Talk:Torreón massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ceradon (talk · contribs) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The term "immigrant" is used quite a few times. Please consider changing some instances to synonyms of the word to reduce monotony. Chinese immigrants probably began to arrive in Torreón during the 1880s or 1890s - (1) This conflicts with the very first sentence. If Chinese immigration began in the 1600s, then how could Chinese immigrants begin arriving some three hundred years later? Do you mean Sino-Mexican relations began in the 1600s and immigrants began arriving in the 1880s to 1890s? Please clarify in the article. (2) If they "probably" began arriving in the 1880s, what proof is there to support this? Suggestion: "As evidenced by ______________, (or "According to _________") it is probable that Chinese immigrants began arriving in the 1880s to 1890s". "Chinese gardens" - and they are? hemming in general - capitalize "general" The mob finally reached the bank, where they killed the employees and hurled their severed body parts into the streets. A contemporary newspaper reported that "heads of the murdered Chinese were rolled along the streets, and their bodies were tied to the tails of horses." Why state the same thing twice? Suggestion: "The mob finally reached the bank, where they killed the employees, rolled their severed heads and body parts through the streets and tied their corpses to the tails of horses." You can take that and run with it any way you like. But please merge these two sentences, drop the direct quote if necessary. It is estimated that the dead - estimated by whom? 308 people were killed in the massacre; 303 Chinese and 5 Japanese this seems to say that 308 people we killed in the entire massacre but then you go on to say that Federales, bystanders, etc. were also killed. Please clarify whether the 308 were just Chinese and Japanese or whether that was overall. One estimate put the total damage at around $1,000,000. Chinese properties were dealt $849,928.69 in damage - please clarify in the article whether this amount was by 2015 money or 1911 money. U.S. properties were only dealt US$22,000 in damage. Once again please clarify whether this is 2015 or 1911 money. seeking a payment 100,000 pesos clarify which time period this money. a plan which never played out. - This seems to be awkwardly worded. Please reword. Owang King and Antonio Ramos Pedrueza - please explain who these people are. September 1911 and Independence Day redundant; just say "As the 1911 Mexican Independence Day" General comments The manual of style explicitly prohibits you from enclosing blockquotes in quotation marks. Correct this please. In addition to clarifying what time periods the money is, if it is 1911 money, you may want to use {{Inflation}} to convert it to 2015 money. Please remove all the {{anchor}} templates in the article. It's unnecessary. Anchors are naturally placed in section headings by MediaWiki. (See here)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All good.
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.	Information in The Sydney Morning Herald source verified. The Spokane Review source You included the info about the 12 Spaniards and one German who were killed. Why didn't you include this part: "It is also rumoured that several Amercans lost their lives." Do you have evidence to the contrary? As well, "rumoured" is a dangerous word. If you don't have another source to back that up, please remove it entirely. Otherwise, all good. Information in East Oregonian source verified. Information in The Journal of Education source verified. I'll assume good faith on restricted-access and offline sources.
	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).	Both the Google Books link you gave and Special:BookSources/0-8032-7772-5 say that the book was published in 1990 by the University of Nebraska Press. Yet the reference says it was published in 1986 by Cambridge University Press. Why the discrepancy? Add locations for sources by Robert Chao Romero and Elliot Young for consistency.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None that I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Per WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Article size, the "Further unrest" section may be irrelevant to the topic. Unless you can prove that the events in that section directly caused or were as a direct result of the Torreón massacre, please remove it altogether.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Also good here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars so all good here.
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:HaiChi 2162931587 c96191a231 o.jpg - please correct the author info on this. Quite sure Richard Arthur Norton didn't take it. Otherwise all good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please remove all <center></center> tags in the image captions please. Otherwise, it's all good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good work @G S Palmer: Article is informative, would love to pass it. On procedural hold for seven days maximum so author can address issues. Thanks, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the issues

Okay, here goes:

Immigrants

I think the problem has generally been fixed.

17th century

Immigration began in the 17th century, but they didn't arrive in Torreón specifically until the late 1800s. Since it was unclear, I added a line to clarify. [1]

Probably

Added a line clarifying why this is thought.

"Chinese gardens"

Thanks, not sure why I included the WP:SCAREQUOTES. Removed

general→General

Done [2]

The mob finally reached the bank...

I disagree that this is stating the same thing twice. The first sentence illustrates the violence with which the victims were killed, the second sentence is about the desecration of the bodies once dead.

"Estimated that the dead"

According to the "snippet views" of unavailable pages from the Romero source, it would appear that the estimate was made during Wilfley & Bassett's investigation. However, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable citing this since I can't view the whole text. Thoughts?

308 people

Fixed: [3]

2015 or 1911

Fixed, see [4] & [5]. I also added {{inflation}} as you suggested.

a plan which never played out

Fixed.

Owang King and Antonio Ramos Pedrueza

Clarified.

Independence Day

Fixed.

Bloquotes

I have removed the quotation marks.

Anchors

Not done, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Broken section links (and WP:ANCHOR, which I presume was the link you intended) anchors are useful if the section title is ever changed, to prevent broken section links. Since a section title has previously been changed in this article, and conceivably could be again in the future, I'm going to leave the anchors.

Spokane Review

The "12 Spaniards and a German" statement is also verified by the East Oregonian source, while the "several Americans" is not. That's why I chose to include one but not the other.

Publication information discrepancy

The copyright information from the first page of the book credits it as UCambridge 1986, so I used that.

Location parameter

I didn't include the location in those citations because it wasn't given as part of the bibliographic information in the book, however, I suppose the location is almost certainly that of the presses, so added.

Further unrest

The incidents' relationship to the Torreón massacre was considered significant enough to be included by the authors of the references, so I would be inclined to leave it per WP:DUE.

Hai Chi

I made an attempt to provide the proper credit, per what was available on the original source's information page. However, if this is not sufficient, I could always tag it with {{unknown|author}} instead.

Captions

I can't find anything in WP:CAPTION that forbids the use of {{center}} to increase the aesthetic value of the captions. However, if there is, I wouldn't object to removing them.

It would seem that all the issues I alluded too have been addressed. Good work, G S Palmer. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that addresses all of it, Ceradon. Thanks for the review! G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]