Talk:Sol de Mañana/GA1

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 20:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This article looks pretty good at a cursory glance, can't wait to get into it

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The prose is clear and consise, and easily understandable to a broad audience
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Appropriate elements follow the manual of style
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * References are appropriately listed and consistently formatted.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Inline citations are fully appropriate and back up the corresponding claims
 * c. (OR):
 * Article does not contain any original resource
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The article does not contain any copyright violations
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * The article addresses the main aspects of the location and goes into appropriate detail
 * b. (focused):
 * The article does not go into unnecessary detail on any particular topics
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article does not lend any undue weight to any opinions
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring as far as I can tell
 * 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):
 * Media is used really well in this article and is suitably sourced from wikimedia commons
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All media is fully relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * This is definitley a great article, and I really enjoyed the use of media