Talk:Enriqueta Medellín

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enriqueta Medellín/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 16:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check: I reviewed the four matches over 5% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns. (titles etc.)

Images: Appropriate. Both CC. Captions and positioning are fine. Good ALT text.

Early life and education

• "Ph.D" should be "PhD" according to the table at MOS:ABBR.

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Career

• Might be useful to explain "Fraccionamiento Bosques"

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Enriqueta Legorreta, Medellín's mother issued - should there be a comma after "mother"?

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Templo de los Dolores - is this a church? Maybe add a word or two to say what it is. Does it need to be in italics?

• yes, added, no. ;)  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Optionally, place refs in numerical order (currently [7][4]; .[7][9][5])

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at MOS:ITALIC and specifically MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, I don't think that the names of awards and the Queta Medellín Ecological Center should be in italics here, but I might be persuaded. (Also applies to the lead).

• fixed SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Premio al Mérito Ecológico doesn't have a translation, but other awards do.

• added SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and legacy

• Optionally, re-order refs where it has [27][25]

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Enriqueta Medellín Prize be in italics? Other prizes are mentioned in Spanish with translations, but not this one, but it's not a necesssity to change it here.

• fixed (I think I have provided translations for everything except the 2 state parks, which don't translate, or not in any machine I am aware of.)

Selected works

• The 2008 entry has the translated title as part of the link, but the other entries don't.

• Absolutely no clue how to do that. Trans-title is the translation of the name of the work. Because the 2008 entry is a chapter in a book, I had to manually input the chapter translations [x] or it wouldn't be there at all. I promise, I cannot think like a programmer, so I have zero clue why the trans-title for a book is not included in the link. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like adding "trans-chapter" worked - but please check it's OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Optionally, you could standardise the ISBN format used. (Hyphenator makes this easy)

•  Done SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

• FamilySearch is regarded as "Generally unreliable" (WP:RSP. The other sources seem appropriate.

• The material used is not user-generated content and the link you gave, plainly says "FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability". FamilySearch in this instance is regarded as primary. There is a vast difference between primary sources created by a government or official entity to record life events and user-generated materials. Our guidelines definitely allow limited use of primary sources "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". In this case, no analysis is needed to confirm that the record states "M^a Enriqueta Medellín y Legorreta: Bautismo 12 de diciembre de 1948, Cuauhtémoc, Ciudad de México, México; nacio 10 de diciembre de 1948…legitima de Mario Medellín O. y Enriqueta Legorreta" and is used because it is the only document that gives the complete date of birth. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this explanation. I consider the source acceptable in the circumstances. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checks on the uses of Rodríguez 2022 and Sociedad de Autores y Compositores de México 2019 in the Early life and education section (with machine-assisted translation) - no issues.
• Spot check on the uses of El Clarinete 2022 in Death and legacy (with machine-assisted translation) - no issues.

Infobox and lead

• In the infobox, years active has "1985–2018". Template:Infobox person states that his parameter should show the "Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable". As the text reads at the moment, there is mention of what she and the family did following the The 1985 Mexico City earthquake which doesn't seem to fit "principal occupation(s) and/or other activity". The preceding sentence mentions "became known for her environmental activism", which logically would mean that her environmental activism started in 1985 or before, but it's not explicit. Also, it's not clear to me why 2018 is mentioned.

• Easiest just to remove dates entirely. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's not all that helpful in most cases IMO. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• A really engaging read, great work. I'll take another look later and do a few spot checks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• BennyOnTheLoose Thank you so much for reviewing her. I truly appreciate your attention to detail and collaboration in improving the article. Since I wrote it, I learned a new trick for coding text-to-speech reader format and have tried to implement the templates throughout, which eliminates the italic issue. Hopefully I have addressed all the issues, but if not, please just ping me. SusunW (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot checks on sources were fine. Based on what I've seen in sources, the coverage in the article is appropriate for a GA. No NPOV issues. I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, so am passing it. Well done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]