Talk:Joaquín Ascaso

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joaquín Ascaso/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the article now! Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So far I have read through the article, reviewing for GAN criteria 1. I found a few minor issues (see below) that need to be resolved before I can pass based on that criteria. Later, I will check over the article with criteria 2–7 in mind. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

In the lead section, it says Ascaso "participated in the constitution of the". Does that mean he participated in creation of the organization? Same section uses "eyre", but should that be "ire"? If the "battle of Barcelona" is a named event, and not just a battle in Barcelona, then Battle should be capitalized. Is it? There's a reference in the body to Nosotros, but there's no explanation what it is. Can you add a phrase to define what it is? Based on my understanding of the sentence, "recommended that they sought" should be "recommended that they seek". Do you agree? Re-structuring does not need to be hyphenated.

• I've addressed all these issues.[1] --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I see you have! I've updated the template below to reflect that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I have finished my review, which has raised one more issue before this nomination can pass. See below. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

    @Dugan Murphy: Addressed comments 1 and 2. As for the image, it is in the public domain in Spain and has been used as such for decades at this point. But of course, as Mickey Mouse laws don't care about other countries, I have re-uploaded it on Wikipedia with valid fair use rationale. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

    Looks good. I don't see any other reason to not pass this nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There were a few minor issues with the prose to pass 1a, but the nominator fixed them all. I used Wikipedia:EARWIG and couldn't find any evidence of plagiarism. This does not affect this nomination, but I recommend folding the External Links section into the Further Reading section since the external links all link to further reading.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   This is just a style choice, but I recommend bringing the Bibliography and Further Reading sections from 3 columns down to 1. There are so few items in each section that 3 columns seems more confusing than helpful. Good use of scholarly sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't know anything about Ascaso that I didn't learn from this article, so I can't say if there is anything really important about his life that isn't covered, but the article does start with birth, end with death, and does seem to at least touch on the major stages in between.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Written factually without obvious bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Like most history topics, I'm seeing steady improvement of the article over time and no edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The photo of the street sign has an appropriate copyright tag, but the tag for the portrait says that it needs a US copyright tag. If it is not public domain, then it needs a fair-use rational per Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Issue resolved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Waiting on resolution of criteria 6a issue. Issue resolved.