Talk:Toro de la Vega/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 06:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I had begun my review when I felt that the article primarily covers details that are rather recent. One third of the history section covers details just from the past five years, about an event that has been going on for almost 500 years. The leap from 1534 to 1964 in the history section is rather concerning. Four-hundred years must have produced some events worth covering. What happened during epidemics, famines, regional wars, the world wars, or any other events? Did none of that affect this tournament? And that is just a European and global perspective on what has historically affected Spain. There has to be even more local factors, events, and/or changes that took place in the course of these 400+ years. These are details that I am afraid one will mostly find from books—the article cites just one. Spanish history is covered much more comprehensively in books that are written in Spanish language so that will have to be looked into.

Anti-bullfighting movement has been prominent since the early 1900s and I believe that the article can cover much more; a look at Google Books gives a lot of information that could be used. The coverage about recent events lack a few notable examples that should be in the article. Torneo del Toro de la Vega mentions a lot of them and I suspect that even that could be expanded upon because of the scope of this article. Considering how long this event has been going on for and the importance it holds, the part of "Criticisms and protests"—as in the Spanish article—needs to be included in the article, as a separate section or a sub-section of the history section with a lot of detail. The Spanish version also uses images which can, and I would say should, be used with context in this article.

The article also has four one-line paragraphs, and one two-line paragraph. While this could easily be solved by merging with larger paragraphs, it points towards a general lack of broad coverage. For example, "During the tournament the town of Tordesillas' population doubles from 9,000 to 18,000." could be expanded upon by mentioning its economic impact on the city and how it has helped in its development, or if it has caused any troubles. Also, has there never been any human injuries or fatal accidents in its entire history? Either from bulls or stampede? Or other local events that were notable pertaining to this tournament in those 400 years?

Overall, the article is well-written for the content that it has. DonSpencer1, you have done a good job at writing and improving this article, taking it from this to what it is today. However, it is still a little too far from covering the topic in a manner that would considered as "broad in its coverage". The issues I mentioned are hard to fix within a few days or weeks as it requires considerable research and I am afraid that I will have to fail this one. I hope you continue your efforts and nominate it again once these concerns are addressed. I thank you for your hard work and dedication. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Thank you for all of the great feedback. I will do some more reading and research, particularly in some of the Spanish-language history books I have. This will take some time so I will add more content and resubmit when I am ready. I also had concerns about the scope of the article as well. I did the best I could with the sources readily available in Spanish newspapers and other sources so I am more than happy to do further research. @The Most Comfortable Chair: would you mind telling me more about how criticism should be formatted? I tried to split it up into multiple sections with the history section holding most of it. What is best practice and how can I navigate the WP:CRIT standards? I want to mention the critical response to the practice but don't want to overwhelm the article. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 19:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DonSpencer1, that is a good question and it made me think. Perhaps having a separate criticism section—as the Spanish Wikipedia does—would give that topic undue weight. The article also needs to mention view points that are in favor of this tournament's continuation in its traditional form and any protests or campaigns that were organized for it (in proportion to the prevalence of that side of the argument vs. the prevalence of its criticism, which I suspect there is much more of), or any notable bills or laws that were introduced by the legislature in its support. I looked into various good and featured articles but I have been unable to find one that is similar to this article (where there is significant criticism about a historic event). However, I did come across animal testing, whose "Historical debate" sub-section of "History" seems like a fair summary of content that encompasses its support and opposition. A number of GAs and FAs include a "Debate" section or sub-section whenever the topic is contentious, so I suppose that would be a good way to go about it.

As far as the issue of splitting the current history section goes, I believe it will become possible once there is more information regarding its history that does not cover protests and criticism. Things such as the number of people that participated initially, increase in participation, economic benefits, local changes over time, laws passed concerning them (some of which are already covered), how it has been governed and how that process has evolved, and its historical importance pertaining to tourism and revenue. A lot of things could be covered in its history section and once it has been expanded, it will be easier to split it.

By the way, if it is portrayed in any popular media—films, series', or books—that can be a section of its own as well. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think animal testing has a lot of well formatted sub-sections that could serve this article well. I'm interested in looking into more local sources as well to get a better grasp of local changes of overtime. Most of the high-profile sources cover the animal rights side of the tournament. Very interested in having a media/depiction section, too, but am worried about it devolving into a "popular culture"/original research section. It will all be how I word and formatting the section I suppose. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 13:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)