Talk:Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/Archive 1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leyla Express and Johnny Express incidents/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll do this one in a few days, since I've already looked it over for DYK and it seems to be in pretty decent shape. Canadian Paul 16:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Great work on this, I only have two real concerns:

1. Under "Background", "The Miami Herald reported that all four had been involved in activities directed against Fidel Castro." For citation purposes, it would be helpful here to note in citation #5 that it was originally published in the Miami Herald, which would help for identification purposes (since if that particular site went down, we'd be able to find that information by looking up the original news article, which will never "disappear" in every form), as well as indicate that it's meant to support this statement, particularly as this is a potentially contentious statement given the topic. This is I think of extra importance because there are several parts where you mention what the "Miami Herald" said, yet none of the actual citations mention the Miami Herald.
2. I think that the lead may be straddling the line at MOS:LEADLENGTH and I think that it could easily be cut down a little. For example, in the third paragraph "A Panamanian mission which investigated the incident concluded, based on the ships logs, that the vessels had in fact brought insurgent forces to Cuban territory, and that the Cuban government's accusations were accurate" seems redundant to the final sentence of the second paragraph.

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 09:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Canadian Paul: Those are both good points. I have trimmed the lead a little, and also added the "work" parameter to the Miami Herald citation. Let me know if that addresses your concerns, and if there's anything else. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now, so I'm going to go ahead and pass it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 10:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)