Talk:Che Guevara/GA1

GA Review

The result was a pass. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Resolved

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

Here I will be conducting the review of Che Guevara over the next few days.

GA criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Issues

1. The prose is good and pleasant to read. I have weeded out a two instances of "would" ("in his diaries he would bristle" and "Guevara would dismiss him"), which is out of encyclopedic style in this editors opinion.

2. Generally well sourced except for a few paragraphs with possibly contentious statements and some weasly non-attribution of viewpoints. ("was variously attributed to", "Castro ... considered him a potential threat", "Castro's critics sometimes say", "According to western observers":

Paragraphs needing sources:

"His disappearance was variously attributed to the failure of the industrialization scheme he had advocated while minister of industry, to pressure exerted on Castro by Soviet officials disapproving of Guevara's pro-Chinese Communist stance on the Sino-Soviet split, and to serious differences between Guevara and the pragmatic Castro regarding Cuba's economic development and ideological line. Castro had grown increasingly wary of Guevara's popularity and considered him a potential threat. Castro's critics sometimes say his explanations for Guevara's disappearance have always been suspect."

"The coincidence of Guevara's views with those expounded by the Chinese Communist leadership was increasingly problematic for Cuba as the nation's economy became more and more dependent on the Soviet Union. Since the early days of the Cuban revolution, Guevara had been considered by many an advocate of Maoist strategy in Latin America and the originator of a plan for the rapid industrialization of Cuba which was frequently compared to China's "Great Leap Forward". According to Western observers of the Cuban situation, the fact that Guevara was opposed to Soviet conditions and recommendations that Castro pragmatically saw as necessary, may have been the reason for his disappearance. However, both Guevara and Castro were supportive publicly on the idea of a united front."

3. No problems here.

4. The last edit conflict seems to have been around july 19th when it was discussed whether the epithet "mass executioner" should be in the lead. It seems to me that this issue has been satisfyingly resolved. (I agree that putting such a title in the lead would breach NPOV, TERRORIST and UNDUE). This article will always attract conflicting viewpoints, and I admire the matter of factish neutrality that has been achieved in the article. The article passes on the Neutrality issue.

5. As mentioned this article will probably never be 100% stable, and conflicts are bound to surge and resurge form time to time. However it does not seem that there is currently any conflicts about the contents of the article among the contributors.

6. Very finely illustrated. No problems here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In Short, when the sourcing issues of the two abovementioned paragraphs are resolved I believe the article will pass. I shall read the article through a couple of more times, checking specific sourcing, to discover any issues I might have missed at first reading. But I think overall the article has GA quality.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On Hold

At the most inconvenient time an editor has posted an RfC on the article for neutrality concerns. This forces me to put the articles review on hold untill we see the outcome of the RfC. Personally I don't believe the RfC or neutrality concerns are warranted, but we will have to abide by consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

if the current neutrality debate is not solved by monday august 17. I will have to fail the article on neutrality concerns.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• My advice is no, The RfC should not be allowed to prevent the GA review from concluding. I recommend ignoring the 7-day guideline for GA holds in this case. It is just a guide, and some of us don't stick to it on lots of reviews, particularly if editor(s) are actively resolving quality issues. There are also risks here that sticking to a 7-day hold limit, thus forcing a GA fail, could in the long run encourage 'gaming the system' (though I am NOT saying that is a motivation of ANY editor in this case). My advice is to let the discussion take its course, allow an uninvolved editor to close it early if appropriate (I will consider that option, but this would be my first such RfC, so I may lack sufficient experience) and then conclude the GA review. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, Vision Thing and I were able to reach agreement above on the lead. As for the Rfc, short of any editors bringing additional pov concerns (or additional participation by Leytewolfer who asked for the Rfc), I believe that you would be justified in continuing your review.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Having discussed the matter with several other experience Ga reviewers I have decided not to fail the article for instability concerns. I will keep the article on hold however untill the current string of improvements and discussions on the talk page dies down. I have plenty of time and I will conclude the review when the editors agree that the article is in its best state.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be stable now. I'll pass it.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)