Talk:Gabriel García Márquez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGabriel García Márquez has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 8, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 17, 2014.
Current status: Good article

GA Reassessment[edit]

Gabriel García Márquez[edit]

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced passages, some fancruft in some book summaries. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decrufted, there wasn't much. There are only 9 unreffed passages, mostly short, so GAR seems a bit drastic really: the article is in good shape. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of works section is almost completely uncited (films section has an orange "citations needed" banner) and there are still sections in the main article that are uncited. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720 A list of works (titles, dates) is already a list of citations. Nevertheless, I've cited all the books. Half the films were cited already, I've cited the rest now. The one short uncited section on In Evil Hour I've rewritten and cited. The remaining minor bits I've variously removed, rewritten, and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks to my eyes like we're good here now? Coming at this from fresh, I'm not seeing any referencing or cruft concerns, and the article looks generally pretty good. There's a few areas where it might be polished up, but I can't see a GA delisting on the cards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.