Jump to content

Talk:4F case/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article! Expect comments soon. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, I've replied on the comments, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "returned to the attention of the mainstream media" that makes it sound like it was continually on the mind of some alternative media over fifteen years.
  • "In October 2014, they were themselves convicted and imprisoned for beating up and torturing a man in 2006. The two off-duty police officers had been challenged by the student from Trinidad and Tobago for harassing a woman in a bar. He was the son of a diplomat and complained about how the officers had taken him to a police station and tortured him, resulting in their convictions" This needs work, is there one guy or multiple ("their")? Is the Trinidad student the same guy as in the first and third sentences?
  • "controversial debate," redundant, a public debate is always controversial, if not controversial it's called something else
  • Some of the stuff in the "legacy" section would be better for a background section, very briefly explaining gentrification, squatting, police violence, and other issues in Barcelona
    • I've had a good think about this and I'd rather not do it. The issues of gentrification and police violence only really came to a head because of the Directa investigation for Ciutat Morta and other later debates, so I feel it would be putting the cart before the horse to discuss these things earlier in the article. Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put the policeman's health outcome earlier in the article.
  • What makes you think Ciutat morta is a reliable source for what happened during the incident?
    • Took me a while to work out what you meant here, since most of the debate is in secondary sources. The one reference from the film backs the claim that only the men of Latin American ancestry were remanded, I used the film as a source since that specific thing stuck with me and I couldn't see it anywhere else (on a quick check I still can't). I don't think it's a controversial claim, you could then ask why isn't it repeated elsewhere and I guess my answer would be that it wasn't noticed by anyone (or I haven't found it yet). In any case it's not a big deal for me to remove it. Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah whoops sorry I've just noticed there's another film reference, currently at ref12. Well this one is referencing the Directa journalist talking about their investigation (I haven't been able to find the investigation online, possibly because Directa is paywalled, but I can't even find a link to it). I think that's useful and most of the info is also cited on page 61 of the book chapter. Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please combine the two sets of references to "El caso más grave de torturas en Barcelona, silenciado por los medios" unless there's something I'm missing.
  • There are some aspects of the case that are not discussed here, such as efforts to overturn the convictions, demonstrations, etc. El País has published several articles just since 2015[1] covering that aspect and others. Was there contemporary press coverage from the mid 2000s or did this only become a political issue later? If the former, I think it should be cited as it would plug a gap in the article between the initial event and the Ciutat Morta.
    • There is LOADS of media coverage of this case, but only after Ciutat Morta generated controversy, it wasn't covered much before. I tried to write from secondary sources and fill in gaps with the newspaper reports, using evaluation pieces where possible such as the País piece already in the article. One thing that I steered away from because it seemed too complicated to summarise and a bit tangential was the long argument about whether to take away the sacked officers' pensions. I'll have a look at the link you gave now. Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added something about the 2015 demonstration, about overturning convictions I'm not sure what you mean, is that referring to the Zaragoza case? Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears that they tried to have the case reopened, but were not successful:[2][3] (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah right yes, there was an investigation and the case was not re-opened. It's good you pointed that out, it wasn't really clear in the text that the release of the film caused the calls for the investigation. I've expanded the Ciutat Morta section to reflect this by adding another paragraph. The result was already in the legacy section, the investigation stopped when all the police files were discovered to have mysteriously disappeared. It's hard to know how much to have here and how much in Ciutat Morta, hopefully the balance is better now. Mujinga (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:4F_case/GA1&oldid=1014348167"