Talk:2021 Salvadoran political crisis/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: FredModulars (talk · contribs) 13:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to review this! I will be adding comments in the next few days. FredModulars (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Well done	Pass
(b) (MoS)	See comments on lead	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Well done	Pass
(b) (focused)	Well done	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Nothing outstanding to warrant an "edit war"	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	See comments	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Would be nice to see more images in the article (such as non-free images here), but media seems adequate for now	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass

Discussion

Comments (1 July)

Criteria 1

• ~~The lead is good, but it would be nice to add a brief mention of the background of the incident. It's a little confusing to have the incident described without any context.~~
  • Added a brief mention at the end to tie in with the self-coup comments by the opposition.
• ~~Please add a link to Attorney General of El Salvador in the lead.~~
  • Linked. Didn't even know that page existed.
• ~~Comma in Territorial Control Plan, should come after the quotes. Is there even a need for the quotes?~~
  • Checked, and there shouldn't be quotes.
• ~~The link to the 2020 Salvadoran protests should be "protests against Bukele", not "protests". It makes it seem that protests is being linked.~~
  • Fixed.

Critera 2–6

I'll just make it clear I can't read Spanish and I don't want to take a chance with an online translator (I've seen bad mistakes in the past). I'll have to assume all content citing Spanish sources have what they claim to say. All sources look reliable, but I will have to go through them in order to fact-check what is in the article. FredModulars (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The article has significant coverage of the event, displays all points of view of the topic, and there is nothing substantial enough to say there's an edit dispute or war. Excellent job! I am not an expert on images, non-free images, and fair use, but from what I understand this article satisfies 6a.

The article seems to be in great shape. After the issues above are addressed, I will most likely be promoting the article. FredModulars (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• All done! Thank you for reviewing this article. Apologies for the delay in my response as I was in El Salvador when this was nominated and wifi there for me is really only possible when I'm in San Salvador. Pizzaking13 (Hablame) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries! I remember seeing your comment on the GAN for the 2020 political crisis and acknowledged I'd have to wait a while. It's all good though, I'll be promoting this article since all outstanding changes have been addressed. Congratulations and great job on your work! FredModulars (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2021 (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.