Talk:Isolina Ferré

}

Re-nomination

As stated in the previous review, I disagree with the assertion that not using an autobiography published by the article's subject as source is a valid reason to fail a nomination based on broadness. In fact, autobiographies are most often biased in favor of said subject, in a parallel manner to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Since this article covers her entire life in a sourced and detailed manner, that particular aspect of the criteria seems to be met, at least in my opinion. With this re-nomination, I would like to see the perspective of a different reviewer. Regards, - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be curious to see what another reviewer says. Please bear in mind that my reasons for failing the article had to do with a broader lack of sources; acting as if I failed it only for not including the autobiography is simply untrue. There were also issues with the prose, which were addressed only to be made worse, as detailed in my review. Ricardiana (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I might also note that the page's edit history shows that you did not even attempt to address my concerns during the GA review. Ricardiana (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That was because you actually failed it before Tony could finish. Either way, the "broadness" and "references" are attended by two separate parts of the criteria. The references used are as reliable as they come, the criteria doesn't mention that we need to use a vast amount of references, reliability is superior to quantity. We can fix the prose, but your review failed to judge the criteria in an accurate manner, there was no way that review could pass with such demands. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You do not get unlimited time to address a reviewer's concerns after an article is put on hold. I gave a full week. You did nothing. Tony did little. What little Tony did only made the article worse, as explained in the review.

1. Actually, looking at another article that is currently on hold, the automatically generated template says:
2. "Faryl is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article."

1. Tony is and was not the nominating editor. You are.
2. You did and have done zero work on the article since first nominating it for GA.
3. Per the GA criteria, coverage should be broad. I listed a number of works - you have only used a handful of what's out there. That's not broad coverage, sorry. --I should also note that while many of the sources are Spanish, that's no obstacle as the article already uses a Spanish-language source.
4. You didn't even get your subject's full name right - as pointed out to you, twice, in the original review. This was due purely and simply to using a shitty source over an academic one. Again, sorry.

Ricardiana (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this will be an unexpectedly exciting article for the next reviewer! Ricardiana (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[1]. With that out of the way, I'm still interested in having a less foul-mouthed reviewer for this particular article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It is interesting to note that the "shitty source" is actually the only one to actually interview Ferré in person, as well as having her approve of the printed version.

My response. What have I said that is foul-mouthed? Ricardiana (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh - I see. Calling the source shitty. Well, I apologize; didn't mean to offend. Ricardiana (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I believe that you are not qualified to be "GA" reviewer because of your poor attitude and judgment. You should have not reviewed the re-nomination of this artilce and failed it as you did. You know that it was to our interest that another person with patience and more experience review the article, therefore I cannot understand your insistence unless you have taken it as a personal matter.

• First of all, in your first review, I tried to answer your concerns. What did you do? You responded with more concerns with criticism and immediately failed the article without giving anyone an opportunity to address your new concerns.

• Second of all, if you know anything about Wikipedia policy, you must assume that certain references have been placed in "good-faith" and your choice of words "shitty sources" tell me of your lack of capacity for the task of reviewer and that you may be biased.

I suggest that you refrain from reviewing this article again and that you learn to be more patient with your future reviews. It is because of people such as you that I have taken the stance of never nominating any of my articles for "GA". Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not immediately fail the article. Almost no work has been done on the article either during the week it was on hold or since. I only called the sources shitty after repeated attacks from you and the nominating editor. I suggest you direct your energies towards working on the article. Ricardiana (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I admit that it was my mistake to assume that you failed the article twice and therefore I apologize. However, the following statement is wrong on your part:

"I only called the sources shitty after repeated attacks from you and the nominating editor."

I have never repeatly attacked you as you claim, on the contrary, you have continuously mentioned or made reference to my person, but that doesn't really matter. Only once did I express my opinion in regard to your abilities as a reviewer and that was on May 30, 2009 on this page. In regard to the article in question, I only came to help because I was asked. If you look at my user page, you will realize that my energies are directed towards articles which cover a wide area of subjects. I suggest that we can put an end to this conversation and each of us can continue with our lives. Do you agree? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Isolina Ferré/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey everyone. I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is not quite up to GA standards, but I'm going to put it on hold to allow you a chance to address the issues that I have raised below. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Tony's request, the GA process has been (hopefully temporarily) abandoned due to the personal circumstances of the nominator, which made him unable to complete the review process. Other editors are welcome to address the comments and concerns in my review (below), and to renominate or contact me if the status of the article/review changes. For now, the article will not be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Writing and formatting "Ponce" should be linked in the lead, as most readers would be unfamiliar with its location I would advocate for more internal links in general. You should assume that this article will be read by a non-religious, non-American person, and so any term that would be unfamiliar to such a person should be linked. "Ferré was born in Ponce to a wealthy family, she was one of five siblings, Jose, Carlos, Hernan, Rosario and Puerto Rico's former governor Luis A. Ferré" - would siggest replacing the first comma with a semi-colon and the second with a colon. Furthermore, you have listed 5 siblings, while the phrase "one of five" would suggest she is one of the five, so you should only have four listed. Also, how are the "other known members" related to her? "During this timeframe" - unclear which timeframe is being referred to. "in the area, which would later become Centros Sor Isolina Ferré" - I assume it's the school/hospital that was renamed and not the area? This should be made clear "she was one of five siblings, which included Luis, Joe, Carlos, Hernan and Saro Ferré" - this sibling list is different than the one given in the lead, and the same number issue exists "When she was young, Ferré believed that poverty was a voluntary economic state of being however, during her adolescence she realized that it wasn't so and that she was wrong in her way of thinking" - > this sentence is awkward as written, and isn't really grammatically correct. Is there a way to rephrase it? "resumed her studies with intensively" - do you mean "intensity"? "Her health was affected because of her strenuous activities and after she went to her doctor and had a radiology done, she was told that she had damage in her lungs and was recommended that she take one year of rest" -> also awkward and unclear, please rephrase Since you say that she became interested in "this second project", you should describe it briefly, as there is no wikilink provided "the convents driver" -> "the convent's driver" "Ferrer swore the solemn vows" - name misspelled "per request" -> "by request" or "on the request" "As part of this mission, She" - "she" should not be capitalized "Sepsis" is generally not capitalized "focused their attention in" - replace "in" with "on" "New York's governor Nelson Rockefeller," - no comma needed "to another Puerto Rican resident, she did this" -> should be semi-colon or period instead of comma "was originally called "Dr. White Catholic Center" was renamed "Dr. White Center"" - grammar Holly Family College - should it be "Holy Family"? "She was operated and remained in rest for a month" - unclear wording "rehabilitating several buildings" - what does it mean to "rehabilitate" a building? "Centro De Orientacion De La Playa" was italicized earlier - change one for consistency Technically, she didn't found Centros Sor Isolina Ferré - she founded Centro De Orientacion De La Playa. Therefore, the section heading is inaccurate "his method gathered interest from community leaders in the United States, who were interested in establishing similar programs" - "interested" should not be duplicated in this way "built in a terrain in barrio" - unclear "rented a location" - instead of location, consider "former bar" or simply "building" "was denominated religious "urban guerrilla"" - unclear "She was elected..." - first sentence of new sections should begin with the person's name "When Hurricane Hugo affected Puerto Rico" - "affected" is a rather vague word to use here, consider "hit" or other similar term "while she was preparing an educational initiative" - was Teresa or Isolina preparing this initiative? "Cardiac surgery" need not be capitalized "the centers had created 50 different initiatives, of which 40 proved successful" - what does this mean? Why were only 40 successful? "Reducing the frequency of crime in the locations adjacent to the centers by 20 %" - not a complete sentence "more than 64 entities awarded her recognitions" - what constitutes an "entity"? "yet, her health improved some that July" - again, awkward wording, poor grammar, unclear Is Isolina's brother's name Joe or Jose? Dates are generally not linked unless their inclusion is "germane to the topic at hand". The dates in the "Footnotes" section do not satisfy this caveat, and thus should not be included Accuracy and verifiability Infobox says she died at age 85, and was buried in Cementerio Las Mercedes; text says Las Mercedes cemetery and age 86. Which is correct? The lead states that her name is "Isolina Ferré Aguayo", but the article's title and the rest of the article omits "Aguayo". Which name is correct, and why is there a discrepancy? Need citations for: "Mother Teresa of Puerto Rico" became interested in the habits practiced by the nuns Her mother contracted Filaria her mother was in critical condition. Her mother died the next morning The condition worsened and she moved to Adjuntas briefly Interested in this second project, she organized... she decided to swear a chastity vow Ferré felt symptoms of appendicitis per request of Ponce's Bishop She continued working in this convent for 11 years Ferré remained in Cabo Rojo for six more years she contracted Sepsis (incidentally, how did she contract sepsis? It's not communicable...) she continued her education, briefly attending Holly Family College and completing her bachelor's degree at St. Joseph's College for Women she was sent back to New York in order to complete and further her studies Her final work in the United States took place in Chicago, where she coached a group of Puerto Rican community leaders She was operated and remained in rest for a month She was responsible for the opening of a small hospital and a school Ferré promoted cultural events... Teodoro Moscoso suggested to them the creation of a welding school designed a proposal to work with juvenile delinquents gathered interest from community leaders in the United States, who were interested in establishing similar programs "urban guerrilla" she tried to keep both of them separated from the church "Bibliography" needs to be more consistent - Mendoza has last name first, while Ramos has first name first, and Ramos has no ISBN. Footnotes say that both are "et al", but neither say this in Bibliography. Should use a consistent format for referencing - if you're going to use the short note-long ref format, use it for all of the notes, not just Ramos and Mendoza Per WP:NONENG, English sources are preferred where available. While I understand that some information may be exclusive to Ramos, a Google search finds over 2000 English sources, and a quick look finds several that satisfy WP:RS. Some of these should be incorporated to improve verifiability. Links 45 and 47 are broken Link 48 appears to originally come from the Associated Press, which is a more reliable source - should consider using the original source instead of the secondary source provided Broad As noted above, the article depends rather heavily on Ramos as a source. In order to ensure a broad point of view, it would be better to include a variety of sources per WP:1R You might consider using Isolina's autobiography or one of the other biographies available to supplement your current sources Neutrality "Throughout the years, the Ferré family owned several companies in Puerto Rico, ranging from factories to newspapers. However, she was inclined towards a religious life from a young age". It probably was not your intention, but the use of the word "however" here implies that capitalists are generally not religious - editorialization. Please remove. While it may be obvious to you that La Playa is "the poor sector", this is a value judgement and needs to be cited You cannot say that she was "forced" to dress a gang member in a habit - either change the wording or make it clear that a source you provide says she was forced Stable No issues noted Images A Google search finds several copies of the first photo of the article, a few of which attribute it to Centros Sor Isolina Ferré - suggesting Elboricua is not the original source. You should verify this, as it may change the copyright status of the work. I think the fair-use rationale for that image is not adequate - take a look at WP:FUG. In particular, the source and copyright information is inadequate for a non-free image. Note - Please place the "GA" nomination on hold. The nominator is on a mini-Wiki vacation and I would like to help and work on the recomendations made in the following week if possible. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)e I'm also on vacation at the moment, so that actually works out better for me. I'll give you an extra week - let me know if you need more time. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)