Talk:Jaime Medrano

GA Review

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.

---

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

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few issues to resolve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• 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 discussion above 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.