Talk:Pichilemu

GA check

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have reached this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here. In general, initially I look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, and if so, if this can be resolved quickly by myself. If it looks like there may be significant and/or several minor issues, I'll open a GAR to see the extent of the problems. If it looks like there are sufficient concerns to put the GA listing in jeopardy, and that significant work is needed to resolve the concerns, I will notify the main contributors to the article, and put the GAR on hold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll be keeping an eye here, and will do whatever that is necessary for Pichilemu to remain a GA. Thanks for your work SilkTork. Küñall (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Prose needs attention. There is an abundance of images, though this may be OK. The reason for selection of information is sometimes unclear; from the History section: "Aureliano Oyarzún, professor of pathology at University of Chile, investigated pre-Ceramic middens from Pichilemu and Cahuil. His book Crónicas de Pichilemu–Cáhuil (Chronicles of Pichilemu–Cáhuil) was published posthumously, in 1957" The National monuments section has a number of very short sub-sections. I think the layout issues are not serious, and can be fixed with a quick copy-edit, but the prose is a more serious issue, as that runs throughout the article, and it's also worth having a closer look at selection of information, so I'll open a GAR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pichilemu/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• Opening a GAR to look closer at prose, and at selection of information. Also to check on minor layout issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

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:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• No evidence of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Article is neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Images OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Query

• Borderline query. Are all the images needed? Some seem to be of questionable value, and quality. See WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be removing one which I think is pretty useless. The Los Navegantes one. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• File:Hotel Ross.jpg, File:Agustín Ross crop.jpg and File:Avenida Ortúzar, 1925.jpg have insecure public domain claims. Other images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed up their copyright tags and data. By the way, I have replaced the railway station picture with another one I took last December, which I think is better than the one you put on it. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Images seem fine now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Coverage. There is some information on the railway, but not on other forms of transport, which is typical for a settlement article. There may be other aspects not covered, though I haven't done any background reading yet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, though when I originally wrote this article, there was little information in books or news sources regarding other transportation forms. I don't want to cite directly the bus agencies' websites, it better remains this way. (I only mention the railway thingy because it is a national monument, otherwise I would have simply ommited it.) Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• The article is richly cited. I'm not sure, though, that we always get an accurate translation. This statement: "At the time, it was merely a set of thick-walled barracks" is cited to [1], which appears to mention an old house with thick adobe or mud brick walls, but not a barracks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that there were some terrible translation errors. They apparently went unnoticed last time, but I thank you for fixing them all up. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Most MoS criteria are met, though the WP:Lead would benefit from some attention after any adjustments to the article have been done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• Prose is not clear. Copy-edit required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work copyediting the article. --Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Focus. There is sometimes too much small or inconsequential detail that would not be of interest to the general reader. The festival dates, and the demographics could be trimmed to the essential information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll be removing some irrelevant info. Küñall (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold

• The article contains a fair degree of information about Pichilemu, and mostly meets GA criteria. The two main concerns are the clarity and readability of the prose, and the amount and quality of information selected to present in the article. Other concerns are minor and/or borderline. Putting on hold for the standard initial seven days, though quite OK about extending this as long as needed, provided there is some positive progress being made. The article clearly needs a good copy-edit. I am OK about doing this myself, though will make major contributors aware of the situation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Progress is being made. I'll have a read through again in the next day or two, and see about tidying up any remaining prose issues, then I'll take a look at coverage and focus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this has slipped from my view. I'll take a look again over the next few days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—2001:16A2:5D3F:8620:AC4A:E44C:8408:9C46 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said what is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)