Talk:Fiebre (song)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by آرمین هویدایی in topic GA Review

Orphaned references in Fiebre (Ricky Martin song)

edit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Fiebre (Ricky Martin song)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Apple Music":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 11:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fiebre (Ricky Martin song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit
  • Non-free use rationale for the image looks good.
  • "influenes" – typo
  • Add a serial comma after "911,000 streams".
  • "Martin's own record" → "Martin's record"
  • "heavily steps" – rephrase
  • "slight warm" → "slightly warm"
  • Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Resolve the "permanent dead link" issue for #72.
  • That's it for this article. Ping when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Some Dude From North Carolina:   Done, I fixed them all. Thank you so much. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@آرمین هویدایی: Thanks for the quick responses. I will finish the next six reviews by Sunday. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks a lot for devoting your time on them. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Progress

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed