Talk:El Cuatrero/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Raymie (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In progress. Raymie (t • c) 19:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Good work,. I think another once-over for grammar would be a good idea given the issues that I caught, but otherwise this is ready to be passed. Raymie (t • c) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I did have to make several edits to resolve pending style issues and a phrase that didn't make much sense. While there should not be problems now, I would like the nominator to take another look at the article with fresh eyes to avoid any further concerns.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources are primarily professional wrestling specialty publications and Mexican sports/news sites (e.g. MedioTiempo). Earwig finds no copyvio issues. Extensively sourced with no original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Most edits since late 2019 are by nominator except for grammar and style fixes.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Thanks, Secretaría de Cultura de la Ciudad de México! The crops are perfect and really aid in the image quality in the article. These images are a good example of how cropping images can increase their visual impact.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * We're almost there. I just want the nominator to take another look at grammar given what I had to clean up while reviewing.
 * Thank you for your feedback, input and most definitly thank you for your copy editing efforts, they are very much appreciated. I will give it a read through and copy edit since it's been a while since I laid eyes on it last. Hopefully relatively fresh eyes will help me shore up the language etc. so it can pass. I will keep you updated. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have had a go at a bit of copyediting and found several places where I clarified or improved the prose. Let me know if you see anything specific you'd like me to address. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for going over it. I took a look myself and made a few additional changes, including catching a couple of introduced typos. I believe this can now be passed. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have had a go at a bit of copyediting and found several places where I clarified or improved the prose. Let me know if you see anything specific you'd like me to address. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for going over it. I took a look myself and made a few additional changes, including catching a couple of introduced typos. I believe this can now be passed. Raymie (t • c) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)