Talk:2017 Guatemala orphanage fire/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: WPCW (talk · contribs) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Introduction
[edit]Hello, I will be reviewing this nomination. Please feel free to contact me about any issues during the review. WPCW (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Good Article Review
[edit]The review of the article was at the time and date displayed at the end of the review. The review followed the Wikipedia good article criteria,
Well written
Verifiable with no original research
Broad in coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated
Well written
It is an adequately written article with a few issues about clarity, spelling, and adherence to the manual of style.
Some sentences start with a number at the beginning, for example, ‘41 girls, aged between 14 and 17 years old.’. The manual of style recommends avoiding or rewording such sentences, see MOS:NUMNOTES
The translation of a quotation is the 8 March section, paragraph 2, needs clarification. It currently reads, ‘sacrifice so that everyone knows what we lived hered.’
In the reports of abuse section, paragraph 1, a sentence reads, ‘Virgen de la Asunción has a long history of abuse allegations’. Instead of using the term, ‘long history’ specifying the range of the year's people made allegations would be more useful, for example, between 2012 and 2017.
Verifiable with no original research
A check revealed no evidence of plagiarism. The text is mostly verifiable from the use of an appropriate referencing system, with two exceptions,
Clarification of the reference for the sentence, 'Children were separated into different areas of the building based on age and gender’, in the background section, paragraph two.
Clarification of the reference for the sentence, ‘All were between the ages of 14 and 17’, in the 8 March section, paragraph three.
The most significant concern is about the reliability of the sources used to produce the article. The article predominantly uses newspaper articles as a source, and the factual accuracy of any media outlet requires consideration. A particular concern was when source 3, by Goldman wrote in the New Yorker, ‘A woman who lived near the children’s home told the online publication Nómada’. The sentence gave the impression that it was using another newspaper as a source.
A brief internet search revealed that more reliable sources, sometimes by the organisations mentioned in the newspapers existed online. For example,
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
US Government Guatemala 2017 Human Rights Report
European Parliment Proceedings Report
Much improvement would be made to the credibility of the article if it placed less reliance on newspaper reports. A suggestion for improvement is further research is undertaken to replace as many newspaper articles as possible and to substitute them with more reliable sources.
Broad in coverage
The guidelines in WP:RGA is, ‘The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.’
Currently, the article does not have sufficient detail to satisfy a casual reader. For example, the article mentions reports of abuse at the orphanage that infers this is linked to the incident but is not explicit in making the connection.
The incident and aftermath, in some parts, are inadequately covered. It provides little information about the Government’s version of the allegations of abuse and the incident. For example, did it produce any Government reports or release any statements? What did the members of the Congress of Guatemala say about the incident when calling for the resignation of Carlos Rodas, the Secretary of Social Welfare, and was this reported in any official congress papers?
The article mentions criminal charges. What was written in the sources about these charges and any responses to them? Is the court case still proceeding? If it is ongoing, what is the current situation? If completed, what evidence did the court hear, and what was the result of the case?
Neutral
The article considers the subject from the viewpoint of the victims, and organisations representing their interests. It has little, if any, government or government official’s views on the allegations of abuse, the incident, or aftermath. The result is the article appears biased. Overcoming the concerns about impartiality may be achieved by considering the range of sources used and broadening the article as previously suggested.
Stable
Since 11 November 2017, a single editor has made all the edits to the article. The article talk page and history show no evidence of deliberations about the content, or any edit war.
On 11 March 2017, the article Virgen de la Asunción fire was created, but on 11 November 2017, a page move changed it to the current title. The move was made without any discussion or rationale for the decision on the talk page but remains uncontested.
Illustrated
The article has two photographs without any copyright issues. The photographs are captioned appropriately.
Summary
The stability and illustrations of the article pose no problems. To meet the well-written criteria, it needs some minor work. Raised during the review are significant concerns about the breadth of coverage, and the potential perception the article is biased, by not including the government’s views or comments about the allegations, incident, and aftermath. Consideration about the type of sources used, and their reliability and credibility will help overcome weaknesses in the breadth of coverage, and the need to incorporate the government’s interpretation of the events.
To meet the good article criteria the article will need much further research and reworking, to identify further credible and reputable sources, breadth of coverage, and to avoid allegations about being biased. Due to the amount of additional work required, holding the article for a short period for minor amendments appears not to be the best way forward.
Regrettably, on this occasion, the article is assessed to have significantly failed the good article assessment criteria in the areas mentioned. The editors are encouraged to re-nominate the article after considering the identified areas of concern. Please feel free to discuss or clarify any part of this report. WPCW (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)