Talk:Saul Soliz/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: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this article on the GAN backlog. I will start the review a bit later. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

• It meets the criteria.

Images

• All are alright.

Sources

• The YouTube source should be removed per WP:RSPYT and the Sportskeeda source is tagged as unreliable for some reason. You should replace those two.

@Armadillopteryx: Although the article is short, it is well-written and seems to cover most of the information that can be found online. It meets all the criteria and I'm ready to promote it to GA, although I'm gonna wait until the two sources get fixed. Good job on this. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Vacant0, and many thanks for picking up this review!

With regard to the YouTube citation: it is only used as the source of a direct quote, spoken by the subject on camera, about a non-controversial aspect of the subject's life (the year his career started). I believe this is acceptable under the WP:PRIMARY policy. Since the subject is on screen making this claim about himself, I don't think the verifiability concern described in WP:RSPYT is an issue. I think it is relevant to include this quote from the subject since third-party RS contradict one another on the start year of his career (and those claims are presented alongside the quote). Open to hearing your thoughts on this.

As far as I can tell, Sportskeeda has an editorial board and a fact-checking policy. Could you clarify the issue with reliability that should be resolved? I don't mind removing the source; would just like to understand the reason better.

Thank you again for the review! Armadillopteryx 03:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine then. I'm not sure why Sportskeeda was tagged as unreliable but since there wasn't a discussion regarding them, and it also isn't showing up in WP:RSP, it can stay then. Vacant0 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. Vacant0 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (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.