Talk:Caridad de la Luz

Citation style
The citation style used throughout the article is a bit haphazard; it's consistent, but it's not really the best that can be done. Converting to citation templates would make it a bit easier to keep things formatted correctly, but there are other ways to do this as well. It would also make it easier to clean up WP:DEADREFs and citations to non-English sources because there are some of these in the article as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone an converted the citations to using citation templates. The same style of presenting the information about each source can also be achieved without using template, but it's a little bit trickier to keep the formatting of each citation consistent without using templates. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Tone
There's a bit of MOS:PUFFERY and other promotion sounding text in the article which needs to be cleaned up. MOS:OPED type or words should also be avoided. Lastly, "Currently" doesn't seem to be a good name for a section heading per WP:RELTIME and it might be better to figure out something better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I myself removed what may be considered POV. However, I recommend tthat other editors when reviewing an article which they consider having POV material, to cooperate and remove them. It is quite easy to simply place a "tag" on an article when it is just as easy to make the required improvements, especially those with POV issues. This is a project where we all should cooperate as a group in improving not only the articles in the pedia, but Wikipedia in general. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you going through and cleaning things up a bit. I actually wasn't intending just to WP:TAGBOMB the article and leave things for someone else. I just couldn't do it myself at that particular time; so, I added the WP:TMC just to let others know about the problem. Anyway, I still think the "Currently" section should be renamed; it has the feel of a "Personal life" section for the most part and maybe the content about her workshop and being a spokesperson should be moved to another part of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right! I also agree on your observation regarding the "Currently" section. I believe that a section shouldn't even be titled that way since life is constantly in motion and therefore what is current now may change within the next second or so. I mean a person who reads an article a week from now may find a find a section named like that to be ridiculous if the subject in question has passed away. Later I shall re-name it. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Photos
Re photos: I restored the original photo positions. This yields a cleaner look and much better visual balance. I see no discernible reason for jamming the photos on top of the video boxes, which clutters the right side of page. If there is a compelling reason, please share on this talk page. Thank you, Sarason (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The location of the photos isn't as much of a concern as their size. Images shouldn't really be forced to fit a particular size since not everyone will read the article using the same type of device. WP:THUMB allows the software to "size" the image according to the device it's being used on or the preferences for the user reading the article; fixing the size defeats both those things. If the images seem too small, then there are ways of adjusting the thumb syntax as explained in WP:IMAGESIZE which don't fix things to a particular number of pixels. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thank you for explaining this, Marchjuly.  I appreciate it. --Sarason (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)