Talk:Los Justicieros/GA1

Latest comment: 9 days ago by Spookyaki in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply


Hi! I'll be reviewing this.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

First readthrough, notes

edit

Copyvio check looks good. Images look good. Might be good to include alt text (see MOS:ALT) but not a prerequisite for GA status. Made a few small tweaks myself. Overall, very cool article! A few points:

  • The government of Spain responded with an authoritarian crackdown on union organising. In the Basque Country, lieutenant colonel Fernando González Regueral was appointed as governor, and he immediately ordered mass arrests of trade union activists. In Catalonia, groups of hired thugs known as pistoleros hunted down and murdered union organisers, while the police applied the ley de fugas to arrested workers. — Possible WP:NPOV issue (the terms "authoritarian" and "thugs" strike me as being a bit loaded) but depends on what the sources say. If that's their consensus, it's probably fine to keep this the way it is. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Removed use of "authoritarian" and replaced "thugs" with "mercenaries", which I think is more neutral and accurate.  Y
  • From Ascaso, they learned more about the violence against the Catalan workers' movement by the pistoleros and the danger posed by police informants, which had provoked Catalan anarchists to close ranks and focus on large actions such as the assassination of Dato. — "Close ranks" here is a bit of a MOS:CLICHE. What does it mean precisely in this context? What did they do? Please clarify in the text if possible. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Attempted to clarify. Essentially it meant that they distanced themselves from others, so as not to be vulnerable to infiltration. Let me know if more can be done here. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Looks good to me! Spookyaki (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply
  • The term "repressive"/"repression" is used a few times in the text, and it generally creates problems. In some cases, it could be construed as an WP:NPOV issue, though when the actions are described, they do strike me as being repressive enough to warrant the term. However, the bigger problem for me is that it's actually an imprecise term, in some cases masking the nature of the repression and making it unclear what is being stated. I think in most cases, the term should be swapped out for a description of the actual repressive measures taken, if possible. This sidesteps the possible NPOV issue, since it allows the reader to come to their own conclusions, and increases the clarity of the language. Some instances where I might change it:
  • ...half of which they sent to Bilbao and the other half of which was taken back to Zaragoza by Juliana. — Is this Juliana López or somebody whose surname is Juliana? Please clarify in the text. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    It's Juliana López. Clarified. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply
  • But when Maura refused to hand the Ministry of Finance over to the Catalans, his government collapsed. — Why did this cause the government to collapse? Why would he have handed the Ministry of Finance over to the Catalans in the first place? Please clarify if possible, though I recognize that it may be more complicated than it's worth in an article that's not directly about this particular crisis of government. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Basically the Maura government relied on the Regionalist League of Catalonia as part of his coalition government. When they didn't get what they wanted and pulled out, the coalition fell apart. I've attempted to clarify as "governing coalition", but let me know if there's something better I can do to clarify this. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply
  • ...to the jubilation... — "Jubilation" seems like a pretty strong word, possibly MOS:PUFFERY. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Changed to "celebration". --Grnrchst (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply

Not required for GA, but some other possible improvements

edit

Overall, great work! I think there are a few things that still need to be worked on, but you've done an excellent job giving me an idea of what these folks were about. Hopefully we'll be able to get this to GA soon. Will perform the spot check in a bit. Need to take a break. Spookyaki (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Spookyaki: Thanks so much for the comments! I think this has really helped to improve the article already. Let me know if there's anything I've missed or if there's anywhere I can make further necessary improvements. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Second read, spot check

edit

Now for the spot check. Checking all sources. Notes on this read:

  • Per the word "authoritarian", I think a different term should be used, since it comes from a quote from Buenacasa. I think that the descriptions of anti-union activity later in the paragraph (use of pistoleros, mass arrests) get across what happened more precisely without resorting to terminology that could be construed as biased. Alternatively, you could just include part of the quote. For example: By late 1919, metalworkers' and miners' strikes were becoming more commonplace. The government of Spain responded with a crackdown on union organising, which Buenacasa described as "authoritarian" and "vicious". Spookyaki (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Removed "authoritarian". You're right, the description of what was happening itself is enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply
  • "Thugs" should probably also be traded out for some other term. Neither source describes them with that word. "Assassins" is used in Varela. Spookyaki (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Changed to "mercenaries", which I think might be the best neutral description of the pistoleros. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply
  • Question, and this is genuinely from a place of ignorance. The article says that the constitution was restored, but the sources both say that "constitutional guarantees" were restored. Is that the same thing? Spookyaki (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Good catch! These are different things. "Constitutional guarantees" is used in the same way as constitutional rights. The constitution itself was technically still in force at this time, but the rights it guaranteed were suspended. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)  YReply

Otherwise, everything looks good. I'll let you address some of the other issues. Once that's done, I think we can pass this. Thank you for your work on this article! Spookyaki (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Third readthrough

edit

Made some more minor ce adjustments, but looks good. I think I can pass this. Spookyaki (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.