Talk:Pichilemu/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status.

My first question is - why haven't the cleanup banners and unreliable source tags been taken care of before this article was renominated for GA? Cleanup banners are one of the quick-fail criteria, but I am willing to leave this article on hold for a couple of days to see if they can be dealt with. This is one major hurdle that needs to be overcome before the article is of GA status. There are also a few areas still missing references and the lead needs to be expanded, as well as excess bolding in the Notable people section.

If these issues are dealt with over the next few days, I will then complete a full review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be longer. For this article length, WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs. While there are currently four paragraphs, three of them are only made up of one or two sentences, while the fourth (the first one) is only made up of three. The lead should summarize the article, without including new information.

   • I see that some work has been done on this, but it still needs to be longer. For example, see the lead of the recently promoted FA Jackie Robinson, which is an article of about the same length as this one.

   • Sections made up of one sentence are a bit short. Please either expand the Etymology section or delete the section and add it to something else - perhaps just append it to the beginning of the History section?
   • Ortuzar family section, "The plans originated around Ortúzar Avenue." What do you mean, they "originated" around this avenue?

   • This has been changed to "The city's plane was made detailing the Ortuzar avenue", which I still don't understand. What is the point that is trying to be made here?

   • The Education section should be partially prose, rather than just a bulleted list with no descriptions. Which of these are primary schools, which secondary, and which tertiary? Any awards? Notable sports teams?

   • Better, but the italicizing needs to be removed.

   • The Famous people section should either be deleted, since it's nothing but a link, or have some prose describing some of the famous people and why they are famous. My first choice would be to delete the section completely, since I see there is already a link to the category in the See also section.
   • There are a lot of really short sections in the article. The article will look less choppy and read better if some of these sections are combined.
   • There are also a lot of really short paragraphs (one and two sentences). These should also be combined.
   • All units (meters, kilometers, etc) need conversions. This can either be done manually or with the {{convert}} template.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Please make sure all references not in English have their languages listed. For example, ref 15 (Hoteles en Pichilemu) does not have a Spanish-language tag in the reference. This is just an example, please check all of the refs.

   • There is still at least two left (Ref 42, 43).

   • I added a few fact tags in places where I would like to see references. Each tag is accompanied by hidden text explaining the reasoning behind the need for a reference.
   • Reference titles in all capital letters need to be changed into normal capitalization, despite the formatting in the original source.
   • What makes Ref #7 (Cardenal Caro Province, Chile) a reliable source?
   • What makes Ref #8 ("Chile Destination Pichilemu) a reliable source? It appears to be a travel company website.
   • What makes Ref #12 ("Punta de Lobos) a reliable source? It's a surfer wiki, basically, since anyone can edit the entries.
   • What makes Ref #13 ("Pichilemu Puts Valparaiso To Shame) a reliable source? It's a blog...
   • Ref #16 ("Conflicto y armonías de las razas en América) is a book, so needs to be formatted as such. "Internet Archives" is an archival service, not a publisher.
   • What makes Ref #42 ( "Llegó la primavera para el PRIMER CASINO DE JUEGOS DE CHILE) a reliable source? It's a blog.
   • What makes Ref #43 (Chile:Hoy se inicia recuperación de edificio histórico,casino Ross de Pichilemu.) a reliable source? It's a blog, and despite the fact that it is on the El Pais website, it looks like anyone can create their own blog. Is the author a paid staff member?
   • What makes Ref #52 ( "Pichilemu | LetsGoChile) a reliable source? It looks like another travel company website.
   • Ref #56 ("Pichilemu) is definitely not reliable. It says at the bottom of the website that the information was taken from WP, which means you're referencing an article that's referencing your article - circular refs are not a good thing!
   • What makes Ref #63 ("Pichilemu, Olas, Surf y mucho más) a reliabe source? It's a sales site...
   • Because of the number of unreliable and possibly unreliable English refs I've found, I'm going to drop a post on another editor's page who speaks better Spanish than I do, so that they can check the remaining refs. Blogs, WP mirror sites, travel company websites and other sales sites are not reliable refs, and it looks like this article depends heavily on them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Image galleries are discouraged by MOS, and this article is already picture heavy, even without the gallery. Please go through all of the images and choose the ones that impart the most knowledge to the reader. Multiple images of Cordova, multiple images of beaches, and images of random people/families do not help the reader, and just make the article cluttered.

   • Still image heavy, but much better.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Here is a start on the fixes needed before the article is of GA status. Thank you for your quick response on my original post! Once the above articles are addressed, I will do a full review of the prose and source reliability. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Second editor comments

Note: These comments were originally posted to User talk:SandyGeorgia in response to a request for a reliability check on Spanish sources.

...Yes, in addition to the problem with unreliable sources, there are also breadth of coverage, prose, MOS, and other sourcing issues. The main editor is a high school student in Chile; he might benefit from collaborating with an editor who has access to an English-language library database, bookstore, and other sources. As a sample, he could consider El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda; Enano275 had worked diligently on it for several years before I got involved to help him exhaust a search for English language sources. El Hatillo also offers an example for breadth of coverage of a region relatively unknown in the English speaking world.

This list is not comprehensive, but may serve as a first pass.

Google Scholar turns up several journal sources discussing problems with tourism development in the area; this isn't mentioned in the article at all. Coverage of several areas of the article is spotty.

There is some inconsistency in language use on translations; the article should consistently either mention terms in Spanish with an English translation, or mention them in English with the Spanish translation. Since it is about a location in Chile, I would think it better to use local (Spanish) terms and then translate them to English. There is also WP:OVERLINKing of the Spanish and English language on translations (as well as WP:OVERLINKing in general). Notice sample:

• Villa Los Navegantes (English: Village of the Navigators) is a village of Pichilemu, ...
• El Alto Lagoon (Spanish: Laguna El Alto) is located in Chorrillos Beach ...

The first is in Spanish with an (ovelinked) English translation; the second is an incorrect English translation with an overlink to the Spanish name.

Looking at the lead alone:

Pichilemu (Mapudungun: Small forest) is a beach resort town located in central Chile. It is also the capital of the Cardenal Caro Province. The city hosts 5 historic monuments and was declared a "Zona Típica" (English: Traditional Area or Heritage Site) by the National Monuments Council in 2004.

The beach of Pichilemu is considered one of the world's best for surfing. In particular, competitions are frequently held at Punta de Lobos. The city is mainly known because Agustín Ross Edwards, a Chilean politician and member of the powerful family Ross Edwards, made the city a beach resort for upper-class Chilean people. Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired.

The city belongs to the District N° 35, and to the 9th Senatorial Circumscription of the O'Higgins Region. The current Mayor of Pichilemu is Roberto Córdova.

• The second sentence, "It is also ... " Also is almost always redundant, and this sentence could be combined with the first for better flow.
• "The city hosts 5 ... " should be five; these WP:MOSNUM issues occur throughout.
• Lead should mention that that National Monuments Council is Chilean. Unsure how zona tipica gets translate to Heritage Site, but this leads to confusion with other, better known international heritage site designations.
• " The beach ... world's best for surfing." The source given, a local Chilean news broadcast, is not sufficient to justify this claim. A higher quality independent source, such as a reputable surfing magazine, should be used for a claim of this type; I don't know surfing, and wasn't able to find any mention with a quick google search.
• "The city is mainly known ... " This sentence seems to contradict the claim that it is known as a world-class surfing destination, and is unclear.
• Redundant and repetitive prose, "in particular" followed by "particularly" in the second paragraph.
• Prose: "Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired." ESL issues there, unsure what the sentence means, in what beginnings, and what was fired?
• Clarification for those who don't know Chile: District No. 35 of what? 9th Senatorial Circumscription of what? Historic monuments of what (country of Chile)?
• WP:MOSDATE#Precise language ... "Current" mayor (as of when, until when, what is his term?). Why is mention of the mayor in the lead, instead of a better overall description of the area, covering more than politics?

Before examining the sourcing problems, just scanning the rest of the article for similar sample problems:

• Early exploration section, first two sentences could be combined for better flow.
• Clarification, "... remaining Promaucaes" ... remaining after what? Text is frequently underdeveloped. Actually, this paragraph leaves me with no clear idea of early exploration, and requires the reader to click on links to determine the story.
• "Ortúzar family", flow, why is the origin of the name abruptly mentioned in this section?
• "During more recent times" ... precise language ... better expressed as something like, "beginning in <year>" or "since <year> ... " or something similar. More sentences in this section that could be combined for better flow, the prose is choppy.
• ESL, unsure what this sentence wants to say: "The city's plane was made detailing the Ortuzar avenue." Is "plan" the intended word instead of "plane"? Why "detailing"?
• ESL, "He regularized the city plan" ... regularized ?
• "Subsequently, Pichilemu ... " Subsequently? When?
• Ross Hotel should not be in italic, see WP:ITALICS.
• Geography contains almost no geography and little weather; conversions are needed. (Strangely, the census section includes some geography :)
• Why did the city population decrease?
• ESL: "elected in 2008 with 42.08% of vote ... "
• Why does the first casino opening need four sources?
• Pichilemu has many attractive places. ... throwaway sentence, says nothing.
• Fudor's Chile says best surfing in South America, different than claim made in the lead. "Surfing is one of the most biggest tourist draws ... " ESL issues.
• Why is a song recording mentioned under surfing? No culture or arts sections?
• Education has peacockery: most important according to whom or what? Why is a children's garden mentioned in education? "Remarkably" ? Receiving what award?
• Ross Casino is included in See also when it's already in the article.
• WP:MOSCAPS in citations (I realize not all of these are applicable to GA, but list 'em as I see 'em anyway :)

There is more; the list above is only samples. In summary, the prose needs considerable work, and the text is underdeveloped and unclear.

Turning to some of the sourcing issues:

• El rancahuaso seems to be a minimal quality reliable digital news publication, but I wonder why there isn't more use of better known Chilean newspapers?
• I can't find anything indicating that pichilemuchile.com is a reliable source.
• Pichilemunews is a blog, and some of the text it is used to cite should be citable from reliable Chilean newspapers. It seems that most of the research for this article may have been done online.
• Visitingchile.com is a publicity, promotional site. Ditto for Gochile.cl Many others of this type, hope I don't need to list them all, please let me know if you have questions about any particular source. Corrugated City is a blog.
• I'm unsure what the original source of this internet archive article is.

I stopped there; there is really very little in the article that is sourced to reliable sources, and I'm not sure expending more effort on checking each source will be productive. The article will need a major sourcing and prose overhaul. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any specific Spanish questions.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

MisterWiki, I realize that you have been doing quite a bit of work on the article in response to the comments of SandyGeorgia and me. However, many of the references need to be reaplced, and per SandyGeorgia's comments there is some expansion that is needed. It is my belief that this article (and you as its main editor) would be better served by a withdrawal from the GA review process. The research and expansion needed will probably take some time, and this review is already beyond the typical week hold period given to reviews, with much more work needed. Would it be OK with you to withdraw the article at this point? Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As no reply has been made on my above comment, and as no work has happened to address unreliable sourcing (the major problem with the article), I am now failing the article's GA nomination. I would like to congradulate MisterWiki on all of the hard work he has put into this article so far, and look forward to seeing it back at GAN when the sourcing issues have been addressed. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)