| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was suggested at its GA review. The reviewer suggested for an editor that is fluent in English (given that it is not my first language and I often make some prose mistakes).
Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've done a copy edit and got rid of the problems I spotted. Below are my comments that need to be followed up:
- "Mexico's leading news magazine known for its anti-political establishment publications." - two points here: 1) is it a leading news magazine, or is it THE leading news magazine. Not really clear here, and 2) is it the leading news magazine that is "known for its anti-political establishment publications"? or simply a leading magazine that is also know for those publications... Also "leading" is rather subjective. Perhaps something clearer like "national" "high profile" or other...
Done
- "small municipality of the state of Veracruz" - somewhat odd wording, perhaps better to call is a village or a town?
- Done
- "In Veracruz, Martínez Pérez was defied and censored by the political establishment for her direct reporting" - how was she "defied" (in my mind you can only really "defy" someone who has power. This doesn't seem to be the case here? this might not be the right word here. was she actually censored? this should be laid out more specifically in the article as right now these are rather vague allegations and it could be useful background.
- Done
- "Investigators have relied solely on the suspect's confession to incriminate him; the DNA and fingerprint samples collected at the murder scene did not match the suspect's according to ...." it should be made clear who is saying this.
- Done
- "But after demanding better working conditions and facing censorship from the company" - this might be best elaborated on. To me, censorship isn't necessarily the best word here. A TV station doesn't really "censor" its own employees. It could happen I suppose, but it might be better to lay out more clearly exactly what she was being prevented from saying or doing.
Not done Source says "Tras una revuelta para demandar mejores condiciones laborales y no tolerar la censura en la empresa paraestatal Televisión Rural Mexicana", so I don't really know how to word it. I'm assuming that since the company was state-owned, she probably perceived that the state government did not want some of her reports to be aired, considering that she was known for criticizing politicians. [1]
- Well, if that's what the source says, then I guess we can stick to that. But for the long run improvement of the article it is something that could be elaborated. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- "later joined the leading news magazine Proceso" - the use of the word leading is a bit loaded. Perhaps national, or high profile?
- Done
- "Throughout its rule, the PRI governed Mexico with a mixed combination of neoliberal policies, populist handouts, and allegedly corrupt elections" - I think this is an WP:NPOV violation. The wording should be changed to either reflect who is making the allegations, or make them a bit more netural. "populist handout" is definitely problematic. I might just cut the sentence entirely as I'm not sure it is necessary for this article.
- Done
- "The party has long been criticized for being corrupt and allowing the drug trafficking organizations in the country to operate freely if they maintained relative peace." - it should be made clearer who is saying this, and it should probably be given more context, and some defense of the policy from the PRI.
- ""Democratic transition never quite reached Veracruz," a state of 8 million people. PRI governors in Veracruz continued to rule with the state with tactics largely abandoned by the PRI at a national level" - this also needs to be clearly attributed.
- Done
- In general I would be careful to make it slightly more NPOV. We have to keep in mind that wikipedia is not an investigative journal. It should take care to present the situation neutrally, and the opinions of the authorities should be reflected in the article. It isn't too bad now, but I think it needs to be slightly improved in this aspect. Also, the "Background" section is a bit harsh on the PRI. I think that more could be done to present their view, or to put their actions in greater context, and make it clear who is making which allegations. Let me be clear, this does not mean to whitewash the article of facts that put them in a bad light, but rather to include their justifications or context.
- Overall, a valuable article. Perhaps a translation could be added to the Spanish language wikipedia? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)