Talk:Carlos Bandeirense Mirandópolis hoax/GA1

GA Review

Passed. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 18:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 20:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olá! I'll be reviewing this article soon.

@TappyTurtle: just a reminder in case you're still interested in reviewing! Skyshiftertalk 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear, concise, and grammatically correct
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Using quotes around "theory" can be considered use of scare-quotes, which creates unnecessary ambiguity – considering it was already stated in the previous sentence that the theory doesn't exist, this can be removed anyway; among that, the article contains more expressions of doubt such as "allegedly", "supposedly", and "purportedly"; it makes sense considering the topic of the article, but if possible these should be reduced, for the sake of neutrality
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reflist is present
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Checked all sources, everything looks good
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research found; citations are used properly
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvios or plagiarism found
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Short article, but touches the main points of this topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Writing is focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written fairly (see 1b) neutrally, including the "revelation" section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding disputes here
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only present image is properly tagged with a free license
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only one image here (which is of the original article) is useful and captioned correctly
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks pretty good so far – sorry about the terrible delay! I will put this review on a 1 week hold to let you address these issues. TappyTurtle [talk \| contribs] 04:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] @Skyshifter: Looks all good now, passing; well done! TappyTurtle [talk \| contribs] 03:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TappyTurtle: 1b fixed, I think. Skyshiftertalk 20:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TappyTurtle: reminder! Skyshiftertalk 13:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.