Talk:2017 vote of no confidence in the government of Mariano Rajoy/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will review this article due to the ongoing GAN backlog. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

No need to change anything in the infobox.
Although optional, you could add this template at the top: {{use dmy dates|date=June 2022}}.
I'd recommend expanding the lede with text from the "Background" and "Legal provisions" sections in order to match the MOS:LEADLENGTH. One more paragraph will be enough.
- Rest of the lede satisfies the manual of style.
In the "Legal provisions" section: "his/her government" → "their government", neutral pronouns.
- In the same section: "his/her political programme" → "their political programme".
Rest of the prose is clear.
The article is focused on the topic.
It is neutral and stable.

Images

I recommend moving the picture in the Background section at the top of the section.
Images meet the criteria.

Sources

Sources in the lede are not needed since the text has been already covered by references in the main part of the article.
In the "Legal provisions" section: link to the last source in that section seems to have been changed to this one.
One FT source is present, it is reliable although I can't verify the content inside the source.
I'd recommend changing these (1, 2) references per the discussions that can be found on WP:RSP.
There are unsourced paragraphs in the "Aftermath" section.
The first opinion poll source does not mention the numbers in the text.
Rest of the sources are reliable and verifiable.
Little to none copyvio. Good job.

@Impru20: I'm putting this on hold until these issues get fixed. --Vacant0 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vacant0! Thank you for taking your time to review the article. I will take care of your considerations and address these in the next few days; they are mostly simple and will require little time, except for the source bit which will take a bit more. Thanks! Impru20^talk 19:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Cheers! Vacant0 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @Vacant0, after some days of busy work that have delayed me somewhat, I've now solved most of the issues but these:

I'd recommend changing these (1, 2) references per the discussions that can be found on WP:RSP. Here I'm lost, what are the discussions at RSP barring the use of these references?
The first opinion poll source does not mention the numbers in the text. Note that most of the article was written back in 2017, so sources may have changed. I clearly remember these numbers being present in a video in the source, but while the source still mentions some of the poll's numbers by party, that video in particular seems to be no longer present. This is a problem since the poll did exist but I'm now struggling to find a source of that point of time where the data is fully disclosed. I will keep looking for it though.

As for the rest, I've added the use dmy dates template, added one more paragraph to the lede, removed all sources from the lede (moved them elsewhere in the article), used neutral pronouns, moved the picture in the background section, updated the link in the "Legal provisions" section and sourced that paragraph in the "Aftermath" section. The FT source is a nice compliment since it is an English reliable source on what it references, though it is ultimately unnecessary since sources in Spanish can make up for it if needed (so, if you want it to be removed because of it being paywalled, it can be. I leave that to your choice, though).

Hope this has helped! Impru20^talk 09:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

historiaelectoral.com rather seems to be a blog of some sort, and on its main page it can be seen that it runs on WordPress. On WP:RSP it states, "As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.", and this website would fall under this criteria since I wasn't able to find it's author, and the website also doesn't cite any sources on those two pages. If there are any sources that can replace those two, that'll be great then. Rest of the article is great, good job. Vacant0 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Impru20^talk 18:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted! Vacant0 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]