Talk:Coat of arms of Pichilemu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you. Küñall (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

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.	For the most part, although the 'controversy' section needs work
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below.
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.	Yes
	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.
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.	A solid piece of work. Well done.

Commentary

Thanks for your contributions to this article. I have some minor concerns regarding issues of readability, which I will post tomorrow. I have no problem with your use of Spanish-language sources, but would (meekly!) request that you could find at least one English-language source (I will also use a translator to have a look at some of the sources you've used). Once the image and readability concerns are addressed, this article will have no problems reaching GA status. LT910001 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks again for reviewing this article. Hmm, it was kind of difficult to find those Spanish-language sources, just imagine how could it be to find an English language one! haha. By the way, most (if not all) of the sources used are offline, but I can provide some scans (of all but the "La España donde...", I don't have access to it right now) of the newspapers, and prolly some translations. The copyright problem with the logo might be solved fairly soon, I'm asking some admins to have a look at it. If it eventually (although I find it unlikely) gets deleted, I will upload a local version so that the article does not lose its illustrative material. Once again, thank you for reviewing this article! Regards, Küñall (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded to my website six of the eight sources used in the article, so that you can check their content. I might translate some of these tomorrow.

Regards, Küñall (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have had a look and these do indeed verify what you've provided. LT910001 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read-through

Overall, this article is excellent to read. I will await the changes to the image and have proposed some issues relating to readability below: LT910001 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"symbolical representation of Pichilemu's past and present: a balaustrade fused in a mitre"," as it is a quote, should have a reference provided.
Same for the last paragraph of the lede ("who have pointed out it is "incorrect". )

Last paragraph

A little difficult to read, probably because the number of characters involved in the controversy.
Suggest to enhance readability that you move "Lei de organizacion i atribuciones de las municipalidades " to become a footnote (no need for citation as it is a direct translation), and retain the English title (this would be consistent with what you have done earlier in the article).
"on 21 December 1891, (a) date ..."
Also suggest you wikilink the English version of the law, it may be created one day and it would be nice to have a link
Suggest for readability new paragraph here "In a March 1987...".
Would request you put the person's role in front of the names here "Pedro de Valdivia to Juan Gómez de Almagro" (for example "given by explorer PdV to local conquistador JGdA") to give some context.
Below here ("In a March 1987 article for Pichilemu, Saldías called the date used in the coat of arms "incorrect", ") you state the 24 January 1544 fact twice. I feel this part of the paragraph needs to be refactored for readability. Perhaps remove the quote about Pichilemu having its own events (I would argue that's implied by the disagreeing about dates), and somehow find a way to reconcile the first paragraph and last paragraph whilst removing the 24 January 1544 duplication.

Hi there, I think I have fixed everything. ~~Re. the controversial image, I have uploaded a local copy until the Commons discussion is closed; if it eventually gets deleted there, it will remain here, with a fair use rationale.~~ The image issue is now solved! Regards, and thank you again! Küñall (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor changes to the phrasing of the last paragraph to make it a bit more clear. The image issue was resolved and the prose has improved. This article has no outstanding issues and I am promoting it to GA status. Well done! LT910001 (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]