Talk:Víctor J. Montilla/GA2

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Seems a bit choppy. Highly recommend seeking out someone who has never read nor edited this article before for some copyediting. Would suggest asking someone who is a regular at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, and/or the relevant WikiProjects WP:WPPR, WP:BUSINESS and WP:BIOGRAPHY.

Perfect. Will do! (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?: Citations throughout, however they mostly appear to be to websites and other sources affiliated with the subject of the article. It would be best to try to find and add material from secondary, WP:RS/WP:V sources - newspaper articles, journal articles, books, etc.

Any specific areas where you think additional citations are needed? I've tried including newspapers and magazines, backing these up by information readily available on the web from different sources. QueCreativa (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: No information about thee individual's personal life.

Should the individual's personal life be included? I can get this information if needed. QueCreativa (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?: Reads like a promotional release or a bio blurb that might appear at the personal website about the individual himself, does not appear to be written in a NPOV manner. Subsection headings such as: Taking Puerto Rican Television beyond the shores, Road to the Emmy's and A historical alliance jump out right from the start as very promotional-sounding.

Is it just the title headings where you think this is a problem? I've tried following the tone established in the articles being referenced. QueCreativa (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Article stability? No major conflicts evident in the edit history or on the talk page. Passes here.

Ok.

6. Images?: Image:Corbata roja.jpg is public domain and ideally should be moved to Wikimedia Commons. All other images are already at Commons. Passes here.

Ok.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to the Guild's requests for collaboration/help. I don't know how long it will take to have someone from the Copy Editors Guild look at it. Think I can extend the 7-days timeframe for issues to be resolved? QueCreativa (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time

It has been over one week since the GA Hold, and though I see some positive improvement and copyedits were done, the article is still not of a GA quality. Many issues I had raised above have not been addressed, and the article still has a bit too much of a promotional/publicity/résumé feel to it, especially with those promo-style subsection titles. I would highly recommend some major copyediting and getting some independent third-party editors to look over this article - and also recommend a peer review for this article before attempting to resubmit for another good article nomination. Good luck with the improvements, Cirt (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]