Talk:Alberto Henschel

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Reasonably well written.

   The lead includes material not mentioned in the article and also omits material in the article. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. Please read WP:LEAD and recast accordingly.

I erased the part about Jorge Henrique Papf and I added in the article about the increased recognition and price of his photogrpahs because of the title, but I didn't really understand what material is omitted and what needs to be added to the lead. Best regards, Idontknow610^TM 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am travelling today and will only return on January 25.

1. Have you not read WP:LEAD yet? "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." One way of looking at it is to consider the lead as an executive summary of the article. If a salient fact or statement is mentioned in the lead it should be in the article somewhere and vice-versa. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. All the material in the lead is mentioned in the article now. Idontknow610^TM 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good sources, all appear reliable, those that are on-line check out.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Although brief this covers the subject in as much detail as possible.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   All captioned, tagged and licensed.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just the lead needs sorting out. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, sorry about the delay, this is now good to go. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Second Opinion - I am requesting second opinion because it seems that Jezhotwells abandoned this review. Idontknow610^TM 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No need, just had a few pressing real life concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alberto Henschel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624123208/http://www.ccba.com.br/asp/cultura/expo/011212-fotografalemaes/link-conheca.asp to http://www.ccba.com.br/asp/cultura/expo/011212-fotografalemaes/link-conheca.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)