Talk:2015–2016 Spanish government formation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this article on the GAN backlog. I will start the review asap. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 20:16, 1 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

• Although optional, you can add {{short description}} and {{Use dmy dates}} before the {{Infobox event}}.
• Since the text for the 2016 snap election is already mentioned below in the "Last effort and deadline" section, sources should be removed from the lede per MOS:CITELEAD and kept in the section already stated, while the source for the end of the political deadlock can be moved down to the "Third investiture attempt" section, more precisely next to the "On 29 October, Mariano Rajoy succeeded in his investiture attempt with the support of 170 MPs to 111 against and 68 abstentions, thus ending the 10-month political deadlock." sentence. Rest of the lede is alright, it satisfies the manual of style.
• I would prefer this: All three PP, Podemos and C's took advantage of the growing rebellion within the PSOE to force Sánchez into the negotiating table. → In order to force Sánchez into the negotiating table, PP, Podemos, and C's took advantage of the growing rebellion within the PSOE.
• In the "New round of negotiations", iirelevance → irrelevance. Typo.
• Mariano Rajoy and Pedro Sanchez are mentioned multiple times, it can be simply replaced with just Rajoy and Sanchez.
• King, People's Party, and Spanish Socialist Workers' Party are linked more than two times. My recommendation is to remove those links.

Images

• All images represented on the article are fine, their licenses are fine too. Would prefer the addition of alt texts though.

Sources

• There is one International Business Times source which should be removed per WP:IBTIMES.

@Impru20: Overall, the article is well-written, and even though I did find a couple of mistakes here and there that I've already stated above, it meets most of the GA criteria. I will put the article on hold until these mistakes get fixed. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing these issues, I'm promoting this to GA. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for your review and your time! ;) Impru20^talk 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)