Talk:1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

General

• Per comments on talk page, suggest you add relevant images. I will have more suggestions later, but for the start you might include a picture of a Cougar EC725.

• (talk page stalker)  Done I have added a picture of one albeit not in flight, which would be cooler. –Vami_IV✠ 23:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Vami! Catrìona (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added more public domain images too! Thanks guys. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! One thing that I would suggest would be a picture or two of the local area/landscape if available. There are some in Commons:Category:Jalisco, but never having visited Mexico, I don't know which one would be most appropriate for this article. Catrìona (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Didn't find an good ones from the small towns, but I found one of a main street in Guadalajara where some attacks took place. I've added multiple other ones too. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest you add a brief "Background" section after the lede to discuss the Mexican Drug War for uninformed readers. I don't believe that the current layout violates WP:MOS/Layout, but my suggestions would help bring it in line with the Milhist recommendations.

• It looks like the "background" aspect is addressed in the first paragraph of the "background and possible motives" section. Recommend moving the paragraph to before the helicopter attack section.
• The second paragraph in the "background and possible motives" actually discusses the reactions of government leaders to the attacks, except one sentence, The government's urgency to confront the CJNG intensified the month before, when the CJNG ambushed and killed 15 policemen in Jalisco which is background.

 Done This was addressed too I believe. Feel free to move the background suggestion if you'd like. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• The infobox could be further filled out with information from the article. (not part of GA criteria)

Any recommendations are greatly appreciated! MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Casualties might be good to include. For the initial attack there were nine killed. Are there any reliable estimates for the deaths/injuries in later skirmishes? Catrìona (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Casualties added. The info is cited in the body and not in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXCITE. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Copyediting: It seems like the article would benefit from attention from the Guild of Copy Editors. If you don't object, I'll list it there. In the meantime, we can address other aspects of the article. It actually looks pretty good except for the prose issues.

• @Catrìona: Hi. Thank you for deciding to review this article. I hope you enjoy it. And yes, I don't object taking it to GOCE. I did it for the Murder of Joey Fischer after it was promoted to GA. English is not my native language, so I expect prose issues even if I read through the article multiple times sporadically throughout the year. Thanks again; I'll wait for you to finish the review so I can tackle the suggestions you bring up. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is obviously not part of the GA criteria, but for articles that have such dense citations (a good thing) it becomes difficult to edit the article because of all the ref clutter. Using List-defined references would make it much easier to edit this article.

I didn't know this existed ... do you have a large article with this citation format that I can use as reference? I'd like to take a look and mirror it for future articles and this one if I so decide to take it to FA. Thanks! MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Not as long, but I used them on my recent articles Siegfried Lederer and Fredy Hirsch. Catrìona (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have any more suggestions at the moment, so what I'd like to do is put the article on hold until the Guild of Copy Editors gets to it (should be about two weeks). In the meantime, I'll check the references. When that's done, I'll do another read through and if nothing jumps out at me, I'd like to ask for a second opinion on the review because this is a fairly long and complex article, and also one of my first GA reviews. This plan will likely mean a significant delay before the article gets promoted, so let me know if you have an objection. Catrìona (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Catrìona: No objection on my end. Thank you for putting it in the GOCE queue. Please put the article on hold and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for reviewing this! MX (✉ • ✎) 01:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

Perhaps a better name would be "the case for Harvard referencing"

@Catrìona: Forgive me for stealing some of your thunder here, but I feel the need to write this.

To begin, there are 206 citations as of time of writing. This is excellent - the article is cast iron in its referencing and verifiability. What is not excellent is then having to scroll through the forest that is the "References" section. An article once faced by the same problem was Ludwigsburg Palace, my finest work. Here I've used short-form citations for every single reference, and divided by type and even source (though I think my own bibliography looks kind of messy). Thanks to SFNREF, my (currently) 133-long citation list can still be big, but condensed and therefore easier on the eyes.

Catrìona has pointed out how reading the article in-edit is also difficult because of the massive amount of citation syntax. Looking myself, I totally reaffirm that observation and add that there is an ocean of unused parameters in all that syntax. I come with two solutions, in addition to Catrìona's suggestion of stack-listing citations.

1. Syntax highlighting. This is an easily acquirable tool on Wikipedia that I frequently use in my own work when syntax is getting too crazy.
2. Template:Sfnref, which uses a form of Harvard referencing. Referring again to Ludwigsburg Palace, I ask you open a section like "Construction" or "Use as a residence" in editor and look at the syntax there. In case sfn syntax on May 1, 2015 Jalisco attacks gets too thick (see my structure for sfn'ing news sources), you can still stack them, as Catrìona recommends above.

Additionally, removing all those unused parameters in the citation syntax will bring the article size down by a few magnitudes, I guarantee.

Lede

• three levels of government--either use a different wording or add a note explaining what these are for the uninformed reader.

 Done rephrased based on body paragraphs. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Helicopter attack

• through several dirt roads via several dirt roads?

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• The vehicles drove with their headlights off to avoid the attention of Mexican Air Force and the Federal Police (PF), who were doing an air surveillance of the area in four helicopters Recommend: ...to avoid detection by the Mexican Air Force...

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• the CJNG units opened fire at them from the ground "the CJNG unites opened fire" is sufficient. It's obvious from context that they were on the ground and what they were shooting at.

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• One of the helicopters, a Cougar EC725 carrying eighteen passengers, was hit on its tail and shot down with a Russian-made RPG-27 rocket launcher obvious from the context that it was shot down, and it sounds almost as if being shot down was not directly related to the hit

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• The helicopter was shot six times and was hit twice Suggest that you be more specific here. Are they using weapons other than the grenade launchers mentioned? If not, "Insurgents fired six missiles at the helicopter and hit it twice" would be better.

 Done Used "assailants" instead of "insurgents" to avoid any NPOV issues. Cartels in Mexico are rarely called "insurgents". MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• but they were unable to strike it with their RPG launchers Suggest "but they missed"

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• The CJNG gunmen then made their way to where the helicopter crashed and attempted to execute any remaining living passengers. Obvious from the next sentence that they did not succeed

 Done MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Removals: I'm not sure what the purpose of this sentence is. The government confirmed that they were planning to carry out a homage to honor the servicemen killed in the attack First, do you mean organizing a ceremony or building a physical memorial? It also might go better in the "Government and civilian reactions" section.

 Done You're right. I moved this to the Government reaction section and changed "homage" → "ceremony". MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reactions

• Morales suffered 70 degree burns in his body As far as I know, there are only first-degree burns through third-degree burns. The source says that he suffered burns on 70% of his body; is that what you meant?

 Done Yes, you are right. Fixed. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Post-GOCE

@Catrìona: Hello! Seems like GOCE has concluded the copyedits. Please let me know what your next steps are in this nomination. Just FYI, I'll have limited access to Wikipedia starting Friday afternoon. Should be back on Tuesday, though I can probably respond through my mobile if there is anything urgent (on the fence whether I should take my laptop for my short visit to northern Mexico ). Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 04:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MX, I think that it will pass very shortly. I just have to double-check the licences of the images you added, do some more checking of the sources, and read through the article again to make sure there wasn't anything I missed the first time around. Have a great time in Mexico! Catrìona (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It all looks good, so I've passed it,noting that I did not check every single source, but I did check a significant number of them and AGF on the rest. The only thing that might be concerning is that the picture of the Guadalajara street does not have metadata, so I've removed it until the status is sorted out. Thanks for all your hard work on this article. Catrìona (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed