Talk:Frankie Ruiz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am starting a GA Review of this article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

"Veulvo a Nacer Que Rico"[edit]

NOTICE: I am going to have to put any further work on this review on hold. I am troubled that so much of the article is based upon a single source, Charles Ornelas' book "Vuelvo a Nacer Que Rico" (translated in the article into "Born Again: How Rich!"). The book was written in Spanish and is unavailable/out of print, it does not look like it is available in an English-language translation. Also, the ISBN is incorrect. I am uncertain if I can complete this review since so much of the article depends on this one source. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Sometimes, there are offline/hard to get books that contain information that can only be found in said material. Wikipedia makes no distinction between online and offline. Caribbean H.Q. is the one who owns the book and can verify anything written in it. Erick (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a problem getting in touch with Caribbean H.Q. - they haven't edited since November 2nd. Shearonink (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be alright if we gave it a week to see if he returns? If he doesn't by then, I'll carry the burden of addressing the review. Erick (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! As the saying goes, in Wikipedia there are no deadlines. If Caribbean doesn't show up in week or two, I'll work with you on the Review. Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing & word-choices for this article trouble me. My main concern with the article at this point is this: I cannot read Spanish (can speak a very small amount) and the wording of many of the phrases strikes me as possibly being somewhat lifted straight from/cut&pasted from a different-language source. Copyvios are serious business and I need to somehow figure out if any content has been lifted either word-for-word or translated straight from this biographical source. Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on this, good to know that a physical copy of the book is owned and can be accessed by a fellow Wikipedian. I have no problem with off-line/physical book sources but am troubled by the reliance upon it for so many citations. Are there no other sources for all these various statements? I just counted & Ornelas' book is used to source about 147 different statements and is used for 84 different references our of a total of 134. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this quickly before going into the actual review... The book is indeed in English, at least my copy is. I can provide off-wiki snapshots to relevant parts if needed, although I must admit that the suspicion of copyvio after a decade of writing here is a bit insulting. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for impugning your editing, that was not my intent, I should have thought about it more and phrased it better. It's just that the flow of the words seems odd to me and I was trying to figure out why. We all try to do our best around here and in the course of working hard sometimes we write things that are not nice or kind or even somewhat true. Mea culpa, I am happy to move on if you are. Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I am troubled by the somewhat-chatty tone & word-choice("a lot of attention" etc) in the article plus the amount of detail, this article is veering into fan magazine territory...

For Wikipedia's worldwide readership, "El Canito" needs to be defined and that definition must have a connected reference from a reliable source.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
Please see my Notice posted above.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Please see Notice posted above.

C. It contains no original research:
Please see Notice posted above

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
See below.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
This article is practically a blow-by-blow of much of Ruiz' daily life and in my opinion contains an excessive amount of trivia/details. Sometimes it more closely resembles a calendar/diary rather than an article.
"Early life" section is excessively detailed ("became acquainted at softball picnics" etc.)

"Musical career" section - excessively detailed ("On one occasion...")

"By his early teens, his future lifestyle began manifesting itself when he started attending nightclubs." awkwardly phrased - please adjust the wording

Illness and return/Diagnosis and hospitalizations- excessively detailed (Do we really need to know their first date was to see Carlito's Way in a local theatre"?, etc)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am so sorry about this but it's been over a month since I heard from Caribbean HQ and the article still does not fulfill several GA Criteria. This GA Review Fail should not be taken as any sort of judgement against the article or its subject. I encourage the nominators to nominate this article for GA status at a future time after they have had chance to work on some of its present issues that are marked as "fail"/"on hold". Shearonink (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I would've like to help, my time and devotion went to another article that I have to complete to remain in the WikiCup competition. Erick (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I apologize for everything. My PC was already giving me issues and ended going BSOD. I will still post the rewrite to save some face, but am aware of my failure. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

@Shearonink: I really hate to say this as someone who nominated this, but I think with the issues you brought up, it take more than a week to fix the article and without Caribbean H.Q.'s help, this will difficult to work on by myself (plus I don't have the book either so I can't verify what the pages say). Besides, I didn't really write the article, I helped him provide sources that were behind paywall and my focus is on another article. So with that, I'd like to withdraw from the nomination. Thank you Shearonink for reviewing this article. Hopefully if he ever comes back soon, I can show him the review page, get it fix, and re-nominate it. Thanks again for taking your time to review it, Erick (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Many thanks for letting me know. I am going to leave the review open. Perhaps someone will come along who has access to the main reference and would have the time to adjust its text etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. Give me some time to go over the review and see what can be done. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caribbean H.Q.: That's great! Since you're here, I'm back with helping the article as well. Erick (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - looking forward to working with you on this article. Greatly appreciated (and please see apology above). Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am working on a new draft to change the wording and remove any superfluous content, completing it may take two or three days in my schedule. I still need a more concise summary on what parts appear hispanicized to the point of being odd in English. In regards to "El Canito", I frankly have no idea where to find a source that defines such a colloquial term, the closest thing would be "cano" (of which it is a diminutive). - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the article were tightened up and some of the details of daily events were lost that might take care of some of phrasing issues. If you leave "El Canito" as it is, with it being referenced to the book I think that is fine. I did try to look it up myself and all I found was a source that would be considered unreliable. It's such an interesting term - would be nice to get it clearly defined if possible. If not? Oh well... Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC) For an example of the phrasing that seems somewhat off to me, please take a look at the "Musical career/Beginnings as a vocalist" section": In the paragraph that starts with "In Puerto Rico..."[reply]

The mother's death is mentioned twice. Also:
When he was 21 years old, Ruiz lost his mother in a car accident in Mayagüez; only his brother Viti survived. This incident had serious consequences for Ruiz and led to the abuse of drugs and severe alcoholism. His already unstable lifestyle was exacerbated when his girlfriend was murdered. He fathered a daughter, Yaritza, but the two did not remain close during this period.

If the phrasing was tightened up to something along the lines of [please understand, not exactly like this, this is just an example of a possible rewording]:

When he was 21 years old, Ruiz lost his mother in a car accident in Mayagüez with only his brother Viti surviving. Ruiz then started abusing drugs and alcohol and when hIs girlfriend was murdered soon afterwards [not sure about the timeline here] his condition became even worse. He fathered a daughter during this time but he was not part of her daily life. [The daughter's name seems unimportant - this is the only time she is mentioned in the article.]

to me that would take care of the phrasing and tone issues.
Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erick is the one with access to Highbeam... I suspect that they moved the urls, let's see what he finds out. Otherwise, we have the details of publication, so maybe we can simply cite the original sources. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I just noticed that all of the Highbeam/"The Record" references have gone dead - 1998/Leonor Ayala/The Record refs, Miguel Perez/The Record. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done rewriting. Pinging @Magiciandude: to see if he can check the status of the dead links. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like The Record (Bergen County) articles were taken off from HighBeam. However since Caribbean H.Q. and I already have the articles, we both can still verify whatever is written on the articles and it's probably still available as the newspaper's website for subscribed users. You can remove the urls and accessdates and it'll still be fine because offline sources are accepted as well. Erick (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed my draft and intend to publish it Monday, after completing a spellcheck. I agree that most of the information that is already available to us can be reworked into offline references by using the "cite book" template. So, if @Shearonink: is ok with that, I will publish them like that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]