This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Tomás Frías was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 13, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomás Frías/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 06:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this nomination per WP:QF criteria 1: it is a long way from the GA criteria. Much of the article is cited to sources which are a century old, sometimes much more, and which are not WP:RS. There is far too much excessive detail: why does the "Reformation of Bolivia's education system (1845–1846)" section contain 450 words detailing individual decrees which could simply be summarized? Why are individual events described in a action-novel tone? And finally, why are there so many lengthy quotes, going far over what WP:LIMITED requires? This bloated article urgently needs to be cut of probably half its content. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)