Talk:Los Viagras/GA1

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 00:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this article. I notice that the nominator already considers this to be a Good Article, so we should make it official. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read through the entry and have some concerns.

The entry is quite short, only a bit longer than most people's minimum criteria for a Start-class article. It is not that we require a certain length of GAs, but with very short entries there can be issues with GA criterion 3 (broad in its coverage). We see some of those issues here, as some of the main aspects of the organization are not discussed. Examples:


 * There is only minimal information about the formation and criminal activities of the group. I am finding much more information about the group in reliable sources; the article could be expanded by at least several paragraphs.


 * There are several items listed in the infobox (like types of criminal activities - extortion) that are not even directly mentioned in the body of the article.


 * In the description of the origin of the group's name, there is a reference to "one of the younger brothers" but there is no mention of any brothers earlier in the entry. A more clear description is needed for the key people in the organization. (The Sierra Santana brothers are mentioned in the infobox, but I assume this should be Sierra Santa.)


 * Some of the allies and rivals listed in the infobox are not even mentioned in the body of the article.


 * The article mentions the 2019 arrest of one of the sicarios. Consider that the reference uses the wording jefe de sicarios. More importantly, what has happened in that case in the almost two years since the arrest?


 * The first reference from The Daily Beast has a lot more information about the history and operations of the organization. WP:RSP urges caution when using this publication for BLP claims, but there is some good info on the organization itself.

Right now, since so much information needs to be fleshed out in this entry, it makes the most sense to quick fail this nomination rather than continuing with a detailed review. I hope it comes back through GAN once these issues are addressed. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)