Talk:Marina de Escobar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 11:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, thanks for nominating it for the Women in Green edit-a-thon! Per my usual review style, I'll give section-by-section comments, followed by checking the article against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Childhood

• Weird that "Diego" is anglicised to "Iago" and "Margarita" to "Margaret". Although I understand that the Catholic Encyclopedia is doing this, so the anglicisation is sourced, but it's still rather odd.

Found a different source for Diego. Haven't been able to find anything to cite for Margarita, alas.

• Page numbers needed for verifying Lehfeldt 2017.

Put 'em in.

Hrm, the page numbers you put in don't appear to be correct, at least for the linked copy on Google Books. Many of the page numbers you cite are over 400 pages in, but the linked copy doesn't have that many pages and most of the info on Escobar seems to be in the last chapter, which has a page range of 175-216. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Huh, baffling -- I should probably just take out the google books link, then, they match my copy. — Moriwen (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the copy you have paginated or is it an ebook version? If it's that latter, that might explain the disconnect. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ebook, yeah, so it shows page numbers but they could easily be off. — Moriwen (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, might be worth checking against the paginated version on Google Books and using the page numbers from that then. In any case, thanks for explaining. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Done! — Moriwen (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fabulous, nice one. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [4] Verified.

Adult life

• "evinced" is a rather fancy word. Think "showed" or "demonstrated" is more easily understandable.

Changed!

• Page numbers needed for verifying Weber 2016.

Added!

• Spotcheck: [6] Seems to be on page 422, not 433.

Oops. Fixed!

Still says 433 on my end. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Could've sworn I fixed that. Done now! — Moriwen (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Page numbers needed for verifying Redworth 2011.

My digital copy doesn't have page numbers, awkwardly. I've put in a quote?

That works! Thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [8][9] Can't find anything about "two servants" or the exact number of women in the convent. Is this in Lehfelt 2017? This is why page numbers would be helpful.

Yep! Sorry about that. Page numbers should be there now.

• Reboiras 2011 needs proper citation formatting.

Fixed!

• Details for The Month: Should be set to cite magazine, not cite book; volume should be set to 63; issue should be set to 290; "The Month" should be set to the magazine= field and linked to; the title should be replaced with "The Second Summer"; editor should be credited as Richard Frederick Clarke; specific date would be August 1888; provide the issn 0027-0172.

Magazine citations always get me. Fixed.

• If any more details could be provided for the Index ac status causarum beatificationis servorum dei et canonizationis beatorum, that would be good, as Vatican records are extraordinarily difficult to verify.

You're telling me. I ended up ordering a physical book for that one. Yeah, I've included the complete quote.

Damn, I admire your dedication to the research! And thanks for filling that out. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Spirituality

• Any reason why recogimiento is redlinked? Is there a possibility of a future article on it? Asking because I couldn't find one on the Spanish Wikipedia.

Eh. There's a fair amount of critical literature on it and I think it could pretty easily carry one. But I'm not at all wedded to it.

• "Luis de Ponte" Should be corrected to "Luis de la Puente", throughout the article. Again I understand that "de Ponte" is coming from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but other sources cited correctly use "Luis de la Puente".

Sure, yeah, changed.

• Furniss shouldn't be capitalised in the citation.

Darn autofill feature. Fixed.

• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.

Writings

• Not sure there's a need to cite the same source so many times in the same paragraph, if you're not providing direct quotations. This paragraph is even drawing from the same page of the source.

Extremely fair. Changed.

• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Citations [2] and [14] could probably be merged, as they appear to the same source on two different websites. I would recommend using the Wikisource version, rather than the external link to New Advent.

Indeed they could. Done.

Lead and infobox

• Lead is currently rather short and lacking in information. It could do with some expansion, e.g. details about her visions; about her convent, her life experiences, etc.

Reworked it a bit. Let me know what you think.

• "not belonging to an enclosed religious order." Where is this stated? If there's no source that states this explicitly, this should be cut.
• "Marina was declared Venerable." Does this have a source? The text of the article states her beatification was delayed for decades, and then the case opened, but it's not explicit that she was successfully beatified.

Good catch! Added that explicitly.

• I don't think the current image in the infobox is a good choice for the leading image, as Marina is quite small in the frame compared to Jesus. Consider changing it out for one of the portrait-style paintings in the Marina de Escobar commons category. This image could be moved down to one of the sections, like Spirituality.

So I was torn on this one, because I agree with your complaint here, but also none of the other images are available in very high quality. Thoughts?

I get you. I think this one would be the best option, but I understand the hesistancy in respect to quality. It's just that Marina is in barely one quarter of the vision painting, and it's very difficult to tell that she's supposed to be the subject when viewing in preview. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Changed. — Moriwen (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I still think the other image is worth including in the article, just in a section rather than as the leading image. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha! Moved it down. — Moriwen (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose is fantastically written, with no obvious spelling or grammatical errors. My main issue here is the anglicisation of certain Spanish names, but this is a relatively minor problem.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Layout is all good, no outstanding cases of words to watch.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   One of the references isn't properly formatted, another is incomplete, and many of the books don't cite specific page numbers, which makes verification a pain. This is my main issue with the article.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Everything is properly cited inline.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Possible cases of unsourced content in the lead. If they're sourced, this should be made more explicit in the text.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig flags the Catholic Encyclopedia, but this is in the public domain, so it's fine.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Lead could be expanded further, but otherwise all good.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused. Extra contextual details are all relevant to the subject.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All potentially non-neutral statements are properly attributed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since GA nomination, no reversions in its entire article history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images in the wikicommons category are in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Leading image used is relevant, but I think it could be replaced with a better one, as it's difficult to tell Marina is even in it at low-res. Alt text is provided but the image isn't currently captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On prose alone, this article is terrific, with no real issues. The main problems I've found are in verifiability, as some of the citations are incomplete. If specific page numbers can be provided for the books that I've flagged, and my other comments are addressed, then I will be more than happy to pass this review. @Moriwen: Nice work on this! Ping me when you feel you've addressed everything and I'll give this another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks so much for taking a look at it. Super helpful comments. — Moriwen (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I've hit everything! Notes above; let me know what you think. Thank you again!! — Moriwen (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for covering everything so thoroughly. I'm more than happy to pass the review now. Excellent work on this. :D --Grnrchst (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much!! I really appreciated all the feedback. — Moriwen (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)