Talk:Roberto Cofresí /Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

Needs lots of work on the prose, which is awkward and unencyclopedic

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Prose needs a lot of work to eliminate awkward phrasing and the tone of the writing could be more encyclopedic
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I have concerns about a couple of the websites used as well as a few spots lacking references
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • Please use Template:Persondata on biographical articles.
  • Lots and lots of sentences and paragraphs start with "Cofresi..." which is repetitious. Consider rewording some.
  • The prose is somewhat stilted and very awkward. It could use a good copyedit by someone other than the main editors. I've done some of the most glaring awkward bits, but there are other places. It also has a lot of sentences that run on or contain unconnected ideas.
  • The tone of the prose is also somewhat unencyclopedic at times. An example is the section in the early life section that describes him daydreaming about life at sea.
  • Cofresi the pirate section, can we give the full name of De la Torre? Is there an article on him?
  • Same section and sentence. the sentence is awkward. "anit-piracy measures based on the economic losses" makes no sense at all. It needs to be reworded.
  • Imprisonment in the Dominican Republic section, fifth sentence is very run on. Consider breaking it up or otherwise rewording it. This section is also somewhat wordy, you might consider tweaking the prose a bit there too. The feel is very travelogue-ish, with lots of "they went here, did this, then went there"
  • Final years section. Second sentence of the first paragraph isn't a full sentence, it lacks a verb.
  • Same section, the third sentence is awkward, it gives the cargo in the first part and then switches to an attack by pirates. Also it's very much a run on sentence.
  • United States government version section, the second sentence is very awkward and unclear.
  • Same section, next sentence is also very awkward.
  • USS Grampus should be italicized
  • Aftermath section, sentence starting with "It was believed..." is awkward and needs rewording. Also, Catholic should be capitalized if you're referring to the church.
  • Influence section, last sentence of the first paragraph is awkward and needs rewording.
  • Same section, the whole first paragraph is opinion and needs source citations.
  • Same section, next paragraph, the first sentence is awkward.
  • Same section, the third paragraph needs work on awkwardness and encyclopedic tone.
  • The fourth paragraph of this section needs citations.
  • the fifth paragraph of this section needs work on the prose, it's awkward. Among other issues, it's "body of water" not "water body".
  • You need to give both metric and Imperial measurements. {{convert}} will do this for you.
  • The formatting of your references is inconsistent. The first footnote is in a different format than the others. Website references need publisher and last access date at the very minimum.
  • http://home.mindspring.com/~johnqu/Roberto%20Cofresi%20was%20a%20legitimate%20trader%20between%20Santo%20Domingo%20and%20Puerto%20Rico%20during%20Spain's%20rule%20over%20both%20islands.txt gives no sources or author for the information, what makes it a reliable source?
  • Likewise http://www.solboricua.com/, http://www.prfdance.org/cofresi.htm, http://welcome.topuertorico.org/index.shtml
I'm failing this article due to prose issues mainly, although there are concerns about references and reliable sources also. If you disagree with my decision, feel free to bring it up at WP:GAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything has been fixed and rehrased or re-written. Let, me explain one thing. When User:Caribbean H.Q., expanded the article (He did a wonderful job) he had to translate some of the information from the book which he cited, from Spanish to English. Spanish is his first language and his was not an easy task. That is the reason that the prose was out of place. The references have been fixed, there are some references mentioned such as http://www.prfdance.org/cofresi.htm that are from reliable Puerto Rican institutions such as the Puerto Rican Folkloric Dance & Cultural Center. In regard to the book reference Cuándo se hace pirata Cofresí." the publisher "Editorial Universitaria, Universidad de Puerto Rico" is mentioned. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice
I believe that all of the concerns have now been taken care of (4-3-08)
  • Thank you Nishkid64, for your welcomed observations. I have looked into your suggestions and you are definitely right. I have taken care of all concerns and I now believe that the article should be reconsidered for "GA" status. Do you agree? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • From a quick glance, the references look fine. I will look at the prose and offer my evaluation. I'll ask Ealdgyth if he will agree with my decision. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 11, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, just needed a tad more interwiki links Done
2. Factually accurate?: {{fact}} templates have been placed where it needs to be clear where the source for the information is. I should imagine in most cases this is simply the reference used at the end of the paragraph, in which cause it should just be used more than once, there isn't anything wrong with that. DONE
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass, good work on the mythology section espicially under this criteria
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass, very good use of images.


Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 11, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass (it's nice to see books being used instead of just websites!)
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass, I can't think of anything not covered
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass as above
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass as above

In general, the only way this article can be improved is simply by expansion where possible. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)