![]() | Queen Lupa was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 16, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
![]() | Women in Green: Going Back in Time | |||
|
![]() | A fact from Queen Lupa appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
{{ Did you know nominations/Pico Sacro}}
Hello! As requested, here is a 20-minute assessment of this article's readiness for GA status.
The first thing to note is that this is really short. Both by byte-count and word-count, it's only just outside the hundred shortest GAs, and while there is no formal requirement that a GA have any particular length, some reviewers may consider that it is just too short to pass at all – there is still no consensus on whether that's a valid reason not to promote. At any rate, the shortness of the article means that it might well be scrutinised more thoroughly than a longer article which "looks" more like a GA would be.
Structurally, I don't like the article as it is at the moment. I don't think §Background accurately describes what that section covers, and I think having almost all of the article in a single section, followed by a one-sentence §In popular culture section is a sign of poor organisation. More significantly for GA status, the lead does not currently summarise the article content, and the content about the Golden Legend is not found in the body of the article: this violates MOS:LEAD and consequently criterion 1b. My suggestion here would be to re-divide the article into sections on §Legend (covering the first two paragraphs of the current §Background section and adding a mention of the Golden Legend, and Legacy, which would cover the final paragraph of §Background and the §In popular culture section.
Looking at sourcing, I would be prepared to answer the following questions:
Glancing at the sources, Pazos (2016) seems to talk quite a bit about art depicting the myth: is there anything to say about that in the article?
Hope this is useful! Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 17:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Evrik ( talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Grnrchst ( talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this
Women in Green's 6th edit-a-thon! I'm happy to take this on for review, as I'm very interested in Spanish history and folklore. Normally I do section-by-section comments, but this article is short enough that I'll provide comments on prose, sourcing and broadness instead.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Grnrchst:, thank you for taking the time. My apologies if I messed up the sourcing. I think I got it all straightened out now. My responses to you comments are below. -- evrik ( talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)