Talk:Sara Braun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:49, 27 October 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.	Did a copyedit for minor issues - nothing big, looks good. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	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.	I'm a little concerned about the dependence on the second source, Sara Braun's will. This is cited for information about her family's movements and other things you wouldn't expect to find in a will. Is it that descriptive - and isn't it a primary source, not a secondary one? Want to make sure we steer clear of WP:OR. Issue addressed. Pass. The first paragraph of 'Early career' is uncited - which source is it relying on? Issue addressed.
	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 look good - all in Spanish, so assume good faith - Google translate suggests they are being used accurately.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hold per above. Issue addressed. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else major comes up from research. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good balance of understanding of Braun and Chiloe more broadly.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues.
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.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues. Perhaps one more image would be good, of her younger/older or with her family or workers, but if it's not available, the current ones are sufficient.
	7. Overall assessment.

Responses

Ganesha811 Thanks for the review. I couldn't figure out how to reply without making a new section (I am terrible at technical stuff on WP :) .)

1. I'm not sure why changes were made making many paragraphs of the lede, but typically per the MOS "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs..." I typically do not revert other people's edits, but this really should go back to the way it was previously to comply with the MOS.

2a. Gallegos, who wrote the article, which contains a transcription of the will, provided a list of sources for his article. It is clearly a secondary source, written by Gallegos. The only parts that came directly from the will (and required no interpretation, so are not OR were the list of her siblings' names and the note on her birth discrepancy). Though I did obviously read the will, the summary written of her life was taken from Gallegos' words.

I freaked out when you said a paragraph was unsourced. I knew that meant someone else had edited the article, as I am a stickler for citations and removing information which cannot be sourced. Your edit here broke the sourcing citation. Though there are WP editors who cite every sentence, that is redundant and not necessary. In academic citation, unless there is a paragraph break, any text preceding the citation is from the cited source. Thus, in this case, before you made a new paragraph, it was cited to source 2, which I have readded. Looking at the article, as it now is, I see that by making new paragraphs, citations throughout the document have been broken. My preference would be to remove all the paragraph breaks and restore the original layout, but if you want me to leave it as is and input citations where you have broken the cite, I will. Please advise.

6b. I wanted to use the sheep farming photograph on the article of the Exploitation Society, but in reviewing it, I could not confirm that it was in the public domain, so did not add it to the article. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response to my comments. My preference generally is for shorter paragraphs for readability, but I understand that in this case that may go against the way the article has been written and (in the lead) the MoS. I'll go back through my edits to make sure nothing was overly disruptive, and make changes where necessary.

I'm glad to hear that the Gallegos source is secondary - all good there. Regarding the picture, sounds good. I'll look back over my copyedits, as mentioned, and then wrap up the GA review. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I should also add - I'm sorry for causing you to freak out! That was not my intention and I apologize. When doing GA reviews, I usually try to be bold and make grammar/paragraph fixes where I can rather than bugging the nominator about them, but in this case I clearly was much less helpful than intended. I think it would be best if you, as mentioned, input citations where I broke the citations with paragraph breaks. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL. The things I do well on here, I am persnickety about. There's a lot I have no idea how to do, but research, writing, and citations, I am really diligent about. It took me a bit, as I wanted to re-read and make sure that the citations were correct, but I think there are now no uncited paragraphs. I obviously prefer longer paragraphs. The only thing that requires care, when changing the style of paragraph is to ensure that no citations are broken. That is an easy way to get an article delisted which has been reviewed, when all it was was an editing error. Let me know if I need to do anything else. Still no idea how to fix these comments so they are not in the table, but *sigh* that's above my pay grade and skill. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a a great article! Pass! I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)