Talk:Samuel Plata/GA1

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I will review this. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

There really isn't anything to complain about, not even the most minor issue. Lead is good, infobox is good, image is good, prose is good, no copyright issues, no edit wars, reliable sourcing, etc. Coverage is as broad as it could possibly be. I passed it as it is. Congratulations. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)