Talk:Burgos trials/GA1

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

Reviewer: JPxG (talk · contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll do my best! jp×g 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! It's very kind of you to take this one on. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, for this one I will use the same scale as I do for all my reviews.
 * ✅ Checked and verified to be good, no issue.
 * ✅ Not an applicable concern.


 * ❌ This thing needs to be fixed or clarified.
 * ❌ This thing has been fixed or clarified.


 * This thing should be fixed, but I won't hold up a "pass" for it.
 * Huh?

Copyvio

 * ✅ Earwig's scanner finds nothing. I will be looking through the sources from the article, and seeing if there are any copies/close paraphrases, as well.

Stability

 * ✅ Article has been stable since its creation. While this is a subject that could be controversial, it hasn't been.

Media

 * Not convinced that File:ETA BASQUE.png is the work of the uploader, but would need a big-brain copyright knower to tell me the deal with that. However, it does illustrate the article well.
 * ✅ File:Gregorio Peces-Barba (2011).jpg is freely licensed, and shows a guy who is talked about in the article.
 * ✅ File:Txiki Otaegi 0001.jpg is freely licensed, and relevant to the subject as well.

Focus / scope / coverage / completeness

 * ✅ The article is good at explaining the background for who ETA was, why they existed, and why people gave a damn about them.
 * ✅ The article covers the trials themselves in a fair amount of detail, for the most part.
 * ❌ It says there were sixteen ETA members put on trial, but I don't see all sixteen of them mentioned anywhere. I found a list from Casanova's book, but Sullivan seems to disagree about a few of the names. Some clarification is needed.
 * Looks like there is a totally different list at Procès de Burgos. Go figure.


 * ❌ six defendants were given death penalties: who?
 * It seems a little light on what the ETA guys had to say at their trial. In Sullivan 2015, for example, it goes off at length about "Itziar Aizpurua, one of the three women among the accused, set the mood [...] the refusal to allow children to speak Euskera in school and by the authorities' prohibition of Basque cultural events". This seems like it might be nice to have in the article.

Prose / MoS

 * "Unai Dorronsoro [es] and his wife Loren" Unai's wife, yes?
 * "three of which were awarded a symbolic second execution." I don't generally think of being executed as an "award", but if this is a technical term, I guess it's fine.
 * I know it sounds macabre but I believe "to award a punishment" is a really a technical term. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ref check

 * The bibliography is above the references. Why?
 * Just my negligence. It's been moved down. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ Ref 1 (Obituary): This is inaccessible, as is the archived version. The link seems to go to https:&#47;/global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx, which doesn't seem like an obituary to me. Is this correct?
 * Ref 2 (Muro 2013, 105): Could not access this source, will try to find some other way to get at it.
 * ✅ Ref 3 (Guardian): Reliable source that backs up everything it says. While the Guardian is politically opinionated, that's not really relevant to what it's being sourced for.
 * Ref 4 (Casanova 2007, 117-118): Backs up what's cited to it. Was able to get a list of the defendants' names out of there too. Reliability of the source is questionable, though.
 * ❌ There is a major issue with this book as a source, as there was for the same author's works in Talk:Eva Forest/GA1: the author (Iker Casanova) was in prison from 2000 to 2011 for being a member of an armed gang related to ETA ("fue condenado a 11 años de prisión por pertenencia a banda armada dentro del sumario 18/98 seguido contra varias organizaciones del entorno de ETA"). It definitely does not seem to me like a neutral source, and should probably not be used.
 * ✅ Ref 5 (Sullivan 2015, 94): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.  (This was previously Ref 8, but I added a sentence from it earlier and now it is Ref 5)
 * This page mentions a Jesús Abrisqueta Corta among the sixteen, who is not mentioned in any other sources. Huh?
 * ✅ Ref 6 (El Mundo) has been added to clarify who Casanova is, and what his deal is.


 * Ref 7 (Casanova 2007, 118-119): Verified and inline attribution supplied, for source of questionable impartiality.
 * ✅ Ref 8 (NYT "Trial"): Quite a reliable source, and backs up what is cited to it. In my opinion, this source should be used for more stuff, and Casanova for less.
 * Ref 9 (Casanova 2007, 119): Verified and inline attribution supplied, for source of questionable impartiality.
 * ✅ Ref 10 (NYT "Freed"): Reliable source, and backs up what is cited to it.
 * ✅ Ref 11 (Sullivan 2015, 92): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.
 * ✅ Ref 12 (Sullivan 2015, 95): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.
 * ✅ Ref 13 (Sullivan 2015, 95-96): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.
 * ✅ Ref 14 (Sullivan 2015, 95-97): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me. It was being quoted in a way thatseemed to present the author's opinion as fact, so I have supplied attribution for it.
 * ✅ Ref 15 (Sullivan 2015, 98): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.
 * ❌ Ref 16 (NoticiasFinancieras): This ref is a dead link, and attempting to rescue it with an archived version also gives a redirect. Like Ref 1, the link is just to https:&#47;/global.factiva.com/ga/default.aspx, which doesn't look like it was ever an article. What's going on with that?
 * ✅ Ref 17 (Sullivan 2015, 98-99): This is an academic source, and everything referenced to it is in it. Checks out fine to me.
 * ✅ Ref 18 (NYT "Commutes"): Added some stuff from here. A reliable source that backs up everything that's cited to it.
 * ❌ Ref 19 (El País 2009): The same problem exists here as with the other references which, instead of going to news articles, point to a default landing page at "factiva.com". Huh?
 * Ref 20 (Muro 2013, 106): Can't verify this one, but what it says seems to be broadly in line with other references. Would it be possible to supplement cites to this one with other sources (like Sullivan and the NYT cites, which I believe support these statements as well)?
 * ❌ Ref 21 (Obituary): This appears to be the exact same as Ref 1, and the two should be combined. Also, like Ref 1, goes to the landing page at "factiva.com".
 * Ref 22 (Halimi 1971): Couldn't verify this one either, but it's mentioned on this page as well, which cites this article. Might be something in there?
 * ✅ Ref 23 (El País 1976): This one checks out.

Conclusion
Wow, what a wild ride! You were right that this article is quite a bit better sourced than Eva Forest. I will be happy to pass, as soon as the above issues (incl. the bizarre "factiva.com" references and the strangely elusive list of defendants) can be fixed. jp×g 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping. jp×g 03:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . A few points about the main issues before I make any larger changes:


 * 1) the list of defendants seems to be rather elusive indeed. Maybe that's why I left out the names in the first place (I don't remember why). To do justice to the situation, we could indicate the count in one source ("according to Sullivan, there 16 people were accused"), and add a concession that other sources have 15 names other names. Given the differences with regard to the names, I'm still not entirely convinced they need to be listed. Going back to just the number would save us the complications of figuring out who was and wasn't accused. If we keep the names, my preference would be to change the bullet point list into prose text; I think it blends in better with the rest of the article that way. I won't make any changes to this before hearing back from you, though.


 * 2) Re. Factiva. I think I can clear this up. Factiva is the newspaper database I use for most articles. It's quite good but doesn't go back very far, so it's useless for pre 1970s topics. I've discovered some time ago that you can't link Factiva entries here because I access the site via my institution. Although it sounds weird, there really was/is an obituary behind that link. I just forgot to remove the useless link. What I normally do is not to provide a url and cite these items like the offline newspapers they originally were. [I've now taken the liberty to remove the Factiva links and re-format as ordinary offline news items.]
 * Oh, that explains everything. I was seriously baffled -- they looked like real sources, so I was wondering if someone had gone through and hijacked the URLs at some point. jp×g 17:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 3) Re. Casanova. I totally understand why he is a compromised source for this topic, too. I still believe he can be used to verify non-controversial information like the day the trial began or the names of the defendants. But it might be wise to use a more impartial source for the stuff further down in "Buildup to the trial". If we decide to keep using Casanova, we might have to reconsider the verb "claimed", whereby we indicate that he may have been lying. I think it would be okay to say "wrote" etc. as long as there's the information that he was involved with ETA. Since this is a problem largely confined to one section, it should be easy to fix. I'll try verifying some of the information with other sources.


 * 4) Re. Muro (2013). The pages cited in the text came from the excerpt available via Google Books. Don't be deterred by the fact that GBooks says that only 30 pages are available: those include the pages we need. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've now had a go at the "Buildup" section. I have solved the names problems by removing the bullet point list, sourcing the 16 with a NYT article, and by adding an explanatory footnote saying that the exact names given vary. I've also tried sourcing some from Casanova's statements from Muro and Sullivan. For some of his information, I have not found a good alternative source but I've tried to make clear that these are his views and not necessarily facts. Together with the relative clause saying that he was a member of ETA this might be enough to reduce his weight as a source. We could, if you preferred, get rid of Casanova entirely by scrapping what's left of him. But I think there could be value in an non-independent like this if used judiciously and with appropriate caveats. These should be the main points. As ever, feel free to adjust the article yourself. Please let me know what you think + what else needs to be addressed. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * my apologies for the renewed ping. I just wanted to see whether you'd had the chance to read my last comment. It would be great if you could let me know where things stand with regard to the above issues. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry about the delay, I have been consumed with a variety of offline goings-on lately. I will be getting to this shortly, however. jp×g 18:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry for prodding you again. Could you give me an idea of when we might start ironing out the remaining issues? I don't think we have far to go. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My biggest sorries on holding this up a month. The edits look good, and I'll pass now. jp×g 03:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)