Talk:Oswaldo Payá/GA1

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! I have an interest in Cuban history, so should be able to give this one a go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
Thanks, MBO! I have my stepson here for the weekend, so probably won't be doing sustained editing. I'll work to address these points on Monday or Tuesday, though. More then! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! Have a nice weekend! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1a. Changed.
 * 1b. Changed.
 * 2a. My understanding is that dead links are fine in Good Articles per WP:GA? and WP:GACN--could you elaborate on the issue?
 * 4a. I tend to avoid state-controlled media like Granma that doesn't have a reputation for independent reporting; it's more of a primary source than a secondary one. If you see any events here that you feel are presented non-neutrally, though, I'm happy to take a look.
 * 6b. Since his Catholicism was so crucial to his activism, this seems like a useful fair-use image to me. But I'm up for other options if you see an alternative you prefer. I searched wikicommons for more alternatives and found none, though I did turn up an image from an event in his honor, now added to the article.

Let me know if that addresses your concerns. Glad to keep working on anything else you see here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I can't find any restriction on dead links for GAs, but its still something that requires rectifying at some point, in my opinion, particularly if this article is to head onward toward FA. I think that the infobox image is of useful fair-use, but we already state in the text that he's a devout Catholic, so does showing him with the Pope really add anything that we don't already know ? A Google image search shows us a lot of images that depict his face far more clearly; I personally think that one of these would be more appropriate, but I certainly won't fail this GA review on that factor alone. On another note, I think that a lot of the paragraphs are quite sparse, and could be added together to better improve the flow of the article, for instance at the bottom of the "Death" section; again it doesn't affect my GA review, but I think it would improve the article regardless. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, good point. Most of the better headshots are news agencies, which might be tougher fair use claims, but I found one from a promotional website for him that's probably fair game. Does this fair use tag look okay to you? I also tweaked the paragraphing a bit. As for the dead links, I think I'm not going to worry about replacements for now, since I originally added this content and I know it's verified; in any case, I could simply delete the URL and the newspaper cite could stand as a verifiable reference. But I will take a look at this again if I decide to go for FA. Thanks for the suggestions, I really appreciate the help on this one. Just let me know if you see anything else. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm happy to pass this one. Congratulations! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review! This is one I expanded for ITN that never quite made it; it's great to see it pass here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)