Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checking against GA criteria
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Reasonably well written.
The lead includes material not mentioned in the article and also omits material in the article. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. Please read WP:LEAD and recast accordingly.
- I erased the part about Jorge Henrique Papf and I added in the article about the increased recognition and price of his photogrpahs because of the title, but I didn't really understand what material is omitted and what needs to be added to the lead. Best regards, Idontknow610TM 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am travelling today and will only return on January 25.[reply]
- Have you not read WP:LEAD yet? "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." One way of looking at it is to consider the lead as an executive summary of the article. If a salient fact or statement is mentioned in the lead it should be in the article somewhere and vice-versa. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. All the material in the lead is mentioned in the article now. Idontknow610TM 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- Good sources, all appear reliable, those that are on-line check out.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Although brief this covers the subject in as much detail as possible.
- 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):
- All captioned, tagged and licensed.
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Just the lead needs sorting out. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sorry about the delay, this is now good to go. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second Opinion - I am requesting second opinion because it seems that Jezhotwells abandoned this review. Idontknow610TM 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need, just had a few pressing real life concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]