Talk:Los Espantos/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 23:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Note on review Since you've been waiting a while and you have a lot of noms on the same topic, I'm going to review them all at once to make everyone's lives easier. Each article will receive its own review on its own GA page and be promoted or not based on its own merits. However the hold period I give you will be for all the articles and will take into account the number of changes needed as a whole.

Because of this, the various reviews may reference each other, so for those who read this later, please also see Los Espantos, Espanto I, Espanto II, Espanto III, Espanto IV and V, Espanto Jr., Espanto Jr. (CMLL), and Los Hijos del Espanto if things are unclear. Disclosure: Both the nom and reviewer are participating in the WikiCup, if need be, anyone may request a second opinion if they feel my review is not following the GA criteria. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "The team of Espanto I and Espanto II are considered among the best rudo teams in the history of lucha libre." This is something I'd want to see a citation for in the lead. Also, in the prose "lucha libre" is italicized. Is there a particular reason why?

   I disagree with it needing to be sourced in the lead - leads should only be sourced if they're stating something not in the body of the article as far as I am aware. I will make sure the claims are sourced in the body of the article, should not need to be sourced in the lead. And since "Lucha libre" is a foreign language term per MOS:FOREIGN I applied that formatting.

2. "Espanto I and II regularly teamed up with El Santo, often headlining shows across Mexico. The trio with El Santo led to a storyline where Los Espantos turned on El Santo, turning Santo to the tecnico side (those that portray the "good guys")" This is confusing. I take Los Espantos to refer to all three Espantos, but you mention that on Espanto I and II team up with El Santo. Did all three team up with him or just two?

   That whole paragraph is actually rather confusing as it's unclear what trio is being referred to. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

   I have tried to rewrite it, is it clearer now?

3. What is the significance of the bets? Readers unfamiliar with lucha libre may not know why being unmasked or having your hair shaved off is important (I only kinda do). A brief explanation would do wonders.

   Added in a little context of the Bet match

4. "It should be noted that as each Espanto lost their mask they claimed that their last name was "Vázquez Cisneros", combining their last names to hide the fact that they were not all brothers." Firstly, this should also be explained more. Is it that, when being unmasked, they must state their name? That's what I assume but that should be explicitly stated. Also, this could be phrased better, but that's not as important.

   I tried to reword it and make it clearer.

5. "The Mexican newspaper El Siglo de Torreón stated that the team of Espanto I and Espanto II was considered one of the best rudo teams in the history of lucha libre." This feels rather non-neutral in its presentation. Either the responses to Los Espantos should be expanded upon or this should be removed. It's far too prominent and feels WP:UNDUE.

   I will find other sources that make similar claims, over the years I've seen them made here and there, just need to sift through them and find the reliable ones.

   So I added two things to that section - that the feud with El Santo made them super hated at the time and a second source stating that Los Espantos was one of the top rudos teams of all times. This was written after Espanto II died in 2010 and is similar in claim to the El Siglo statement from 1999. And I guess it's not neutral since it's an opinion and not a quantifiable fact.

6. "Around the turn of the millennium..." when particularly? Even a general year as that could be interpreted as any time between 1990 to 2005 which is too wide a range.

   I specified with the actual year.

7. "mirroring the feud of Hijo del Santo's father El Santo and Espanto, Jr.'s storyline father Espanto I." I feel like this could be phrased more clearly but I'm not sure how.

   I took a stab at it, any better?

8. The image requires a fair use rationale to be used on this page.

   There is one on the page isn't there? I added a little more detail to the explanation of use but it's on there.??

   You are correct. My apologies for that, I misread the page. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 00:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I also made some copy edits, feel free to revert or adjust if they are not improvements.

Results

On hold for a time to be determined. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Amazingly fast review User:Wugapodes, awesome. I will look at all comments and address them. MPJ-US  00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Passing Los Espantos, Espanto I, Espanto II, Espanto III. Kudos to MPJ for not only writing these articles but addressing the review so quickly. Expansion of our coverage on topics not often covered in English sources is incredibly important and I'm glad to see these articles written. I'm still of the opinion that they might benefit from being merged but that's not an issue for GA and I don't think it's a big enough thing to make a problem out of it. Good work and I will get to more of the others tomorrow after some sleep. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 03:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)