Talk:Amor Prohibido/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took this because it is the oldest one where the review is not yet started. Possibly due to the size and complexity of the article and scope of the previous review.

After my first two reads, my first comment is that the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the article. My general impression was that this one is not, it is just like another section except with a broader scope. I spot checked a few content items from the lead and they were not covered in the article. Could you review this thoroughly with respect to that, and provide any changes, discussion or confirming discussion that ensure from that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I can't find instances where information found in the lead is not in the article body. Care to give examples of sentences in this lead that are not explained in the article? Best, Jona ^{talk to me} 18:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I somehow missed that you responded. I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did some further checking and and now thinking mostly about the first paragraph of the lead. It's a nice "beginning of the story" paragraph, talking about the initial inception and her goals for the album, but there is no such introduction (or much of the material in the body of the first paragraph) in the body of the article. Probably just adding that as a section or a paragraph in the body of the article would do the trick. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When working on this I also noticed a conflict. The lead (roughly) said that the idea for the album occurred after the launching of her boutiques; the body says that the launch of it was delayed by the launching of her boutiques. Could you fix? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs a fair use rationale for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting re-release dates are given in the lead vs. the body (9/22/02 vs. 9/24/02) could you fix? North8000 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria / review

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Passed. The scope of coverage is very comprehensive with respect to the topic. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Passed. The coverage and wording is neutral. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Passes. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Has one image. I think that this is enough to be OK. Awaiting rationale for this article. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-pass

I'm non-passing this article. It looks like that with a little work it could pass, but there is nobody really involved enough to do it, and since it involves sources that I don't have, is beyond what I'd be ready to fix. The review has been open from October 31st through today (December 10th) (7 of those days the ball was sort of in my court) and I also pinged the nominator at their talk page to see if they were interested in that type of involvement. Other than one question asking me to further establish my earlier made point, there has been no activity or even response from anybody during that period. So no reflection on the article (other than it needs a little work) and no reflection on anybody, it's just the reality that the article does not, at the moment, have the active involvement that it will need to get to GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]