Talk:Alex, Jorge y Lena/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose still needs quite a bit of work. Some of the grammar is poor and their are a few words to watch. The recording and release section could probab;y be broken up a bit (either into seperate sections or paragraphs) as it is a bit wall of text like at the moment. That title is a bit awkward too, I woyuld suggest just using the album title.

   Alex, Jorge y Lena is formed by Cuban singer-songwriter Lena Burke, Spanish performer Álex Ubago and Colombian lyricist Jorge Villamizar Grammar

   The following year Villamizar was introduced to Burke in Miami, where Burke met Ubago the next year (2006) while he was promoting an album Confusing

   since they share a friendship with him Repitition

   The newly formed ensemble was welcomed enthusiastically by Warner Music. Weasal wording

   His album Fantasía o Realidad was released in 2004, as was very successful as his first Grammar

   Villamizar described their collaboration, saying that Redundancy (describe and saying)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are present. Spot checks not done. Someone familiar with spanish may need to check for reliability.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I know it is hard for a relatively new band, but I feel the article is to brief. Are there any live performances (outside the award show) that could be mentioned? Some information about music style. At this stage you are probably best splitting the last section into possibly four seperate paragraphs descibing the making of the album, the performance of the album, reception, and awards (expanding on each if posible)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Hard to tell without checking the sources

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Not applicable. You could probably justify a non-free promo shot or album cover.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry there is still too much work to do, especially with the prose. You may want to ask some other editors to copy-edit it before nominating again. Some could be found at here AIRcorn (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)