Talk:Julio and Marisol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• Non-free use rationale looks good.
• "Story line" should be "Storyline"
• "which ran" → "that ran"
• Always [re]cite sources for quotes.
• "she's" → "she is" (MOS:CONTRACTIONS)
• Remove the comma after "told Julio".
• Remove the comma after "another day".
• "a HIV counselor" → "an HIV counselor"
• "a HIV test" → "an HIV test"
• "late 1980's" → "late 1980s"
• "Use of condoms" → "The use of condoms"
• a "HIV melodrama" → an "HIV melodrama"
• Remove the comma after "returned in 1997".

Done with all that (except for making sure all the quotes are properly cited) got those now.

Sources

• Avoid using quotation marks in citations (WP:QWQ).

I'm not seeing any places I did this incorrectly. Could you be more specific?

 Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Add the "use mdy dates" template to fix citations (WP:BADDATE).

Done

• Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from New York Magazine with "|url-access=subscription".
• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The Washington Post with "|url-access=limited".

Added all those

• Newspaper.com sources should link to a clipping, not the newspaper title.

Hmmm, my newspapers.com subscription seems to have expired. I'll get back to you when I've got that sorted out.

Added a link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

• Optional, but try archiving sources (you can use this tool).

Done. I hadn't known about that tool. Very nice!

• @Some Dude From North Carolina: OK, I think I've got everything. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the assistance of HumanxAnthro, whose extensive peer review comments were invaluable for me getting this into shape. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·