Talk:Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax
Latest comment: 20 hours ago by Skyshifter in topic GA Review
 | Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by Skyshiftertalk at 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Portuguese Wikipedia hoax article |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 July 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 14:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Wikipedia hoax Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis was cited in a judicial decision by the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice?
- Source: Passarinho, Nathalia (2016-02-23). "Perfil falso na Wikipédia é citado em decisão judicial e trabalho acadêmico". G1. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Beale Davis (1/2)
- Comment: There's likely many options for interesting hooks, so ALT suggestions are welcome.
Created by Skyshifter (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.
Skyshiftertalk 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Waiting for the QPQ. Passing the nom. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Olá! I'll be reviewing this article soon.
- @TappyTurtle: just a reminder in case you're still interested in reviewing! Skyshiftertalk 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear, concise, and grammatically correct |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Using quotes around "theory" can be considered use of scare-quotes, which creates unnecessary ambiguity – considering it was already stated in the previous sentence that the theory doesn't exist, this can be removed anyway; among that, the article contains more expressions of doubt such as "allegedly", "supposedly", and "purportedly"; it makes sense considering the topic of the article, but if possible these should be reduced, for the sake of neutrality |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reflist is present |
|
2b. 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). | Will check tomorrow |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Short article, but touches the main points of this topic |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Writing is focused |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Written fairly (see 1b) neutrally, including the "revelation" section |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No outstanding disputes here |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Only present image is properly tagged with a free license |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The only one image here (which is of the original article) is useful and captioned correctly |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Looks pretty good so far – sorry about the terrible delay! I will put this review on a 1 week hold to let you address these issues. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
- @TappyTurtle: 1b fixed, I think. Skyshiftertalk 20:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TappyTurtle: reminder! Skyshiftertalk 13:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)