Talk:Patio 29

Reviewed, needs additional sources.
I have reviewed your page and found that is great except that it could use more sources. In good faith and in consideration of the new page tag I will hold off tagging and come check back in 48 hours. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GA check
I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have reached this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here. In general, initially I look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, and if so, if this can be resolved quickly by myself. If it looks like there may be significant and/or several minor issues, I'll open a GAR to see the extent of the problems. If it looks like there are sufficient concerns to put the GA listing in jeopardy, and that significant work is needed to resolve the concerns, I will notify the main contributors to the article, and put the GAR on hold.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned at the clarity of the prose. I started copy-editing, but I'm not clear in several places what is being said. ": six victims from Paine, Chile, into which a judge investigated" is not clear. What does "unmarked bodies" mean? Unidentified? Or unmarked graves? Or bodies with no injuries or marking? Or bodies with no identifying papers? "Stern suggests that new bodies discovered at Patio 29 in 1991 contributed to the reframing of the responsible soldiers on trial as criminals." "The examiners found multiple bodies stacked within coffins and some filled with bullets." The coffins were filled with bullets, or the bodies had been shot? "Skepticism about the matches' veracity emerged in 2003, and the institute's own DNA testing in 2005 revealed a project rife with mistakes and exaggerated certainty." the matches' veracity? exaggerated certainty? Rife is perhaps not a neutral word due to its use in tabloid journalism - frequent or regular might be more appropriate words. "at the prosecutor's behest" - which prosecutor? "...in 1991, an exhumation effort recovered 126 bodies and identified 96 through 2006" - does this mean that 126 bodies were dug up in 1991, and 96 of them had been identified by 2006?
 * It's not clear who was buried in the plot. I assume they were political prisoners. Is there more information on the identified bodies which might by used?
 * I suspect a period of copy-editing would help make the article clearer, and that may be enough; however, I'll do a full GAR, as the article is so hazy, just to see what work needs to be done.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a shady subject (clandestine burial, war crimes) so there hasn't been a lot of information published on what exactly happened. The "disappeared" assumes that they were taken for whatever reason (as a "political prisoner" if you prefer) and some of those put to death were buried here. If the sources don't specify, I don't think we should either. This said, I'll give it that stiff copyedit you requested this weekend and will clarify the vague parts based on the sources. I don't think the article is so hazy as to require a GAR, but that's your prerogative. czar ♔  23:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I agree we shouldn't be making assumptions, I was wondering if among the sources there has been commentary or speculation regarding who the victims were. The GAR is not much effort, and if I get it done before the weekend, we can see just how much of a copy edit is needed, and where to best place the work so the weekend copy edit will have a clearer focus and target. I understand your concerns, and I'd like to reassure you that my aim is not to delist, but to keep the article listed, and that I am always willing to help out, and to keep a GAN or GAR open for as long as progress is being made. I regard a delisting as a failure on my part.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)