Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Eugenio Espejo

Eugenio Espejo
Hi. I hope this article can become a Good Article. I am aware that there are some grammar mistakes in it, but I want to know if it is well done overall. Thank you.Dalobuca 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen

 * Hello Dalobuca. The lead should be expanded to 2-3 paragraphs, and contain a summary of all the main points in the article. That would be a good area to begin focusing on.-- Z leitzen (talk)  05:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your advice. I will try to do that. Dalobuca 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

 * "he stands out as a precursor...". When I hear the word "precursor" I want to know of what this person was a precursor?
 * "Even though Espejo did not have original ideas". What does this mean? How do we define original ideas and in connection with what? And if he did not have original ideas how come and he was important?
 * "he learned "by experience, which cannot be known without studying with pen in hand."". I think that per WP:MoS italics are not recommended in quotes.
 * "(in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772. Per WP:MoS 1780 and 1793 should not be wikilinked. The full date is well-linked. Check all your dates in the article, and fix them.
 * "He became a prominent scientific investigator, philosopher, journalist, and writer." Why is this repetition necessary in "Early years"?
 * "Although no surviving posters have been found, there is evidence that he wrote them, including the remarks Espejo made about them in his works." "The remarks etc." refers to "evidence"?
 * "by the name of El nuevo Luciano de Quito o Despertador de los ingenios quiteños en nueve conversaciones eruditas para el estímulo de la literatura" "Marco Porcio Catón o Memorias para la impugnación del nuevo Luciano de Quito" "Reflexiones acerca de un método para preservar a los pueblos de las viruelas", "Defensa de los curas de Riobamba". In English?
 * "Due to this behaviour, by 1783 he was labelled as "restive and subversive",[6] and was later designated head physician for the scientific expedition that Francisco de Requena was about to begin headed for the Pará and Marañon rivers to set the limits of the Royal Audience." It is recommended to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
 * "Espejo made use of this chance and created his most complete and better written work". According to whom?
 * Try to have at least one citation in all your paragraphs.
 * "Instead of recognition, Espejo gained more enemies". Why?
 * "In 1790 Espejo returned to Quito to promote the "Sociedad Patriótica"". What is that? Tell us just two-three more words about it.
 * "Because of his ideas,[12] he was imprisoned". Blur. Who accused him? On what grounds? How was his imprisonment decided?
 * "By the interpretation of his manuscripts, it can be inferred that Eugenio Espejo considered education as the main way for popular development." Sources? Otherwise, it is original research.
 * "Amazing is in fact his understanding of science." WP:POV
 * "When he was arrested, people rumored that his detention was caused because of his support of the "impieties" of the French Revolution." Cite.
 * "Eugenio Espejo could be regarded as a polymath, as he was a notable scientist, journalist, satirist and theologian." How many times have I read that already?!
 * "Views on Education" is completely uncited.
 * The whole "Thoughts" section is tagged for copy-editing etc. You can find copy-editors here.
 * "Clearly written and well conceived". Especially well conceived could again be regarded as POV.
 * "Once again, this work proved its author's deep knowledge of this religious subject and its situation in the 18th century, as well as his capability to deal with such a complicated matter." Unsourced.
 * "Nevertheless, Espejo can be considered a deeply religious man." Any scholarly research supporting that. Where is this assertion based? You announce it as a conclusion in text without supporting it.
 * "Views on Economics" and "Legacy" are also uncited.
 * "Espejo’s defense, well prepared and documented". I am afraid that "well-prepared and documented" is again POV.
 * For your online sources in "References" use Template:cite web or Template:cite news.--Yannismarou 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Yannismarou, thank you for your comments. It seems I have a lot of work to do!. Dalobuca 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Check all your inline citations and notes. They should be after punctuation mark always.
 * "Overcoming racial discrimination, he graduated from medical school on July 10, 1767, and shortly after in jurisprudence and canon law (in order to practice as a lawyer, he studied under the direction of Dr. Ramón Yépez from 1780 to 1793). On November 28, 1772, he was authorized to practice medicine in Quito." Personally, I try not to have uncited paragraphs; so, IMO, you should also cite even short paragraphs like this one.
 * "However, his desire to read everything without discrimination and criteria sometimes led him to irreflexive and precipitate judgments." Such as? Maybe a bit vague.
 * "Thought" is still tagged for copy-editing. Don't you go in GAC or FAC with such tags in your article. Fix the relevant issues first!
 * In "Legacy" I read mostly about his ideas. I think the goal in such a section is to learn (if and) how these ideas influenced his next generations. In a few words: Why was Espejo important for the generations after him? Did he have any impact?

The article is, in general, much improved. I think that GAC should be the next step, after you have the article assessed and after you get rid of the tags.--Yannismarou 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have followed almost every recommendation to improve the article, except for two: I have cited almost every paragraph, but there are some paragraphs (seven, to be precise) that I think can be let alone without citations, as most of them come from the same source: Philip Astuto's book. I am also aware that the article is still tagged for copy-editing, but the League of Copyeditors seems to be quite busy at the moment, so I will have to be patient for a while. Please let me know what do you think about my corrections. Dalobuca 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)