Talk:Antonio Paoli/GA1

GA Review

The following is an archived discussion of a good article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:good article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Pyrotec 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

---

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Intial comments

• This certainly looks like a Good Article, so it will pass (in due course); however, I noticed a fair number of direct quotations, e.g "this is a quotation", most of which are uncited. This needs to be addressed before gaining GA-status.

• I will now start my detailed review, but as usual I'm leaving the WP:Lead unitl last. I will mostly be commenting on problems, so if I don't comment on a section here it means that I consider it to be OK. Pyrotec (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Early years -
  • His family -

• The first paragraph as a whole is a direct quotation from ref 2, but it is not marked as such.
• The second paragraph as a whole is a direct quotation from ref 2, but it is not marked as such.

• • His home: Casa Paoli -

• This as a whole is a direct quotation from ref 2, but it is not marked as such.

• Review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments on revised version

• I note that the "problems" due to block-copying from Juan Llanes Santos (August 11, 2009) have been resolved.

Citations

• The article is generally well-referenced, but there are a few paragraphs that are under-referenced; but that is probably a consequence of the following:

• This article is heavily reliant on the US Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, prepared by Juan Llanes Santos, which is a comprehensive source of information.
• As such, this article might (incorrectly) regarded as being a {{One source}} article.
• The National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Section 9, has a Bibliography which contains mostly primary sources, however, it does contain two secondary sources.
• I would recommend that these two secondary sources are investigated, as they could provide additional information which could improve this article.
• I've also looked in Credo, but can't find any information.

Pyrotec (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and readable article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Yes.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, but see my commenta above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)