Talk:Eugenio Espejo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Eugenio Espejo has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 10, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... This article has had a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, which has now been archived.

	This article is part of WikiProject Ecuador, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance.
	This article was WikiProject Ecuador's August 2006 biography of the month on the Ecuador Portal.

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in August 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): Finetooth 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Proofreader: Cricketgirl 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Good.

2. Factually accurate?: Good. An impressive number of citations!

3. Broad in coverage?: Good balance between breadth and depth.

4. Neutral point of view?: No problems here.

5. Article stability? No problems here.

6. Images?: No problems here.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Excellent article! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)