Talk:2011 Matamoros mass kidnapping/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello MX, I'm happy to review this article. I have other comments, but the main impediment to GA status is prose. Would you mind listing it with GOCE (I already have 2 reqs open and don't want to get on their bad side.) Thanks! (BTW if you're looking for something to review, I have nine articles waiting for review at GAN.) Catrìona (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: Hi! Thanks for taking on this review. This article is about a sad kidnapping that affected my hometown a few years ago. Being a medium-sized city of 500K, many knew who the family was from many years back ... there have not been any official updates on the case since the rewards were offered by the Mexican government.

Anyways, I've submitted the article to GOCE, trimmed the section you asked for, and removed the error in the reference. I was able to find some alternate sources, but none of them mention explicitly what the Change.org source says. The source that follows is an example of that.

And yes, I'm always in the lookout for more GANs to review, as I usually review articles when I'm in between writing new articles. I'm in the middle of a draft right now, but I will definitely take your offer once I'm done with it. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: Hello. Twofingered Typist (courtesy ping) from GOCE just did an excellent job (again) by improving the article's prose. Can't even come up with words to express how much we appreciate his work here! Let me know when you're ready to taken on the review. Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's really sad to hear. Anyway, I've made a few prose edits please revert if you disagree. Other than that, I can't see any obstacles to promotion. I checked some of the references and everything seems OK. Catrìona (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: All good to me. I've responded to your question about the French national's case below. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

International

• a French native who was arrested in Mexico and given a 60-year sentence for reportedly participating in a kidnapping Is there a reason for this wording? It sounds like she was convicted, is there doubt about her guilt?

• It's a complicated case, let me explain. Cassez was arrested in Mexico in 2005 and sentenced to 60 years for kidnapping. Her boyfriend was part of a kidnapping ring and she was convicted of assisting him. She was released 7 years later for violations in her due process since the police staged the filming of her arrest and did not contact consular authorities promptly. So technically, she was found guilty by the court, but human rights organizations question whether Cassez was guilty or not (police in Mexico are known to stage arrests and fabricate evidence, like they did in this case). Cassez claims she is innocent, but some of the victims identified her as one of the abductors. She is still considered "guilty" in Mexico, but was released for those violations and sent to France, where she now lives without any charges there. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible motives

• The money, which can be issued both in cash or in a bank account, will be rewarded proportionally to the number of people located, and to the utility of the information provided. If two or more people provide useful information to authorities, only the first person will receive the reward. But if the information is provided by two or more people simultaneously, the reward will be distributed proportionally. The information can be provided at the PGR offices in Colonia Guerrero, Cuauhtémoc, Mexico City; through the PGR's public email, or via phone number. The PGR vows that the information provided, as well as the person(s) that provide them, will be strictly reserved and anonymous. This seems like excessive detail and WP:NOT, especially because it's a primary source. Suggest reducing or eliminating.

 Done: I've trimmed the section. Thought about adding a lot of it as a footnote but simply added: "The payment methods vary and are under the discretion of the PGR."

• Change.org ref—since the website has been blacklisted, is there a way to turn off the error message? Alternatively, was the petition covered in a different (secondary) source?

 Done: The error message has been removed from the reference.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed