Jump to content

Talk:Luis Ibáñez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLuis Ibáñez was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

GAN

[edit]

I'm not willing to do a full review of this article but upon inspection I realised there were a few spelling mistakes and such in this article. While I'm sure the reviewer wouldn't fail an article on them, it's worth having a thorough scan. Spiderone 09:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Luis Ibáñez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. I expect to post a full review within two days and will notify the nominator then. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
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 article is very poorly written, needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. You may be able to enlist help from the WP:Guild of copyeditors. Currently this is a long way away from meeting critirion #1 of the WP:GACR.
    The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Sources appear reliable and back up statements, although I have to assume good faith as I only relying on machine translations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Broad and focussed
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit warring
  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):
    Licensed and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    ON hold for seven days for copy-editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there have been a few minor edits but nothing resembling a full copy-edit and no response from the nominator, so I will not be listing this at this time. When it has been copy-edited, take it to WP:Peer review and when any points from that have been addressed, re-nominate at WP:GAN. Please check the WP:GACR and make sure that any future nominations meet all of the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]