Talk:Hotelito Desconocido/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rosguill (talk · contribs) 00:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

I am opening this review now and hope to have most of it done today. I intend to finish this review within the week. I am fluent in Spanish, which I anticipate will help in assessing sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Accuracy - No major issues. There was a non-critical source which gave me a security warning, see comments below. ✓ Pass
Thorough - if anything too detailed, some sections should likely be trimmed down, see comments below ✓ Pass
NPOV - no issues ✓ Pass
Stable - no major edits since October 2018, no edits at all since November 2018 ✓ Pass
Images - none. See comments for ideas.
Well written - needs copy editing. Many minor grammatical errors, some strange paragraph ordering decisions, and a fair amount of redundant and/or unnecessary content. See below for specific issues.✗ Fail

Overall, the article is meticulously detailed and sourced. However, it needs some copy editing in order to meet GA criteria. However, I think that these issues could be fixed in short order. In particular, the issues are as follows:

There are minor grammatical errors throughout. A lot of these are ones that would be hard to spot for a Spanish L1 English L2 speaker, and I would thus be willing to copyedit these issues myself, provided that the following issues are addressed first.
The beginning of the last paragraph of the Mass disappearance section is a bit redundant
The about Gasparotto leaving the company seems out of place in the Money laundering activities section
There's a fair amount of overly detailed content. In general, the description of services offered by the hotel is unnecessarily detailed. In particular, the paragraphs about the Best Hotel with Charm and the 21 Arquitectos Jóvenes Mexicanos should be removed, or shortened to single-sentence mentions. The information about parent company financials is also extremely detailed and should be more briefly summarized (or at least summarized at the beginning of a relevant section, with more minutiae put into following subsections or paragraphs).
In general, the article could probably use some subsection divisions to better organize the content

Additional concerns which I don't think bar this article from meeting GA but which should be addressed:

Citation 11 gave me a security warning. It also does not appear to be critical to supporting any claim in particular.
No photos. This isn't a deal breaker, but I bet you could find some photo of the property, nearby area, or failing that, the turtles that nest there, that would comply with copyright rules.

I would suggest that we put this GA on hold until the above issues are addressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging MX_signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been addressed, so I'm happy to confer GA status on the article. There's still some minor organization issues (such as some unclear timelines in the Ecological violations section) and some minor redundancies that could be cleaned up, but they're not so severe that they block GA status in my opinion. If you intend to further improve the article to try for FA, I would suggest working on improving these aspects of the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]