Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coffee (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   From Early life and education:

   This line doesn't seem to convey properly what it is attempting to say (perhaps explaining the job/purpose of job/and saying "her father" instead of Wilhelm): "Cristina and Néstor married in a civil ceremony on 9 May 1975. Wilhelm got them administrative jobs at her union."

    Done Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   This line needs a year specified: "Cristina proposed to go to Río Gallegos, Néstor's home city, but he delayed their departure until his graduation on 3 July."

    Done Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   What are "free exams" and how do they work: "Cristina had not yet graduated when they moved to Río Gallegos, and was tested by free exams for the remaining subjects."

   Fixed Cambalachero (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "The firm worked for banks and financial groups that filed eviction lawsuits, as the 1050 ruling of the Central Bank had increased the interest rates for mortgage loans."

    Done Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   This sequence makes little sense: "The Kirchners acquired twenty-one land lots at cheap prices as they were about to be auctioned. Although forced disappearances were common during the Dirty War, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner never signed any habeas corpus requests. Their law firm took military personnel involved in the Dirty War as clients."

   Fixed Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a

1. From Early life and education:

   The image is violating MOS:SANDWICH.

   In my screen it does not. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Two references are dead.

    Done I replaced one of the links, and added an archived version of the other. Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

   There are two Citation Needed tags to be sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   There are five refs in the Reflist (at end of article); all the rest are embedded. It would be helpful if the five could be embedded also as it's not ideal to mix 2 different reffing approaches in an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   No sign of it.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   The Alchetron site has made use of this article, not the other way around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   From Early life and education:

   This line does not seem relevant to describing Kirchner: "There were heated political controversies at the time caused by: the decline of the Argentine Revolution military government, the return of the former president Juan Perón from exile, the election of Héctor Cámpora as president of Argentina, and the early stages of the Dirty War."

   It explains the context, and those issues are merely listed, not discussed in undue detail. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

   From Political career:

   Why do we make it seem like her actions were contingent upon someone else's: "She opposed most bills proposed by Menem, such as a treaty with Chilean president Patricio Aylwin that benefited Chile in a dispute over the Argentina–Chile border."

   She was a legislator. The Congress discussed bills proposed by others, and I mentioned her reactions to some of those bills that were noticed by the press. Cambalachero (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   It reads admirably neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   It's been fine lately, despite an errant IP's efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

   There are actually rather a lot of images of CFK smiling to camera, but she's a politico and it's a long article, so I shan't insist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well, I'm sorry this took so long, but glad that the article is now in excellent shape, and at last gains the Good Article status that it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 Comment: Nobody seems to be addressing the reviewer's comments.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I was away for some days, I have returned and fixed the points mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Cambalachero: I'm afraid that Coffee has not edited Wikipedia for some while now, and I think it's safe to say his return is not imminent. So honestly I'm not sure what we should do with this review. @Bluemoonset: You know a lot more about procedure than I do. What would you suggest in this case? We cannot simply pass it; failing it and returning it to the bottom of the queue would be unfair to Cambalachero; but any new reviewer will probably need to go over each of the criteria once again. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That seems correct, he has blanked his user page and user talk page, and even protected his blanked user page. Seems a clear signal that he has left wikipedia. I have changed the review status to "second opinion", so that some other reviewer takes the article. Cambalachero (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Vanamonde, I'm afraid I didn't see this way back when: your ping went awry (the template is fussy about orthography). Since Coffee will not be back, and second opinions rarely turn into full reviews, my best suggestion is that we place this back into the reviewing pool with no loss of seniority, something I'm happy to do (and have already done today for another abandoned review). Since this is the oldest nomination in the Politics and government section, and will be the third-oldest unreviewed nomination, there's a reasonable chance it will get picked up by a new reviewer before too terribly long. Cambalachero, if you and Vanamonde have no objections, I'll take care of it as soon as you've both responded. Thanks, and sorry you've had such a long delay. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no problems. --Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset: The article isn't in a bad state, the review is far advanced, and we have an active nominator, so I shall complete the job. Deus ex machina, almost... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. @BlueMoonset: Thanks for taking care of this. It's my fault, I aught to have checked to see if the ping showed a blue link. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)