Talk:Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Institute of Puerto Rican Culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2010 (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):

   The prose is very poor throughout. This artcile should have been copy-edited before being nominated. It does not meet WP:GACR criterion #1 "reasonably well written". The grammar is very poor and some sentences are pretty much meaningless.

   The lead does not summarize the artcile. Please read WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have tagged several apparently POV statemenst which need attributins and citing.

   The bulk of this article is sourced to the Institute itself. This is not accptable. we need more reliable third party sources.

   In fact the majority of the article appears to be a direct copyright violation or close paraphrase of {http://www.icp.gobierno.pr/}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   One third part source used for a minor point, the rest is lifted from the organization's own website.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See note above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is a long way away from from teh standards outlines at WP:GACR. You need to find some good third party reliable sources, then re-write removing all copyrighted material. Then get it copy-edited and ask for a WP:Peer review. When all of that has been done and all points have been addressed, renominate if you wish. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied with minimal alteration from: http://www.icp.gobierno.pr/icp/ingles/history.htm. Infringing material has been removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this generic message/warning/template is that the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture already has release images to public domain. I don't know how using ICP material is infringing or violating any policy besides MoS guidelines for quotes. Please use generic warnings and templates accordingly. --Jmundo (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read their OTRS ticket. They have not released their text, which must be treated like any non-free content. This does not deal with images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail in this article

@Caribbean H.Q.: Alegria is mentioned more than 90 times. The article is about the Institute not about Alegria. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)