Talk:Jaime Medrano
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jaime Medrano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Jaime Medrano has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 22, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's "Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Jaime Medrano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for
WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
]
WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- More links would be nice—you could link mineworker and politician in the first few words, for example—but not essential.
- B. It complies with the list incorporation:
- All good except for the Commission assignments subsection—there is no reason for it to be a list, per MOS:EMBED. It should be rephrased into prose.
- All good except for the Commission assignments subsection—there is no reason for it to be a list, per
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- See #Random citation spotchecks below.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- WP:CLOP shouldn't be an issue. See #Random citation spotchecksbelow.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Any details available in RS about his personal life?
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit waror content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are suitable captions:
- A. Images are
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Just a few issues to resolve. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- In the absence of responses, I have fixed the MOS:EMBED issue, and AGF on the personal life issues. Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)]
- @AirshipJungleman29: Oh, gosh, sorry for the lack of response. I was actually intending to request an extension, as I leave the country soon and wasn't going to be able to respond. I appreciate you going ahead and taking initiative on the edits! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Random citation spotchecks
My Spanish is weak so AGF on details.
- 4 good
- 8 good
- 10 inaccessible
- 13 good
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.