Talk:Xochitl Gomez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 00:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks a well-written article with potential to be a Good Article but is currently too short at 657 words. Unfortunately, on that terms, I believe that it is a quick fail in the August 2023 Backlog Drive. simongraham (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, simongraham. Articles aren't usually quick-failed for being "too short" unless they have really apparent and major issues in their coverage (e.g. Talk:Elijah Wood/GA1). There are no limit/minimum word counts required per the good article criteria. The only criterion that related to this is 3a, which states an article should be "broad" in its coverage, noting: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. For Gomez, her career only really took off last year and she's had a handful of roles, meaning this is all this can be written about her. I've written short GAs before; one example that comes to mind is Vivien Lyra Blair, whose article is currently 525 words and was only 375 words at the time of promotion. Having finished my rant, I was wondering if you could reconsider your quick fail and provide a full review. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: I was working to the criteria of the August 2023 Backlog Drive which I understand states a minimum of 800 words. I am pleased that you want to work on this article and see if we can get it to GA. I am happy to do so too. simongraham (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what it says. Articles under 800 words do not give a review points for the drive (unless they're expanded or something), but they're perfectly fine to be good articles. Several articles under 800 words have been passed during the drive (e.g. Talk:Villa Road/GA1, Talk:Medway Branch/GA1), but the reviewers just don't get any points for those. If you're willing to work on this article with me, I'd be happy to action any suggestions you may have.​ Pamzeis (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• As noted, the article is short, which may mean there is insufficient to provide the breadth required for a GA.
• The lead is similarly short at 79 words.
  • I've expanded it a bit, but there's not much to add since Gomez has had a relatively short career so far
• 62.1% of authorship is by Pamzeis.
  • Yey
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article, which implies it is far from GA.
  • Mmm, it doesn't really matter, IMO, 'cuz I just never reassessed when I expanded it
• Earwig gives a 78.4% chance of copyright violation with her page on Kinorium[[1]]. Can you please check this.
  • The page states "© Wikipedia" on the bottom, which could be interpreted as attribution to WP. Regardless, it's clear that they copied from this article, not the other way round.
    • That is good news.
• It is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
• The text seems clear and neutral.
• There is some excess detail, but that is understandable given the limited information on the subject. I feel it is still consistent with WP:DETAIL.
• There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
• Spot check of accessible sources seem live.
• Gomez' birthday is cited to Instagram. Please confirm that this conforms with WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Is there a third-party that can confirm the date?
  • It does, but I added a Variety source to support
    • Thank you.
• The remaining sources seem current. Suggest providing archive URLs.
  •  Done
    • That looks really good.
• Sourcing relies on webpages. Is there anything in print media?
  • Looking through Google newspapers, there's nothing (everything there was published before she was born). There seem to be a few passing mentions in books, but I can't access any previews that confirm anything.
    • Great start. There are a few mentions in some of the Google books, and a few in the Internet Archive[2] too.
      • Mmm... I really don't it's necessary to include these sources. This isn't an FAC, where the criteria requires a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Even so, every mention in a book/newspaper is brief and doesn't talk about Gomez herself, but her projects. She rose to fame (and grew up) very recently during the internet age, so we really can't expect for print sources to discuss her in depth.​ Pamzeis (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
        • I agree that the article is unlikely to pass as an FA and thus, as per WP:RGA, it is not "all right to let things slide". However, I see your challenge and feel you make a reasonable argument that it would mean jeopardising GA criteria 3b to include these sources.
• Spot check of Bissett et al 2022, Ramos 2020 and Villarreal 2022 confirm that they talk about the subject.
• The image seems appropriate and relevant and has a relevant CC tag.
• Suggest adding ALT tag for accessibility.
  •  Done

This is an interesting piece. The copy violation is a potential quick fail, but I am mindful to allow for this article to be updated and see it is is salvageable, given the limitations that were noted by the nominator. More to follow. simongraham (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Responded to your comments Pamzeis (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Excellent work. This is nearly done. simongraham (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thank you for your work on this. I will complete my review now. simongraham (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
   1. it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all inline citations are from reliable sources;
   3. it contains no original research;
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
3. It is broad in its coverage
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. It has a neutral point of view. it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
5. It is stable. it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
   1. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   2. images are tagged with their copyright statuses.

Congratulations, Pamzeis, I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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.