Talk:Oswaldo Payá/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Hello there! I have an interest in Cuban history, so should be able to give this one a go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	Although largely of GA quality, the prose could be improved; i.e. "He became internationally known" might read better as "He attracted international attention" ? * "he received the 1999 Homo Homini Award of People in Need and the 2002 Sakharov Prize of the European Parliament" – would "from" be better than "of" in these instances ? * "the Communist takeover of the Cuban Revolution" – I think that this might be a contentious statement, and probably should be rephrased. Many of the senior figures fighting in the revolution were openly Communist from the outset.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~I think that the introduction goes into a disproportionate amount of detail regarding the controversy surrounding his death, in relation to the amount of information about his life's achievements.~~
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.	~~References 6 and 34 are dead links.~~
	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.
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).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hmm... the use of language is all pretty neutral, but all of the sources are from the western media; why do we not have links to Granma articles or media sources that are more favourable to the Cuban government here ?
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only image used does not provide a particularly clear picture of the figure in question. Perhaps another might be more appropriate ? We could probably include another free image too, perhaps of Fidel Castro ?
	7. Overall assessment.	~~I've put this temporarily on hold, so that the issues can be discussed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks, MBO! I have my stepson here for the weekend, so probably won't be doing sustained editing. I'll work to address these points on Monday or Tuesday, though. More then! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Have a nice weekend! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a. Changed.
1b. Changed.
2a. My understanding is that dead links are fine in Good Articles per WP:GA? and WP:GACN--could you elaborate on the issue?
4a. I tend to avoid state-controlled media like Granma that doesn't have a reputation for independent reporting; it's more of a primary source than a secondary one. If you see any events here that you feel are presented non-neutrally, though, I'm happy to take a look.
6b. Since his Catholicism was so crucial to his activism, this seems like a useful fair-use image to me. But I'm up for other options if you see an alternative you prefer. I searched wikicommons for more alternatives and found none, though I did turn up an image from an event in his honor, now added to the article.

Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Glad to keep working on anything else you see here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I can't find any restriction on dead links for GAs, but its still something that requires rectifying at some point, in my opinion, particularly if this article is to head onward toward FA. I think that the infobox image is of useful fair-use, but we already state in the text that he's a devout Catholic, so does showing him with the Pope really add anything that we don't already know ? A Google image search shows us a lot of images that depict his face far more clearly; I personally think that one of these would be more appropriate, but I certainly won't fail this GA review on that factor alone. On another note, I think that a lot of the paragraphs are quite sparse, and could be added together to better improve the flow of the article, for instance at the bottom of the "Death" section; again it doesn't affect my GA review, but I think it would improve the article regardless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good point. Most of the better headshots are news agencies, which might be tougher fair use claims, but I found one from a promotional website for him that's probably fair game. Does this fair use tag look okay to you? I also tweaked the paragraphing a bit. As for the dead links, I think I'm not going to worry about replacements for now, since I originally added this content and I know it's verified; in any case, I could simply delete the URL and the newspaper cite could stand as a verifiable reference. But I will take a look at this again if I decide to go for FA. Thanks for the suggestions, I really appreciate the help on this one. Just let me know if you see anything else. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm happy to pass this one. Congratulations! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review! This is one I expanded for ITN that never quite made it; it's great to see it pass here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]