Talk:José María Caro Martínez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On my first pass, this looks like strong work, well-researched and well-written. I've made a few tweaks as I went; please feel free to revert any that you disagree with.

" only edited thrice" -- I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean only published three times?
"There is little or no information relating to the couple's remaining children." -- Declaring an absence sounds a little bit like original research; I'd suggest simply deleting this, unless you have a source that directly says this (in which case, add the source).
See note below about copyright tags.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to review this ulocal history article! It's very appreciated. All corrections you made seem good to me (I've just re-added the "People from Pichilemu" category as I removed it from the "Pichilemu City Council members" one). When I wrote "only edited thrice", I meant that the El Puerto newspaper was published only in three different numbers, I'm using the first of them as a source. I will remove the "There is little..." sentence; I was unable to find more information in sources from the Chilean National Library, but as you say, it makes that sentence original research. I will add the requested US tags into these files. Thanks again for reviewing this article! Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 03:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fast response. Once the images are ready, I think this is ready for promotion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added US copyright tags to the files and a little explanation over why they are public domain in Chile. Thank you again, Khazar. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 03:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See clarity question above.~~ Spotchecks of online sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~See question above about "little or no..."~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A bit of the information here seems very trivial, such as winning a raffle or subscribing to a newspaper. However, since the article is so brief overall, this seems within GA parameters.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~File:José María Caro Martínez Pichi.jpg, File:Caro family of Pichilemu.jpg, and File:Lasgarzas.jpg need US copyright status tags.~~
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA