Talk:1977 Atocha massacre

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1977 Atocha massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 10:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

• Hello Goldsztajn, I'll take up the review for this nomination and will be presenting my assessment within the next few days. I hope I can learn something new from this and that my feedback will be helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I apologise for being this late, some real life issues had cropped up. I will review the nomination within the next 24 hours. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Goldsztajn, apologies again for the delayed review. I have now completed the review and have left some comments in the two sections below. For the most part the article meets the required criteria and hence I've passed the nomination but there is otherwise quite a bit of scope for improvement. If you have any questions, objections or requests for clarifications or elaboration, feel free to communicate them to me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension: The comprehension of the article is adequate.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose could perhaps be somewhat improved but it is concise and clear for the most part. Some issues are listed in the comments below.	Neutral
(b) (MoS)	The articles is compliant with the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References are present in accordance with layout guidelines.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citations are from reliable sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violations were found.	Pass

3. Comprehensiveness: The comprehensiveness of the article is adequate.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article provides a decent overview, but there is potential for expansion. Some issues are listed in the comments.	Neutral
(b) (focused)	The article is adequately focused.	Pass

4. Neutrality: The article is complaint with the policy on neutral point of view.
Pass

Notes	Result
The article represents significant views published in reliable sources, fairly and proportionately. No neutrality issues were found.	Pass

5. Stability: The article is stable.
Pass

Notes	Result
No edit warring or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration: The article is well illustrated with images.
Pass

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged with their appropiate copyright statuses.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use of images is appropriate and have suitable captions.	Pass

Overall: The article meets the good article criteria. Pass

Comments

• Issues with prose:

• One of the survivors, Miguel Ángel Sarabia, commented in 2005: "Although now it may seem a small thing, the 1980 trial of the Atocha murderers – despite the arrogance of the accused ... – it was the first time that the extreme right was sitting on the bench, tried and condemned." The quote is a bit confusing. I'd suggest re-wording it to "it was the first time that the extreme right was made to sit on the beach, tried and then condemned."

• Issues with comprehensiveness or prose:

• Although many celebrate the success of Spain's transition to democracy, debates over the human cost – especially the Pact of Forgetting (Pacto del olvido) – have grown. That debate was echoed in the words of Atocha massacre survivor Lola González Ruiz, who passed away in 2015: "In the course of my life, my dreams broke me." This can be confusing since there is no explaination on the nature of the debate. A brief description could be included.
• There seems to be some space for expansion on the political effect of the massacre, as in a more detailed account of how it aided in the democratization process. The section called "Political context and response" might also be better worded as "Political context and aftermath".

• Other minor issues:

• The gallery pictures can perhaps be incorporated under the section on legacy.
• The article relies more on quotations than summarisations to explain the effects of the massacre which could perhaps be reworked.
• The choice of primarily using spanish names of organisations over their english variants may be detrimental for readability to english speakers.

Proposed move (withdrawn)

Per WP:CONCISE ("Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that") this page should be named Atocha massacre. There are no other Atocha massacres that this needs to be differentiated from. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there has been more than one massacre at or near a place called "Atocha", and in particular at or near Atocha (Madrid). It's obvious on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Matanza de Atocha ("Atocha massacre") is a disambiguation page for es:Matanza de Atocha de 1977 (the event covered in this article) and es:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004 (the 2004 Madrid train bombings, which took place at and near the Madrid Atocha railway station). — Chrisahn (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. I withdraw the proposal. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Atocha massacre should be a disambiguation page for this page and 2004 Madrid train bombings instead of a redirect to this page? Just like on the Spanish Wikipedia? On the other hand, the redirect to this page is correct for all three links to Atocha massacre. So maybe the redirect is fine for now. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)