Talk:Mireya Montaño/GA1

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 01:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments
My first impression is that while this is well written, the article is too short to meet the GA requirement of broad coverage. Half of the references are to the same source. There's no early life information, other than when and where she was born. The article starts off talking about her graduate degree. What did she do for undergraduate? And where did she grow up, etc.? We need more content on what she's done as a politician too, a Political activities section should probably be created. Unless the article can be expanded to nearly twice its current length, I don't think it's worth it to continue a review. I would be willing to put this on hold if you think you can do that. –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * While I agree the article is short, I should note that GA criteria does state that the "'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows [for] shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail..." In that sense, I believe this article meets that criterion, noting that similarly lengthed articles have been approved in the past. While I would be happy to include the suggested information, as it stands, this article already covers all available information on a topic where little biographical data exists and where all existing sources I could find have been exhausted. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Review fails
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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The references in the bibliography section need to be incorporated into the footnotes per WP:SFN.
 * 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:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Fails to cover the main aspects needed for a biographical article as detailed above.
 * 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:
 * –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * –– FormalDude  (talk)  03:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)