Jump to content

Talk:Patio 29/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: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article. I noticed this article at DYK a few hours after it had been reviewed. So far, the article looks quite good and informative on a first quick glance. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few detailed readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CH. It's actually still waiting for a review at DYK, but I'm glad to have you on the GA review. czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions and questions

[edit]
  • I began to do a copyedit and a few revisions on the article to improve flow. Am I correct in assuming that the nominator is not a native speaker of English? (the English is good, nevertheless).
No, I'm en-N. I try to keep my language concise, but whatever you feel is best czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification/definition: The word patio in Spanish, if I'm not mistaken, involves an open-air courtyard, like a Roman atrium, or a recreation area that adjoins a dwelling. Is there a idiom in Chilean Spanish that uses it differently? Why is it called a "patio". I ask this because American readers tend to think of "patio" as a concrete or stone porch on the back or side of a house. See the article on Patio and [1] for comparison.
"Patio 29" is its common name in English based on the sources, and I believe it refers to the 29th (at the time) section of the cemetery. Not my traditional understanding of patio, but I tried to make that self-evident within the prose. czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no doubts about it being common name. I'm just concerned about the accurate way of conveying its meaning for a translation - [2] since graveyard isn't one of the ideas to come to mind when we see "Patio". "Plot" isn't correct, because that's terreno and none of the words for "section" seems to fit.-ColonelHenry (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translation: Is Memorial del Detenido Desaparecido y del Ejecutado Político mean "Memorial of the Disappeared and Political Executed" (or is there a better literal translation)..."politically executed", "executed for political reasons"? This should be translated in the article parenthetically.
Since that's its common name even in English sources, I kept it italicized and redlinked in the article. I would translate it with your last quotation, if it's necessary to do so. czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely will keep the Spanish in there, but whenever there's a foreign language assume there's an English-speaker who doesn't speak it. That's why parenthetically, it's always wise to attach a translation of the foreign language text into English. I don't mind that it's redlinked, because per WP:REDLINK, it's always possible an article will be written and a red link is useful to inspire or remind someone to create an article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a little copyedit and revision of the article, and because the Description, history, and cultural influence sections overlap, I combined them into section and reorganized it accordingly. I clarified and expanded the lede also. Please let me know if you approve of my revisions.
I prefer the old section organizations so as to use traditional heading breakdowns and to avoid third-level subheadings, but if you insist then I won't quarrel about it czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you like to avoid third-level headers? I just find the way it was organized, there was a lot of overlap that would best be addressed by some restructuring. Putting history with history, combining the parts of memorial and its impact. The previous format seemed to me as (1) few sentences of history (2) few sentences on modern human rights issues (3) few sentences on history (4) few sentences on establishment of a memorial (5) a few sentences on investigations (5) few sentences on human rights issues (6) few sentences on it as a memorial. And I thought it best to structure the article more chronologically and thematically.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the victims remains identified:
    • Are they just identified by their DNA (i.e. one set of bones being different from another), or are they identified by name through DNA matches with family members searching for their disappeared relatives?
    • are any of them notable people, or any indication of what kind of political prisoner they are (intellectuals, dissidents, just every-day average people?
No RS have published about the individuals' notability other than the one Fernando documentary mentioned. (And, of course, Víctor Jara, though he wasn't buried in Patio 29 proper.) As for the testing, I think it's assumed that they're trying to rightfully identify all remains, which entails grouping similar remains. czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (per Criteria 6)

[edit]

All images checked and cleared per Criteria 6

  • File:Cementerio General - Patio 29.JPG - OK sufficient CC3.0 fair use rationale
  • File:Cementerio General - Patio 29 - Panorámica.jpg - OK sufficient CC3.0 fair use rationale
  • File:Placa perteneciente al Patio Nº 29 del Cementerio General.JPG - OK sufficient CC3.0 fair use rationale
    • This doesn't affect the GA1 review here, but if you could, reach out to the editor who uploaded File:Placa perteneciente al Patio Nº 29 del Cementerio General.JPG and ask if he/she could translate the text on the block and provide it in description for that image file. Thanks.
✓ Done Thanks for your help czar ♔ 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review and criteria analysis

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Prose is clear, concise and informative. No evidence, indication or suspicion of copyright violations or plagiarism. Spelling and grammar seems to be good.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Article is compliant with the MOS guidelines required in Criteria 1b.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Article has a suitable and well-formatted reference section per MOS and citation guidelines.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Article employs suitable citation to several reliable sources.
    C. No original research:
    No evidence or indication of original research.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article addresses the major aspects connected with the subject.
    B. Focused:
    Article is focused pursuant to WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is sufficiently neutral and there is no evidence or indication of bias. Nominator and his fellow editors should be commended on presenting the subject without bias given that this area of history often is contentious and potentially controversial issue (as many historical dictatorships and human rights issues can be). Good job.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article's history appears stable and no evidence of edit-warring or content disputes.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Article is illustrated with three images that are appropriately tagged with fair use rationales stated pursuant to the image use policy (as examined above)
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images are relevant to the topic and are suitably captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Thank you for providing your knowledge, skills, and time to share with Wikipedia your work on this informative and excellent article that deserves to be included among Wikipedia's better work. Promoted to GA status forthwith.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patio_29/GA1&oldid=1086323173"