Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Robin Nievera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA review

GA review

[edit]

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:Robin Nievera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Polo (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply


I'll take this review, as you have a good review/nominations ratio. Comments to follow soon: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

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:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    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:
General comments
  • I've removed a tabloidy paragraph from the article, which seems to have been written by a sock and so was eligible for WP:BRV.
  • There is no coverage on Nievera's activities since May 2020, which seems rather a large chunk of omission.
  • There is rather a lot of quoting from interviews with Nievara, most of which could be paraphrased or summarised; as it stands, they read rather promotionally.
  • Article is stable and mostly well-written. No images of the subject?
  • I will conduct a source spotcheck after the over-quotation and lack of recent coverage is resolved. Putting the review on hold for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.