Jump to content

Talk:El Negrillar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this in a few days. —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]

Source spotchecks

[edit]

Numbering from special:permanentlink/1224010639.

Spotchecks look fine, minor comments above. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments and GA criteria

[edit]
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
  • Prose: Quite dense and full of technical terms, but not much that would be a GA showstopper. See comments above.
  • MoS: looks OK. Lead is short, but so is the article.
  • Ref layout is fine, sources are scholarly articles.
  • Anything known about vegetation/fauna? Otherwise looks reasonably broad.
    No, nothing specific about the field itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No concerns with neutrality and stability.
  • Main image is fine from a licensing point of view, but it is hard to tell what we see. What is the scale of the image? It looks so weird that it could be anything from a millimetre to a thousand kilometres across. Can you try to address this in the caption?
    Tried to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks next. —Kusma (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: review done, awaiting your response. —Kusma (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Jo-Jo Eumerus: One grammar point above remains. —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (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.