Home  

Random  

Nearby  



Log in  



Settings  



Donate  



About Wikipedia  

Disclaimers  



Wikipedia





Talk:Queen Lupa/GA1





Article  

Talk  



Language  

Watch  

Edit  


< Talk:Queen Lupa
Latest comment: 24 days ago by Grnrchst in topic GA Review
 


  • 1.2 Sources
  • 1.3 Broadness
  • 1.4 Checklist
  • 1.5 Responses
  • GA Review

    edit

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

    Nominator: Evrik (talk · contribs) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply


    Thank you for nominating this Women in Green's 6th edit-a-thon! I'm happy to take this on for review, as I'm very interested in Spanish history and folklore. Normally I do section-by-section comments, but this article is short enough that I'll provide comments on prose, sourcing and broadness instead.

    Prose

    edit

    Sources

    edit

    Broadness

    edit

    Checklist

    edit

    GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


    When I first started reading this article, it quickly became clear that it would not be meeting the criteria for reliable sourcing (2b) or broadness (3a). Having now reviewed it properly, I can confirm that is the case.
    1. Is it well written?
      A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
      Prose is clear and understandable, no obvious mistakes or errors.
      B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
      Lead section tells me very little about the subject. It should be rewritten and expanded a little.
    2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
      A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
      One duplicate source needs merging, but otherwise good on formatting.
      B. 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):  
      There's quite a few sources in this that I would consider questionable, from tourism websites to travel blogs to Twitter threads. Given the extent of scholarly research on the subject, I don't understand why we must resort to such sources as these.
      C. It contains no original research:  
      A couple cases where the text isn't verified by the cited sources. Inline citations for this information must be provided.
      D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
      No clear cases of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Checked manually and with Earwig's tool.[3]
    3. Is it broad in its coverage?
      A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
      There is absolutely no way that this article addresses all the main aspects of the topic. There is barely any information provided on literary and historiographical analysis of the character. The popular culture section also seems shockingly short, given that this is a character from popular folklore that has been depicted for hundreds of years.
      B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
      It's focused, yes, but way too short.
    4. Is it neutral?
      It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
      Article is very neutral, with no clear bias one way or the other.
    5. Is it stable?
      It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
      No reverts in a year of history. Only changes have been in response to 20-minute review.
    6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
      A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
      Leading image is a 15th century painting; gallery includes a newspaper page published before 1929, a Creative Commons photograph of a building taken with freedom of panorama, and another 15th century painting. All have valid PD or CC license tags.
      B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
      All images relevant to the article. Many more images can be found in the Galician article.
    7. Overall:
      Pass or Fail:  
      This article is still a long way off what I would consider worthy of a good article rating. The use of such questionable sources when so many scholarly sources on the subject are available (but unused) is a big blocker for me. But the main problem is broadness. When an article is this short, I usually assume it's because there aren't that many good sources on the subject. This is clearly not the case for this subject, and it is very clear that a mountain of information is left out here. I'd expect a lot more information on scholarly analysis of the legend, as well as some more about Lupa's pop culture depictions. I personally think this would qualify for a quick-fail, but as this is for an event, I'm happy to give you a week or two to work more on this article. Feel free to ping me if you have any further questions or if you feel like you've made substantial improvements that address the issues I've found here. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Responses

    edit

    @Grnrchst:, thank you for taking the time. My apologies if I messed up the sourcing. I think I got it all straightened out now. My responses to you comments are below. --evrik (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

    • I'm not comparing it to the other Wikipedia articles, I'm considering it against GA criteria. From what I've seen, there's still a good amount more that could be added, and there really is no need for this article to be leaning on tourist websites and travel blogs when so many reliable sources on the legend of Lupa exist. For example, there are stories about her from pig farmers,[4] how she converted her palace into a church,[5] how a "half-human monster" guards her treasure,[6] the motif of scallop shells in one of her stories and how it relates to Celtic paganism,[7] how her story is one of the few in Medieval Spain that includes a dragon,[8] etc. Even in the sources you have already cited, there's more information provided. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To do

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Add topic

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Lupa/GA1&oldid=1229366793"
     



    Last edited on 16 June 2024, at 12:01  


    Languages

     



    This page is not available in other languages.
     

    Wikipedia


    This page was last edited on 16 June 2024, at 12:01 (UTC).

    Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.



    Privacy policy

    About Wikipedia

    Disclaimers

    Contact Wikipedia

    Code of Conduct

    Developers

    Statistics

    Cookie statement

    Terms of Use

    Desktop