Talk:Salar de Punta Negra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

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.	Add "of" in first sentence of lead - "region of Chile" Typo: "Was" should be "While" at beginning of Human Activity section "stepping stone" should be "stepping stones" "In these sites furnaces..." sentence is unclear and possibly ungrammatical. Rephrase. In general the last paragraph (except the last two sentences) is somewhat muddled and awkwardly phrased. Issues have been fixed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Second sentence of lead runs on, should be reworked or split into two sentences. Add sentence to end of lead regarding current human activity, mining, etc First paragraph of "Geography and Geomorphology" section might be better suited for final section, "Human Activity"? Doesn't seem to fit with rest. Move or rephrase. Normally this kind of geographical context is more appropriate for a geography section IMO, as it refers more to geography than to human activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC) This phrase "has an often steep toe" is unclear or technical. Should be linked to explanatory article or rephrased. Quite a few redlinks - should probably be delinked or otherwise dealt with. Redlinks are not a problem in my opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Issues have been fixed. Pass.
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.	Pass. Well cited.
	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).	Sources are fine. Nominator is careful and checks sources. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not yet reviewed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. Spot check reveals no issues or overly close phrasing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Missing criminal Chilean investigation into mining damages (see below table for links) Addressed by nominator satisfactorily.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral indeed. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars. Most work done in 2018.
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.	No issues here. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi! Starting my review of this page. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Update: review begun. Page appears to be missing significant topic regarding Chilean investigation into damage of salt flat - see links:
  • http://www.chilesustentable.net/avanza-la-investigacion-por-danos-en-salar-de-punta-negra/
  • https://www.elciudadano.com/medio-ambiente/acusan-crimen-ambiental-de-bhp-minera-escondida-en-salar-de-punta-negra/02/08/
  • https://www.camara.cl/pdf.aspx?prmID=45120&prmTIPO=DOCUMENTOCOMISION

@Ganesha811: Addressed some issues. I'll need to look at these sources later but the first two look somewhat questionable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811:OK, after re-reading, I'd say that none of these should be used unless someone with better Spanish knowledge can vouch for their reliability. #1 and #2 look like advocacy sites and #3 is maybe also advocacy in front of the Chilean parliament. So not necessarily reliable sources. I think I got most other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I did a quick set of changes for grammar and checked over your changes, and all looks good! Passed!Ganesha811 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)