Talk:Torristas and Molinistas/GA1

GA Review

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: Reppop (talk · contribs) 06:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 05:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.	Question: Does 'President' need to be capitalized? I thought that since it was a formal title before the name that it should be capitalized? I see on these ([1] [2]) websites that they capitalize president before a name. OK. En-US is consistent Although the area was predominantly Mexican American, they had little elected representation in any legislature... "Although" is likely needless and the source does not even mention it. Changed to "The area was predominantly Mexican American, but had little elected representation in any legislature."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I see that there are multiple duplicate wlnks in the article, I would recommend removing them as per MOS:DL I can't really see them (might be missing them entirely), could you provide some examples? I have removed one. I have verified the content in the lede is backed up by reliable sources in the article. Layout is correct.No WtW are in the article. I want to note that this article uses the word "despite" a lot. Prehaps can be omitted or replaced by something? Changed two instances: Removed the first instance, changed to "Although Torres was endorsed by..." in the third instance OK. Passed. MOS:THETITLE is correct.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(optional) Add archived references. (optional but recommended) Prehaps use "Works cited" instead of "Sources" Changed to "Works cited".
	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).	NY Times, LA Times are reliable sources. All other sources appear to be secondary sources with no concerns of reliabilty. A thumbs up from me for criteria 2b.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Ref 20 does not mention In the early 2020s. Changed to "In 2024..." OK
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig noticed a minor issue: The area's first Latino politician was Ed Roybal, who was elected to the Los Angeles City Council in 1949 by a coalition of Latino, Jewish, and Black voters, with support from the Community Service Organization... could be slightly reworded (possibly: In 1949, a coalition of Black, Jewish and Latino voters). I changed it to "In 1949, a coalition of Black, Jewish and Latino voters elected Mexican-American Ed Roybal to the Los Angeles City Council with support from the Community Service Organization." OK. I will now start a spot-check. Completed. Passed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	GA doesn't ask for the "comprehensiveness" of FAs but this article is concise and does not go in to needless detail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Passed. No issues of neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Passed. No edit wars etc.
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.	Verified image licenses from the image sources
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images have good captions '
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed

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.