Wikipedia:Peer review/Nayib Bukele/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I would like a review for neutrality, scope, and MOS covering the entire article in preparation for a potential FAC (which would be my first one), and in general any other advice to prepare this article for FAC. Thanks. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@PizzaKing13: This has been open for a while without review. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Yes, I would still appreciate comments for this article. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 05:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PizzaKing13: I suggest that you get a featured article mentor, since you are still working on your first successful FAC. A mentor will be able to comment here on the article. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the featured article criteria, build goodwill amongst the FAC community (which will help your article get reviews later) and demonstrate to the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Thanks, I'll be sure to do that, but I'd still like at least an overview to see if there are any major or glaring problems that I should address first. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @PizzaKing13: I suggest that you get a featured article mentor, since you are still working on your first successful FAC. A mentor will be able to comment here on the article. I also suggest that you review articles at WP:FAC now: this will help you learn the featured article criteria, build goodwill amongst the FAC community (which will help your article get reviews later) and demonstrate to the FAC community that you understand the criteria. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]Comments after a quick skim:
- The article is 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out sections in articles of this length. I suggest doing this in sections such as the lead, sections in his presidency, and the 2024 re-election campaign.
- I'll go trimming it over time
- Daily Sabah (ref 222) is considered an unreliable source and will need to be replaced.
- Replaced
- Forbes Contributors are not considered reliable (WP:FORBESCON) so will need to be replaced.
- Replaced
- The sources listed in "Further reading" should either be used as inline citations in the article or removed.
- "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." from Wikipedia:Further reading?
- WP:FA? 1b "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" and 1c "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature;" If Further reading has sources listed that can be used in the article, then it puts into doubt whether the article is complete. These further reading sources can be used to replace lower-quality sources in the article, or removed if there are higher quality sources already used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." from Wikipedia:Further reading?
Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Yea it did, thanks for the comments! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 01:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)