Talk:Jaime Medrano/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (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:
 * More links would be nice—you could link mineworker and politician in the first few words, for example—but not essential.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All good except for the Commission assignments subsection—there is no reason for it to be a list, per MOS:EMBED. It should be rephrased into prose.
 * 1) 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:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See below.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * WP:EARWIG shows no violations. All references are Spanish so WP:CLOP shouldn't be an issue. See below.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Any details available in RS about his personal life?
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few issues to resolve. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few issues to resolve. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just a few issues to resolve. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In the absence of responses, I have fixed the MOS:EMBED issue, and AGF on the personal life issues. Passing now. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, sorry for the lack of response. I was actually intending to request an extension, as I leave the country soon and wasn't going to be able to respond. I appreciate you going ahead and taking initiative on the edits! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Random citation spotchecks
My Spanish is weak so AGF on details.
 * 4 good
 * 8 good
 * 10 inaccessible
 * 13 good