
  • Listed references are reliable, however:
    • Ref 6 (Facebook) confirms what is written in the note but per WP:RSP, Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight
      • I'm hoping to keep this citation under similar justifications WP:RSP uses for Twitter: "should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description." (The citation backs descriptions of organization members). Facebook doesn't seem to have reached the same exact consensus as Twitter but nor is there outright consensus to explicitly deprecate it either. Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Spotchecked Ref 5, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 24, 27, 34, 36–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topics.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@ Krisgabwoosh: I will put this on hold for a week so that you can fix these minor issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, -- Vacant0 ( talk) 17:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All issues have been addressed so I'll promote the article to GA statu. Vacant0 ( talk) 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply