Talk:Alberto Henschel/GA1

GA Review
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, Idontknow  610 TM 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am travelling today and will only return on January 25.


 * 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. Idontknow  610 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.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Although brief this covers the subject in as much detail as possible.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 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. Idontknow 610 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)