Talk:Mariano Ricafort Palacín y Abarca/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2011 (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) 20:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Oh dear, this is not "reasonably well written", in fact the prose is very poor. Examples:

   He was son of ; In October of 1799, he was promoted into first lieutenant. "into"?; He was promoted into a brigadier - again "into"; He was in Peru then, under the expedition of General Pablo Morillo. - "He was in Peru at that time"?; after being an idle property at the death of Colonel Jose Miguel "after being an idle property"?;

   OK, this needs a thorough line-by-line copy-edit by someone with a good command of written English.

   The lead does not summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. The sentence He was a kind and able administrator, a governor of good judgment and much energy. is a point of view statement.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes http://www.spot.ph/ a reliable source?

   What makes http://www.carabayllo.net/distritos/canta/3533-la-batalla-de-quiapata.html a reliable source?

   What makes http://www.baguionews.net/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2660:-an-unauthorized-history-of-the-philippines-7th-in-a-series&catid=6:features&Itemid=13 a reliable source?

   Spot checks indicate that statements are supported by cites.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think much care has been taken in the preparation of this article so I find it hard to determine whether the coverage is broad. The later sections of the article gloss over various significant appointments. There is no sense of what he dis, just a list of jobs. I found the statement The region [Extremdura] ceased to exist by the same year puzzling, as well as ungrammatical. I visited Extremadura earlier this year and I can assure you that it is still there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The sentence in the lead needs addressing.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, 99% of edits by nominator.

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):

   The image appears to be non free and I have nominated it for deletion at Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A definite fail. I think you need to familiarise yourself with the good article criteria. Get someone to copy-edit the article, then take it to peer review before renominating at GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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.