Talk:Valor por Tamaulipas

Closure updates

The page has been closed and re-opened by other users under the same name. I'll be updating soon. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ComputerJA (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] ComputerJA (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

VxT stays

[15] ComputerJA (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

[16] ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Computer JA, I'll be glad to take this one. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review on it. I hope to have initial comments up by the end of the day, but it'll be sometime in the next 1-5. Thanks in advance for your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Cool, thank you! Take as much as you need to. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Okay, this looks good on first pass. Source checks don't show any problems with accuracy or copyvio/close paraphrasing so far. I've tinkered with the language here and there; feel free to revert any change to which you object. I've also noted some points as I went for clarity, style, neutrality, etc. below. Let me know what you think--always a pleasure to work with you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• "administrator" is probably more encyclopedically appropriate (being more formal) unless the individual specifically identifies themself as an admin. Even then we might write "admin (administrator)" for clarity

•  Done I changed it to administrator. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• ""... [is] spotty, sometimes unreliable, but often the only source of what [is] happening"" -- this opinion should be attributed to a speaker in-text

•  Done

• "a strategic route" -- is the word "strategic" here? I'm not sure what the difference between a strategic and nonstrategic route would be

•  Done I changed it to "major route". I hope this is fine. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Since 2004, however, Tamaulipas has been a major battleground for rival drug trafficking organizations that fight for the control of the state's smuggling routes." --this seems redundant with the paragraph's first two sentences--could this sentence simply be cut?

•  Done

• "journalist and blogger María Elizabeth Macías Castro was decapitated by Los Zetas" -- though the infererence can obviously be made, the source doesn't appear to explicitly attribute this to Los Zetas; could we simply say she was decapitated?

•  Done Facepalm Not sure how I missed that but I added a source from CPJ that attributes the attack to Los Zetas. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The first threat that the admin of Valor por Tamaulipas received was when" -- is this really a "threat" compared to what came later? Might just say flatly that this rival page was created without comment.

•  Done You're right. The creation of the page doesn't necessarily count as a threat. It's more of a "competition/direct challenge" against the page than a threat. In the Spanish source, El Universal sent a set of questions to the admin. In the third question the admin says that he considered the creation of Anti-Valor por Tamaulipas the "first credible" threat by organized crime. Should I add this information by attributing it to him? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "It alleged since its creation that the information spread by Valor por Tamaulipas" -- two points here. First, it would be better to say "stated" than alleged, per WP:WTW. Second, "since its creation" seems a little awkward and unnecessary; I wonder if it can simply be cut.

•  Done and noted for next time! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Through an e-mail response, " -- I'm not quite sure what this means. Did he e-mail a media outlet to tell them? Which source are you looking at for that part?

•  Done My mistake, I thought that Proceso had sent a set of questions to VxT like other media outlets did. After re-reading the source I found out that that statement was posted on the FB page. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've taken out the word "users" since that doesn't seem quite right for this format. Feel free to revert if you disagree, though.

• I like your copyedits. Everything looks fine.

• (presumably an organized crime assassin) -- can this simply be cut? I'm not sure it's explicitly supported by that source.

•  Done Proceso source says that the video was allegedly uploaded by organized crime (source: En el video, subido presuntamente por el crimen organizado) [17] This may have been a slight synthesis on my part. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "it reported executions, risk situations, armed drug traffickers in the streets, and other drug-related activities that are commonplace in Tamaulipas's criminal underworld" -- this seems a little redundant.

•  Done Simplified by removing it entirely. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "the admin decided to keep the page" -- did he decide to leave the page up, or to keep maintaining it?

•  Done Fixed.

• "(Organized crime's alleged response page)" It would be better to say "Response page, allegedly by organized crime"

•  Done .

• The image of the logo needs a caption. ("Valor por Tamaulipas logo" or some such) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Changed to infobox b/c I couldn't find the logo description one the last one. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review and the previous copyedits! There's always something to learn from you every time we encounter. Let me know if any other changes are needed. Regards, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. My stepson's staying with us this weekend but I'll be back "on duty" Tuesday to hopefully finish this off. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, enjoy the weekend. My girlfriend's birthday is today, so I'll likely be off duty too till Monday. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Review of sources and a quick Google check show no significant omitted aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Image is properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

• Thanks for the review! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)