Talk:Idalia Ramos Rangel

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Idalia Ramos Rangel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Use {{lang}} for La Tía, so that screen-readers can parse it correctly: {{lang|es|La Tía}} gives La Tía.

•  Done

• Repeating her full name multiple times gets repetitive; just her surname(s) will suffice.

•  Done I've removed two instances where I wrote "Idalia" in the body paragraphs. Just for reference, "Ramos Rangel" are her two surnames.

• Listing "Idalia Ramos Rangel" as one of her "multiple identities and aliases" seems unnecessary.

•  Done

• "Her current whereabouts are unknown.." In the third paragraph seems slightly at odds with "..operates primarily out of Matamoros, where investigators believe she may be hiding." I appreciate that both can be true, but these two statements should at least be brought together into the same part of the article.

•  Done

• "She employed her children and other relatives to work under her." Is this part of the previous accusation, or an independent statement. If the first, that needs to be made clear. If the second, it is provided slightly out of context.

•  Done It is the first. I've merged it with the previous sentence that mentions her as a lead conspirator and copyedited the sentence a bit. Let me know if it makes more sense now.

• Note a seems notable enough to mention in the main body of the article.

•  Done

• |ref=harv should be removed from the Further reading citation.

•  Done

• The lead claims "Her role in organized crime is unique.." but the body only says "unusual", which I think is more appropriate: unless we can find a source which conclusively says that no other women have such a role, "unique" is too strong an assertion.

•  Done Changed to "unusual"

• Was the image really taken by the FBI? My impression is that it is an image they are using, not necessarily one they created, meaning that this tag would not be valid. I think it would be better used as a non-free image.

• Maybe, maybe not. I'm usually very cautious about adding pictures of Mexican drug lords to Commons when they are posted by a U.S. federal agency. In many cases, the pictures are borrowed from the Mexican government or are simply uploaded by U.S. federal agencies but not necessarily "created" by them. (Example: This non-free image here that I uploaded to Wikipedia was also uploaded by the U.S. federal government here in 2010, but it was first published in Mexico in 2003, see here). But in this case, I was not able to find Ramos Rangel's picture anywhere else. Heck, I don't even think she faces charges in Mexico. I would not find it unreasonable for U.S. federal agents / informants to do undercover work in Mexico and take pictures of suspects, but I'll leave it up to you. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would rather err on the side of caution, and change it to a non-free image; there would be plenty of justification, but if you've done due diligence that it doesn't appear anywhere else, I won't hold up the GA over the issue. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Referencing uses a consistent and appropriate format.

I can't see much else wrong with this. Harrias ^talk 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias:I believe I've addressed your concerns above. Thank you for the thorough review. Please let me know if there is anything else left to be done here. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice work, happy to pass. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)