Talk:Carlos de Villegas/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Mieszkolambert (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Seawolf35 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• I will be reviewing this over the next few hours or so. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:16, 22 March 2024 (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:

   -There is still a valid cleanup tag on the article, {{Over-quotation}}, which could be a quick fail on its own. The prose is quite choppy in some sections and there are a lot of spots where the info could be a lot shorter.

   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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References could be combined.

   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):

   The lead section is completely unsourced as of current for one.

   C. It contains no original research:

   It seems to have been written from more of a fan POV than a neutral viewpoint and there seems to be some "storytelling" in some sections as well.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No extensive checks done, but there are overly large quotations of PD material.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Far too much detail is given to trivial aspects of certain events, the article fails to stay on topic in some areas.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There are several incredibly long quotations which need to be cut down drastically. Those go into far too much detail and need to be summarized.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Some sections are written in the style of an action novel and that does not lend itself to an encyclopedia article well.

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:

   -A good majority of the images don't seem to be relevant to the sections that they are in and don't seem to be that suitable for the article overall.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Fail

- Unfortunately, I am going to have to quick-fail this GA nomination as the article is a long way from meeting the good article criteria. Furthermore, there is still a valid cleanup tag on the article which needs to be resolved. You are on a good track and I hope to see this article renominated in the future. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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.