Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Daddy Yankee/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Daddy Yankee[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: Kept. Minor issues were raised and fixed. Geometry guy 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe this article is a B-class article. The article doesn't read very well, and there are basic mistakes like incorrect usage of parenthetical commas, and some subject-verb agreement mistakes. Also, some sections contain references from only one source. obentomusubi 08:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note. Good articles are assessed according to the good article criteria, not according to presumed WikiProject ratings. The number of sources used in a section is not a good article criterion, as long as the material is reliably sourced. Geometry guy 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've had a look at the prose. It is verbose in places, but I found very few problems except in the "Film and other career projects" and "Personal life" sections, which required heavy copyediting. These two sections should also be covered in the lead. Finally there I noted one confusing sentence and one unsourced fact. Geometry guy 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments. References #23 (Mike Glover) and #31 (Notimex) deadlink. All links that aren't in English need to be marked as such (for example, see #4, to Terra). Overall, though, this is a nice article that I don't think needs to be delisted. After my comments are fixed, and the two tags left by Geometry guy are taken care of, I believe this article will be a solid "keep" for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I will fix the links and work with the lead. However, reassessment is probably pushing the envelope. The main problem is (or was) found in the "Film and other career projects" section. I don't need to mention that due to some politician's campaign, that section came under fire, and so did "Personal life". Nevertheless, most of the article has retained the quality featured when I wrote it, just like it was when it passed the nomination. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The prose needs variety - at the moment nearly every paragraph starts with Ayala did this or Ayala did that! - but is clear enough: it conveys the information, and that's enough for GA. It's for FA that the prose needs to be engaging, etc. SilkTork *YES! 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reassessment is out of hand.--Cerejota (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article could benefit from copyediting but it doesn't fail criterion 1. There's a {{fact}} tag which should be addressed and a verification tag which can perhaps be removed. Overall, this article looks like a keeper. Majoreditor (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since nothing has happened here, I've removed the two offending sentences. According to comments here, this is a perfectly decent GA without them. They can be readded once sources are found and/or clarified. Geometry guy 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per my above comment. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)