Talk:Enamorada de Ti/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 05:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • Is About.com a reliable source? See this, although I can't seem to find a definitve answer about it.
   • Ref [16] is a dead link.

   C. No original research:

   "Nothing more has been publicized about the project, however, since the Quintanillas started to work with Humberto Gatica on Enamorada de Ti." does not have a citation.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   "Critical reception" talks about the "mixed review" the album received.

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:

   Four images: three from Commons, one under Fair Use and tagged appropriately

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I removed the deadlink. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 12:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well other GAs use About.com as a reliable source, including one of my GA "I Could Fall in Love". I also removed the unsourced content. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 00:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• The thread that Curly Turkey linked above is ambiguous about whether about.com is RS, but it seems to be saying that it depends what kind of information we're getting from it, and who wrote it. In this article, it's cited merely as the place where Carlos Quintana's critical assessments are hosted. So, perhaps the important question for you is whether Quintana's views are notable. I think they probably are. --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that About.com was a site of user-generated content. It looks like Quintana's a professional. Everything else looks in order. Well done on the article! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)