Talk:Lope de Barrientos/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• The most serious problem with this article is the extensive lack of citations, thus not meeting GA criterion 2, and I fear that may not be easily resolved within the timeframe of a GA review. We are more than halfway through the Biography section, for instance, before the first (and only) citation appears. For an article of this nature a citation per paragraph presenting significant facts would be the minimum expectation.

• Almost one third of the article is concerned with Barrientos' relationship with Álvaro de Luna, but there is no mention of this in the lead.

• The image in Barrientos and Álvaro de Luna needs a caption to explain what it is.

• In parts, this article reads like a personal essay. For instance, "It is not possible in a work of this nature to refer to all of them nor to even mention the names of those who supported one faction or another at any given moment)." Whose opinion is that? It seems quite clearly to be the opinion of the article's author, and thus is quite inappropriate in an encyclopedia article.

• Common English words like prestige, tax, and influential should not be linked.

--Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Malleus. Indeed, there is nothing I can do to source this to meet current standards (which I agree with)—not because of the time frame but because I do not have the resources to source this at all. My Spanish is simply not good enough to handle the research and there's not enough in English. Unfortunately, since I translated this from the Spanish Wikipedia featured article no further references have been added to the that article to work from.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid that might be the case. It's a nice article nevertheless, which I enjoyed reading; the loss of the GA listing doesn't mean it's not a "good article", just that it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Anyway, as you were obviously the principal author, judging by the article history, I don't see anything will be gained by keeping this review open, so I'm going to delist this article now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of simply delisting it on my next edit as I know I wrote 99.something% of the text but thought there might a GA sweeps rule that you keep them open for the full time period against the infinitesimal chance that a third party article messiah will swoop in.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule is that there are no rules. If a white knight comes charging in then I'll happily undertake to review the article again, and even relist it should that be warranted. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 18 August 2009 (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.