Talk:Alejandro Sanz/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'll review this. I'll be using my 7-day Review Process to schedule a verdict on May 22, 2012. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait until Basilisk4u (talk · contribs) is ready to begin the review. --Hahc21 (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready! Thank you :) Basilisk4u (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! I'll begin tomorrow afternoon, after my last exam... :) --Hahc21 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day 1

Day 1:An overall analysis of the article. The first day, the article is read two or more times to identify:

Overall analysis:The article is on a very good shape, thought it needs some adjustments to reach GA status. No major issues but minor ones that needs to be fixed. --Hahc21 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking on the "personal life' i found this:"Sanz chose virtuoso flamenco guitarist Paco de Lucía", what does mean "virtuoso" on that statement. 2 options: or it's not traduced or it's original research. I don't know :(. --Hahc21 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, it is supposed to mean extremely skilled, but it is kind of unnecessary, so I have removed it. Basilisk4u (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure that the lead section covers the entire article. I'll read it a couple more times to see. --Hahc21 (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day 1:Section scan

Early life

Sanz recalled "Back... - shouldn't it be "Sanz recalled that "Back then..." --Hahc21 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have added it in now. Basilisk4u (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day 2

I've fixed an external link that was dead. Also, made some minor changes on the article, mostly on code rather than words. I've read it a lot (more than 10 times) and scanned the references 2 times. So, i don't see any other issue to be fixed. Basilisk4u has done a very good work on the article :) --Hahc21 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Do you think it is ready to pass? :) Basilisk4u (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take another look at the references and read it again. And yes, i think it's ready :) --Hahc21 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day 3

2008-present

"Sanz created a campaign in which fans could create a video about" — Redundant? should it be better as "Sanz started a campaign in which fans could create a video about..."
"Best Male Pop Vocal," — Isn't it incomplete?, i think it is "Best Male Pop Vocal Performance", but i'm not sure.

I went ahead and replaced "created" with "started" and "Best Male Pop Vocal" with "Best Male Pop Vocal Album" with this edit. See Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album: "Since its inception, the award category has had several name changes. In 2000 it was presented as Best Male Pop Vocal Performance. The following year onwards the award is known as Best Male Pop Vocal Album." Nite-Sirk (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2003-07

Just a comment: "Supporters of Chavez subsequently gathered 230,000 signatures in response to Sanz' comments." — It is well written but i, after reading it several times, a still think it doesn't correctly says that those 230,000 signatures were for Sanz' to quit singing. Maybe it's me, i don't know.

I see what you mean. I will try to think of a way to make it more clear. Basilisk4u (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to note after a comprehensive read. We're close to the end of the review, i think. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks so much. Basilisk4u (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verdict

I almost forgot to write it.. Sorry haha XD

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Final comments: Good job by Basilisk4u (talk · contribs), Just minor fixes were needed to get this article up to GA status. Well done. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.