Talk:Early life of Fidel Castro

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Early life of Fidel Castro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey MBO, I'll be glad to take this one. Thanks for your work on it--I'm always impressed by your output! Comments to follow soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Khazar, thanks for tackling this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks quite good-- well-written, well-sourced, and presumably comprehensive (though I'll check it more thoroughly when not listening to baseball). A few small points below:

• "without for certain becoming a member." -- this is a little ambiguous. Do you mean it's unclear to historians, or it was unclear to him at the time if he was a member?
  • It remains unclear to historians and/or biographers. I will rephrase this to "although biographers are unsure whether he became a member" Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC).
• a "self-taught black man" --it seems a little odd to have this in quotations. Is some part of this uncertain? Is it a phrase he used to describe himself?
  • That is how he is described in one of the publications referenced. But I agree entirely that it is an odd thing to put into quotations, so I shall rewrite this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• " Castro and Ramonet 2009" -- doesn't appear to point to a full citation
  • Oops, I've stuck it back in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing appears to point to the citations for Skierka, Benjamin, Geyer, or Gott. Should they be removed from the list of references?
  • I think so; I shall remove them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More to follow soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor clarity points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One citation needs fuller reference (Castro and Ramonet)--I assume it's this?
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparison to pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/244974.stm and http://www.biography.com/people/fidel-castro-9241487 confirms that main aspects are covered here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I think File:U of Havana 1930.jpg needs a tag for its US copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Ok, that image is the only thing left; thanks for the speedy fixes! Let me check with somebody more knowledgeable if that tag is acceptable, and if not how it can be cleaned up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar, I'm really not comfortable with the copyright statuses of images and stuff. I can never quite get my head around it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I always have to outsource it, too. In this case my guy says that we at least need the photographer's date of death, which we don't have here. I'm removing the image for now, but feel free to work with Crisco (linked above) to get it back in if you like. And other than that, this is a big pass. Thanks as always for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)