Jump to content

Talk:Negro Casas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleNegro Casas has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starNegro Casas is part of the LLA Azteca Champions and challengers series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2016Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2016Good topic candidatePromoted
October 22, 2019Good topic removal candidateDemoted
June 15, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
June 25, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
July 2, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

Is this the same Negro Casas that is in the WON Hall of Fame? If so, the article should mention whatever it is that made him special enough to be selected for that honour. - Geoffg 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Negro Casas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this as part of a GAN sweep. Comments to follow. JAGUAR  17:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    De-link the red link in the lead
    " (Spanish for "the Black Plague)" - missing quote mark
    " but it is unclear if he's the son of Erick Casas or the son of one of their non-wrestling brothers or sisters." - he is, and this needs a citation
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No original research found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I couldn't find anything major, so I'll be passing. JAGUAR  17:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]