Talk:Alberto Henschel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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, Idontknow610^TM 02:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC) NOTE: I am travelling today and will only return on January 25.

1. 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)

Done. All the material in the lead is mentioned in the article now. Idontknow610^TM 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1. 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.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Although brief this covers the subject in as much detail as possible.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just the lead needs sorting out. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   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)

Second Opinion - I am requesting second opinion because it seems that Jezhotwells abandoned this review. Idontknow610^TM 20:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No need, just had a few pressing real life concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)