Talk:Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is very poor throughout. This artcile should have been copy-edited before being nominated. It does not meet WP:GACR criterion #1 "reasonably well written". The grammar is very poor and some sentences are pretty much meaningless.

   The lead does not summarize the artcile. Please read WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I have tagged several apparently POV statemenst which need attributins and citing.

   The bulk of this article is sourced to the Institute itself. This is not accptable. we need more reliable third party sources.

   In fact the majority of the article appears to be a direct copyright violation or close paraphrase of {http://www.icp.gobierno.pr/}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   One third part source used for a minor point, the rest is lifted from the organization's own website.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See note above.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is a long way away from from teh standards outlines at WP:GACR. You need to find some good third party reliable sources, then re-write removing all copyrighted material. Then get it copy-edited and ask for a WP:Peer review. When all of that has been done and all points have been addressed, renominate if you wish. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)