Talk:Pichilemu/GA4

Latest comment: 10 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

Tick box

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments on GA criteria

edit
Pass
Query
I'll be removing one which I think is pretty useless. The Los Navegantes one. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have fixed up their copyright tags and data. By the way, I have replaced the railway station picture with another one I took last December, which I think is better than the one you put on it. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Images seem fine now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Coverage. There is some information on the railway, but not on other forms of transport, which is typical for a settlement article. There may be other aspects not covered, though I haven't done any background reading yet. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Yep, though when I originally wrote this article, there was little information in books or news sources regarding other transportation forms. I don't want to cite directly the bus agencies' websites, it better remains this way. (I only mention the railway thingy because it is a national monument, otherwise I would have simply ommited it.) Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • The article is richly cited. I'm not sure, though, that we always get an accurate translation. This statement: "At the time, it was merely a set of thick-walled barracks" is cited to [1], which appears to mention an old house with thick adobe or mud brick walls, but not a barracks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Most MoS criteria are met, though the WP:Lead would benefit from some attention after any adjustments to the article have been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Fail

General comments

edit

On hold

edit
  • The article contains a fair degree of information about Pichilemu, and mostly meets GA criteria. The two main concerns are the clarity and readability of the prose, and the amount and quality of information selected to present in the article. Other concerns are minor and/or borderline. Putting on hold for the standard initial seven days, though quite OK about extending this as long as needed, provided there is some positive progress being made. The article clearly needs a good copy-edit. I am OK about doing this myself, though will make major contributors aware of the situation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Progress is being made. I'll have a read through again in the next day or two, and see about tidying up any remaining prose issues, then I'll take a look at coverage and focus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, this has slipped from my view. I'll take a look again over the next few days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply