The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- More links would be nice—you could link mineworker and politician in the first few words, for example—but not essential.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction,and list incorporation:
- All good except for the Commission assignments subsection—there is no reason for it to be a list, per MOS:EMBED. It should be rephrased into prose.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains
no original research:
- See #Random citation spotchecks below.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- WP:EARWIG shows no violations. All references are Spanish so WP:CLOP shouldn't be an issue. See #Random citation spotchecks below.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Any details available in RS about his personal life?
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just a few issues to resolve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- In the absence of responses, I have fixed the MOS:EMBED issue, and AGF on the personal life issues. Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ AirshipJungleman29: Oh, gosh, sorry for the lack of response. I was actually intending to request an extension, as I leave the country soon and wasn't going to be able to respond. I appreciate you going ahead and taking initiative on the edits! Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 23:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Random citation spotchecks
My Spanish is weak so AGF on details.
- 4 good
- 8 good
- 10 inaccessible
- 13 good
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- More links would be nice—you could link mineworker and politician in the first few words, for example—but not essential.
- B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections,
layout,
words to watch,
fiction,and list incorporation:
- All good except for the Commission assignments subsection—there is no reason for it to be a list, per MOS:EMBED. It should be rephrased into prose.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it
verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- B. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains
no original research:
- See #Random citation spotchecks below.
- D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism:
- WP:EARWIG shows no violations. All references are Spanish so WP:CLOP shouldn't be an issue. See #Random citation spotchecks below.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Any details available in RS about his personal life?
- B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style):
- A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
- Is it
neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images?
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions:
- A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status, and
valid non-free use rationales are provided for
non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just a few issues to resolve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- In the absence of responses, I have fixed the MOS:EMBED issue, and AGF on the personal life issues. Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- @ AirshipJungleman29: Oh, gosh, sorry for the lack of response. I was actually intending to request an extension, as I leave the country soon and wasn't going to be able to respond. I appreciate you going ahead and taking initiative on the edits! Krisgabwoosh ( talk) 23:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Random citation spotchecks
My Spanish is weak so AGF on details.
- 4 good
- 8 good
- 10 inaccessible
- 13 good