Talk:Mariano Gagnon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Doctorg (talk · contribs) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:I am now starting this review. Thank you for the time you have put into this article and your work towards expanding Wikipedia’s quality content. I will add my comments into each of the following sections. Doctor^G  (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (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):

   Just a few thoughts here that I think will make the prose a little smoother.

   I think you should rework the last 2 sentences in the first paragraph of the “cutivereni mission” section. Maybe something like…. The Asháninka hunted animals, farmed manioc and other foods…

   The wording of the 4th sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the “internal conflict in peru” section is a little redundant. I suggest you change the last few words to “burned it down” or something similar.

   In the “later years” section, I think you should reword the nomination piece to something like… “he was nominated for an award by Father Eduardo Arens, which he received on May…”

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well cited throughout. Is the quote used in paragraph 2 of the “cutivereni mission” section part of reference #2?

   Doctorg, sorry missed this comment. Yes, I went back and verified that it was. Now cited directly inline. Good catch. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Editors have done a great job broadly discussing the details of his life and work.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV is well balanced

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   This article is stable and there are no apparent edit wars.

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

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

   Multiple images are included that pull the reader into the story.

7. Overall: Thanks, @TonyBallioni:, great work on this article. I believe it meets the requirements and I am passing it.  Doctor^G  (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

• Doctorg See if these changes satisfy the concerns. Thanks for the review. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)