Talk:2010 Copiapó mining accident/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: ten found and tagged. Recommend that you use WebCite to archive the news links as most will expire within the next few months. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

'::Other references check out OK.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Chile has a long tradition in mining, "of" not "in" - Done Veriss (talk)
 *  a company that is notoriously dangerous in the mineral-rich region and, clumsy - Reworded Veriss (talk)
 * Mine workers at this mine were paid around 20% higher wages than at other Chilean mines, due to its poor safety record. "Mine workers at this mine" is clumsy - Reworded Veriss (talk)
 * Food supplies were limited and the men had lost an average of 8 kilograms (18 lb) each. was this at the time of reaching the surface or at the time it was discovered they were alive? - Clarified Veriss (talk)
 * Once the trapped miners had been found with exploratory bore holes and several bore holes were being used to supply the men logistically, the Chilean government developed a comprehensive rescue plan modeled after the successful 2002 US Quecreek Mine Rescue operation which was in turn based on the 1963 German Wunder von Lengede rescue operation. Over complex and very poor grammar. - Split complex sentence and simplified Veriss (talk)
 * As illustrated in the graphic to the right, it was the Schramm T-130, Plan B, that reached the miners on Oct. 9. the graphic may display differently in different browsers so should not be directly referred to in this. - Removed direct reference to graphic and removed redundant sentence, also demoted that sub-section for visual balance Veriss (talk)
 * While the three separate drills pushed relentlessly downward "relentlessly" is a weasel word. - Removed Veriss (talk)
 * ''The steel rescue capsules, dubbed Fénix (English: Phoenix) were constructed by the Chilean Navy with design help from NASA.@@ This repeats information from the previous paragraph. - Removed redundancy Veriss (talk)
 * Bulleted lists should be converted to prose - Done, many copy edits for readability except the list of "Key members of the trapped group" since I don't think that was intended Veriss (talk)
 * An Australian documentary will be broadcast in December 2010.[170] It is now March 2011 - Removed, didn't find current information on it Veriss (talk)
 * Social impact section needs severe pruning and removal of trivia. - pruned 50%, merged remainder into other section Veriss (talk)
 * The lead does not fully summarise the article, please read WP:LEAD - initial attempt to make lead more comprehensiveVeriss (talk)
 * I think you need to get someone to copy-edit the article to render it into good plain English. - Listed article for review at the Guild of Copyeditors Veriss (talk)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ten dead links as noted above. The expiring news links which provide the bulk of references need to be archived using WebCite. - Apparently the old WebCite bot is broken and replacements have fizzled. Looks like we need to manually input 170 references as well as find replacements for the ten deadlinks.  Suggestions? This is new ground for me. Veriss (talk)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Over detailed in parts, please go through the article again, pruning out material such as comparative credit ratings (which change rapidly). Also some statement may need updating now, nearly six months after the rescue. Also please note the comment about newly published sources such as franklin, below.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I note the discussion on the talk page. Has any editor got hold of books such as Jonathan Franklin's book The 33  This would also apply to the broad coverage criteria.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * Rather too many images, some of them repetitive. sel;ect key images which add to the artcile rather than turning it into an image gallery of photos of the president greeting miners, football matches, etc.
 * I removed six images and relocated some of the remaining for visual balance. Several were already in daughter articles and I will look at including more of the deleted images in them if appropriate.  Veriss (talk)
 * I removed six images and relocated some of the remaining for visual balance. Several were already in daughter articles and I will look at including more of the deleted images in them if appropriate.  Veriss (talk)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I believe that there are too many issues outstanding for this to reach the criteria in a week. Please consider the points raised and re-list when all have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review corrections
Frankly, we failed Good Article review. I have posted within the scorecard above the remedial actions I have taken so far. I have already requested assistance from the guild of Guild of Copyeditors.

I need more help on these items:


 * The WP:LEAD
 * Comprehensive copy-edit
 * Using Webcite to archive 170 sources and citations
 * Rescuing at least ten dead links
 * Pruning overly detailed sections
 * Reviewing outdated statements

-Sincerely Veriss (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to revisit this effort. Will these comments to a nearly two-year old review be seen by anyone? Veriss (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As part of a self-initiated assessment drive for WikiProject Mining, I just saw this, and have been working to a general improvement of mining articles; I want to help, though admittedly my experience is mostly in general work, formatting, style, and copyediting, not deep citations or the like. Let me know what I can do to help. Morgan Riley (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)