Jump to content

Talk:Pichilemu/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merger proposal

Villa Los Navegantes doesn't deserve its own article. Jespinos (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree to merge Dentren | Talk 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we did the same thing in Spanish Wikipedia.--Warkoholic 2008 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC) No, dejenla en el artículo nomas. --Bodoque57 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, is an important article, i will ampliate this in the future. Please, dont merge this page. --MisterWiki (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

es:Talk:Pichilemu

Maybe you don't know spanish... there says that Villa Los Navegantes isn't a important article.--Warkoholic 2008 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes i speak english, i know what you say isn't a important article. But I expand the article. OK. MisterWiki (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed FAR listing

This is not a featured article, is not close to featured status; I suggest what you are looking for is peer review, where it can be submitted for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Expanding

I'm expanding now the article, but if someone can help me, here is the source: http://www.elrancahuaso.cl/admin/render/noticia/7987 (in Spanish) --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 23:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the image of the beach with a collage of photos exclusively made by me and the coat of arms. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Surfing

Since Pichilemu is the Chilean capital of surfing, I was just thinking that maybe a section (or sub-section) could be created to discuss that activity. The article Surfing in Chile might have some basic information on the most prominent surfing beaches of Pichilemu. Any thoughts on this idea? Regards, Likeminas (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Working on it :D --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mcorazao (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    English usage needs scrubbing. Multiple issues with WP:MOS compliance.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Don't know about original research since there are so many missing references.
  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:
    Some statements about how Pichelemu is regarded which reference only primary sources.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The captions actually need a little improvement ...
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Nice start but still needs work.

Comments

The article has a lot of good content but needs some work to reach GA. Biggest concerns:

  • The use of English is not good. Needs scrubbing by a native speaker. Apart from just the awkwardness of the phrasing some of it I cannot even understand.
  • Need lots more references. Many paragraphs have no references at all.
  • Some references are not of sufficient quality:
    • Statements like "Its points and beaches are considered some of the best worldwide" should use good secondary sources (and really should specifically talk about those sources in the prose so as to not seem so biased).
    • Overuse of Pichilemu tourism sites and web sites in general. Ideally should include some hard references (books) to give more credibility.
  • Need to cover more about the city as a city rather than a tourist attraction. What is the government like? What is the culture like (traditions, religion, etc.)? What is the climate like? Etc.
  • Lots of the content is just choppy, incidental comments. Many sections are one or two short sentences.

Hope this is helpful. If you need some help let me know.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Libros en Google:
--Mcorazao (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Ross Hotel

This photograph is dated 1920, but can't be from then-- the cars in the picture look more like 1940's models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.251.139 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Impossible, the photo was taken from a newspaper and it textually says: "from 1920". I don't know if you have proofs about it, if you do, contact me and I'll solve this problem. --MisterWiki talk contribs 13:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me but I am not understanding the fair-use rationale. First, the specified source for the photo appears to be a blog page. I don't see a mention of a newspaper nor the year 1920. Second, no author is specified for the photo nor is their date of death. So there is no real explanation about how the copyright rule applies. According to Chilean copyright law the author would have had to have died before 1939. Whether or not the photo was taken in 1920 is technically irrelevant as far as the justification provided for the photo.
Also, I agree with the anonymous editor. The cars are perhaps 1930s or 1940s but they are definitely not from 1920.
--Mcorazao (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The photographer was the father of José Arraño, and died on 1932 (according to my grandma). Maybe the photo is from the 1930s. Correcting this. Sorry. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PD. The blog page content was extracted from a 1990s newspaper, El Mercurio, and it did published that photo. At that times, José Arraño was still alive to give the photo. About my grandma, she was a great friend of Arraño. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is more specific. But still if you want this to go for GA again I think the next reviewer will probably require more specific info (depends on how strictly the reviewer follows the guidelines). "José Arraño's dad" is not a very good description of the author. Regardless, did his dad own this photo or did it belong to the newspaper (or someone else)? If his dad owned it was the photo published previously or was the recent publication in El Mercurio the first publication (it says by "Marcelo Simonetti Fotos" but that does not tell me anything about when it was published)? If the photo was first published after the author's death then — I believe — his date of death does not apply (it is the number of years since publication at that point as far as I understand).
You do not necessarily have to have every detail; but what's provided doesn't yet prove it is public domain. Also if possible it is always best to, in some way, provide an authoritative source that could confirm the information that you are providing (e.g. mention the newspaper explicitly including the date and issue of publication so that somebody could call the newspaper and ask questions if they wanted to).
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added more info to the image's description Mcorazao. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pichilemu/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status.

My first question is - why haven't the cleanup banners and unreliable source tags been taken care of before this article was renominated for GA? Cleanup banners are one of the quick-fail criteria, but I am willing to leave this article on hold for a couple of days to see if they can be dealt with. This is one major hurdle that needs to be overcome before the article is of GA status. There are also a few areas still missing references and the lead needs to be expanded, as well as excess bolding in the Notable people section.

If these issues are dealt with over the next few days, I will then complete a full review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead needs to be longer. For this article length, WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs. While there are currently four paragraphs, three of them are only made up of one or two sentences, while the fourth (the first one) is only made up of three. The lead should summarize the article, without including new information.
    • I see that some work has been done on this, but it still needs to be longer. For example, see the lead of the recently promoted FA Jackie Robinson, which is an article of about the same length as this one.
    • Sections made up of one sentence are a bit short. Please either expand the Etymology section or delete the section and add it to something else - perhaps just append it to the beginning of the History section?
    • Ortuzar family section, "The plans originated around Ortúzar Avenue." What do you mean, they "originated" around this avenue?
    • This has been changed to "The city's plane was made detailing the Ortuzar avenue", which I still don't understand. What is the point that is trying to be made here?
    • The Education section should be partially prose, rather than just a bulleted list with no descriptions. Which of these are primary schools, which secondary, and which tertiary? Any awards? Notable sports teams?
    • Better, but the italicizing needs to be removed.
    • The Famous people section should either be deleted, since it's nothing but a link, or have some prose describing some of the famous people and why they are famous. My first choice would be to delete the section completely, since I see there is already a link to the category in the See also section.
    • There are a lot of really short sections in the article. The article will look less choppy and read better if some of these sections are combined.
    • There are also a lot of really short paragraphs (one and two sentences). These should also be combined.
    • All units (meters, kilometers, etc) need conversions. This can either be done manually or with the {{convert}} template.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Please make sure all references not in English have their languages listed. For example, ref 15 (Hoteles en Pichilemu) does not have a Spanish-language tag in the reference. This is just an example, please check all of the refs.
    • There is still at least two left (Ref 42, 43).
    • I added a few fact tags in places where I would like to see references. Each tag is accompanied by hidden text explaining the reasoning behind the need for a reference.
    • Reference titles in all capital letters need to be changed into normal capitalization, despite the formatting in the original source.
    • What makes Ref #7 (Cardenal Caro Province, Chile) a reliable source?
    • What makes Ref #8 ("Chile Destination Pichilemu) a reliable source? It appears to be a travel company website.
    • What makes Ref #12 ("Punta de Lobos) a reliable source? It's a surfer wiki, basically, since anyone can edit the entries.
    • What makes Ref #13 ("Pichilemu Puts Valparaiso To Shame) a reliable source? It's a blog...
    • Ref #16 ("Conflicto y armonías de las razas en América) is a book, so needs to be formatted as such. "Internet Archives" is an archival service, not a publisher.
    • What makes Ref #42 ( "Llegó la primavera para el PRIMER CASINO DE JUEGOS DE CHILE) a reliable source? It's a blog.
    • What makes Ref #43 (Chile:Hoy se inicia recuperación de edificio histórico,casino Ross de Pichilemu.) a reliable source? It's a blog, and despite the fact that it is on the El Pais website, it looks like anyone can create their own blog. Is the author a paid staff member?
    • What makes Ref #52 ( "Pichilemu | LetsGoChile) a reliable source? It looks like another travel company website.
    • Ref #56 ("Pichilemu) is definitely not reliable. It says at the bottom of the website that the information was taken from WP, which means you're referencing an article that's referencing your article - circular refs are not a good thing!
    • What makes Ref #63 ("Pichilemu, Olas, Surf y mucho más) a reliabe source? It's a sales site...
    • Because of the number of unreliable and possibly unreliable English refs I've found, I'm going to drop a post on another editor's page who speaks better Spanish than I do, so that they can check the remaining refs. Blogs, WP mirror sites, travel company websites and other sales sites are not reliable refs, and it looks like this article depends heavily on them.
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Image galleries are discouraged by MOS, and this article is already picture heavy, even without the gallery. Please go through all of the images and choose the ones that impart the most knowledge to the reader. Multiple images of Cordova, multiple images of beaches, and images of random people/families do not help the reader, and just make the article cluttered.
    • Still image heavy, but much better.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Here is a start on the fixes needed before the article is of GA status. Thank you for your quick response on my original post! Once the above articles are addressed, I will do a full review of the prose and source reliability. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Second editor comments

Note: These comments were originally posted to User talk:SandyGeorgia in response to a request for a reliability check on Spanish sources.

...Yes, in addition to the problem with unreliable sources, there are also breadth of coverage, prose, MOS, and other sourcing issues. The main editor is a high school student in Chile; he might benefit from collaborating with an editor who has access to an English-language library database, bookstore, and other sources. As a sample, he could consider El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda; Enano275 had worked diligently on it for several years before I got involved to help him exhaust a search for English language sources. El Hatillo also offers an example for breadth of coverage of a region relatively unknown in the English speaking world.

This list is not comprehensive, but may serve as a first pass.

Google Scholar turns up several journal sources discussing problems with tourism development in the area; this isn't mentioned in the article at all. Coverage of several areas of the article is spotty.

There is some inconsistency in language use on translations; the article should consistently either mention terms in Spanish with an English translation, or mention them in English with the Spanish translation. Since it is about a location in Chile, I would think it better to use local (Spanish) terms and then translate them to English. There is also WP:OVERLINKing of the Spanish and English language on translations (as well as WP:OVERLINKing in general). Notice sample:

The first is in Spanish with an (ovelinked) English translation; the second is an incorrect English translation with an overlink to the Spanish name.

Looking at the lead alone:

Pichilemu (Mapudungun: Small forest)[1] is a beach resort town located in central Chile.[1][2] It is also the capital of the Cardenal Caro Province.[3] The city hosts 5 historic monuments and was declared a "Zona Típica" (English: Traditional Area or Heritage Site) by the National Monuments Council in 2004.[4]

The beach of Pichilemu is considered one of the world's best for surfing.[5] In particular, competitions are frequently held at Punta de Lobos.[6][5] The city is mainly known because Agustín Ross Edwards, a Chilean politician and member of the powerful family Ross Edwards, made the city a beach resort for upper-class Chilean people.[7] Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired.[8]

The city belongs to the District N° 35, and to the 9th Senatorial Circumscription of the O'Higgins Region. The current Mayor of Pichilemu is Roberto Córdova.[9][10]

  • The second sentence, "It is also ... " Also is almost always redundant, and this sentence could be combined with the first for better flow.
  • "The city hosts 5 ... " should be five; these WP:MOSNUM issues occur throughout.
  • Lead should mention that that National Monuments Council is Chilean. Unsure how zona tipica gets translate to Heritage Site, but this leads to confusion with other, better known international heritage site designations.
  • " The beach ... world's best for surfing." The source given, a local Chilean news broadcast, is not sufficient to justify this claim. A higher quality independent source, such as a reputable surfing magazine, should be used for a claim of this type; I don't know surfing, and wasn't able to find any mention with a quick google search.
  • "The city is mainly known ... " This sentence seems to contradict the claim that it is known as a world-class surfing destination, and is unclear.
  • Redundant and repetitive prose, "in particular" followed by "particularly" in the second paragraph.
  • Prose: "Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired." ESL issues there, unsure what the sentence means, in what beginnings, and what was fired?
  • Clarification for those who don't know Chile: District No. 35 of what? 9th Senatorial Circumscription of what? Historic monuments of what (country of Chile)?
  • WP:MOSDATE#Precise language ... "Current" mayor (as of when, until when, what is his term?). Why is mention of the mayor in the lead, instead of a better overall description of the area, covering more than politics?

Before examining the sourcing problems, just scanning the rest of the article for similar sample problems:

  • Early exploration section, first two sentences could be combined for better flow.
  • Clarification, "... remaining Promaucaes" ... remaining after what? Text is frequently underdeveloped. Actually, this paragraph leaves me with no clear idea of early exploration, and requires the reader to click on links to determine the story.
  • "Ortúzar family", flow, why is the origin of the name abruptly mentioned in this section?
  • "During more recent times" ... precise language ... better expressed as something like, "beginning in <year>" or "since <year> ... " or something similar. More sentences in this section that could be combined for better flow, the prose is choppy.
  • ESL, unsure what this sentence wants to say: "The city's plane was made detailing the Ortuzar avenue." Is "plan" the intended word instead of "plane"? Why "detailing"?
  • ESL, "He regularized the city plan" ... regularized ?
  • "Subsequently, Pichilemu ... " Subsequently? When?
  • Ross Hotel should not be in italic, see WP:ITALICS.
  • Geography contains almost no geography and little weather; conversions are needed. (Strangely, the census section includes some geography :)
  • Why did the city population decrease?
  • ESL: "elected in 2008 with 42.08% of vote ... "
  • Why does the first casino opening need four sources?
  • Pichilemu has many attractive places. ... throwaway sentence, says nothing.
  • Fudor's Chile says best surfing in South America, different than claim made in the lead. "Surfing is one of the most biggest tourist draws ... " ESL issues.
  • Why is a song recording mentioned under surfing? No culture or arts sections?
  • Education has peacockery: most important according to whom or what? Why is a children's garden mentioned in education? "Remarkably" ? Receiving what award?
  • Ross Casino is included in See also when it's already in the article.
  • WP:MOSCAPS in citations (I realize not all of these are applicable to GA, but list 'em as I see 'em anyway :)

There is more; the list above is only samples. In summary, the prose needs considerable work, and the text is underdeveloped and unclear.

Turning to some of the sourcing issues:

  • El rancahuaso seems to be a minimal quality reliable digital news publication, but I wonder why there isn't more use of better known Chilean newspapers?
  • I can't find anything indicating that pichilemuchile.com is a reliable source.
  • Pichilemunews is a blog, and some of the text it is used to cite should be citable from reliable Chilean newspapers. It seems that most of the research for this article may have been done online.
  • Visitingchile.com is a publicity, promotional site. Ditto for Gochile.cl Many others of this type, hope I don't need to list them all, please let me know if you have questions about any particular source. Corrugated City is a blog.
  • I'm unsure what the original source of this internet archive article is.

I stopped there; there is really very little in the article that is sourced to reliable sources, and I'm not sure expending more effort on checking each source will be productive. The article will need a major sourcing and prose overhaul. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any specific Spanish questions.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

MisterWiki, I realize that you have been doing quite a bit of work on the article in response to the comments of SandyGeorgia and me. However, many of the references need to be reaplced, and per SandyGeorgia's comments there is some expansion that is needed. It is my belief that this article (and you as its main editor) would be better served by a withdrawal from the GA review process. The research and expansion needed will probably take some time, and this review is already beyond the typical week hold period given to reviews, with much more work needed. Would it be OK with you to withdraw the article at this point? Dana boomer (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As no reply has been made on my above comment, and as no work has happened to address unreliable sourcing (the major problem with the article), I am now failing the article's GA nomination. I would like to congradulate MisterWiki on all of the hard work he has put into this article so far, and look forward to seeing it back at GAN when the sourcing issues have been addressed. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Major copy edit

Hi, I am responding to a request at the Guild of Copy Editors for a full copy edit of this article. If I come across any issues, I will put them here. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I require clarification on the following statements:

  • A dock, means something different in British English and American English. The reference points towards the construction of a pier. Is this correct?
  • Pichilemu was between the territories of the Palloquierbico, Topocalma, and Gulaquien. - Do Palloquierbico, Topocalma, and Gulaquien still exist today? If they do, then it should read "Pichilemu is...".
  • In the 17th century, Cáhuil was established as the local centre of the region, also having a deputy. - Deputy what? Chief?
  • Later Lauriano Gaete and Ninfa Vargas founded Pichilemu by drawing the design of the city with the engineer Emilio Nichon, based on the Ortuzar avenue. - Are there any legal claims for him to have founded the town/city? Surely you can't claim to have founded a place purely because you put a design on paper? And the town was already in existence. Should this say "founded present-day Pichilemu..."? Still in this section, "...based on the Ortuzar avenue" - what does this mean? Was Ortuzar avenue the center of the town design? How can you base the design of a whole town on one street?
  • Under "Agustin Ross", I'm not quite sure what this means: "Ross designed an urban setting of high environmental value and landscape...". I have modified it slightly and I hope I did not change its meaning.
  • Currently, "The last popularly-elected mayor was Marcelo Cabrera, elected in 2008 with 42.08% of the vote, who served from May 2009 to August 2009 due to legal action" - means that he served this time due to legal action. I'm sure this is not what it is trying to say. Was he forced out of office due to legal action? What happened?
  • Is "children's garden" supposed to mean "kindergarten"? (I have changed it. Change it back if I am wrong). The education section is extremely boring. It requires more than just a whole list of schools. Maybe some history or stats would be more interesting.

I have to stop now but I will try to see if I can rewrite a better introduction in the next few days. -- S Masters (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I consider the full edit copy completed. You can see the full edit here. If you have any issues or need more help, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the article is much better now. However it's worth noting that the main contributor to this article, MisterWiki (talk · contribs), is blocked until the year 2020. Graham87 04:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually he's indefinitely blocked; he was originally blocked for 10 years and I didn't realise that the block had been changed. However the result is the same. Graham87 04:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I only realized that after I completed the full edit. Nevertheless, Wikipedia continues regardless of people. I hope I have been able to improve this article in terms of readability and clarity (and remove the copyedit tag). :-) -- S Masters (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a little late, but MW (now Diego Grez) has been unblocked, but is restricted to editing in his own and User:HJ Mitchell's userspace for the time being. He's been working on this article there. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That Editing restriction has been reduced, and he is welcome to edit freely again. –SJ+ 02:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pichilemu/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article for a GA as soon as I can. I've also said that I'll review another one but I'll get to this one first. Please be patient DG :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you in advance. This week will be a bit busy for me so if I don't reply soon, it's because of school ;) Diego Grez what's up? 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Criteria

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • "Pichilemu has many expansive dark sand beaches. The water is cool year-round, though many tourists choose to swim at the shore break during the summer months. Common activities include bodyboarding, surfing, windsurfing, and kitesurfing." needs a source.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 14:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra comment

Please see the last GA review for comments about unreliable sources. I quickly checked through the article and see that many references that were questioned in the 2nd GA review (completed by me) are still in the article, with no arguments provided for their reliability. These include gochile.cl, visitchile.com, corrugated city, and many others. The Spanish language sources commented on by SandyGeorgia are especially pertinent, as it is these that still seem to proliferate. Please contact an editor who is fluent in Spanish and thoroughly understands the reliability guidelines to assist with this review. Dana boomer (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. El Rancahuaso is partially reliable. It is an online newspaper on the O'Higgins Region, so they can be trusted a little bit :-)
  2. PichilemuChile.com is not trustworthy in my opinion, and it should be changed to a Pichilemu News source that could comply the same function.
  3. Grupo Visiting's source was removed and replaced with Escolares.net, that is reliable. Diego Grez what's up? 18:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. GoChile.com replaced with Britannica. GoChile was referencing the sentence "is a beach resort in Chile". Britannica says "...branching from San Fernando to the popular beach resort of Pichilemu, 60 miles (100 km) west..." Diego Grez what's up? 18:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    Good good! I'm still waiting for a copy-edit though!--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yeah, forgot that, gimme a min to request a quick copyedit at the GOCE. Diego Grez what's up? 19:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, replaced most of the unreliable sources with other ones you'll can't change :) Waiting for the copyedit and me done :-P Diego Grez what's up? 21:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are still refs to GoChile and others. WhiteShadow, I think you misunderstood what I said. I know that Spanish is Diego's first language - my request was to find an editor who speaks Spanish and thoroughly understands the reliable sources guideline to help review this article. No offense meant to you, Diego, but all of the unreliable sources that were found and in some cases still are found in the article would seem to show that you do not fully understand that guideline; hence, the request for another Spanish-speaking editor. Dana boomer (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. Diego, Perhaps you can get someone else to just take one more look at it? So far, this is one of the only issues that remain.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 02:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't got enough time to remove all the not reliable sources I added when I started working on the article. Excuse me :) Diego Grez what's up? 15:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've checked off everything and I'll pass this GA as soon as the other sources are removed/replaced/proven their reliability.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 23:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. It took me an hour and a half to check every single reference for their reliability. My report is here, with explanations on why some "blogs" are reliable. I removed/replaced 6 references. Diego Grez what's up? 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'm passing this GAN! Good Job!--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit notes

I have removed the date from the photo as there is no way this picture was taken in 1932; at that point cars were still boxy and not rounded at all. This pic was likely taken in the 1940s. compare

--Diannaa (Talk) 22:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mundoandino.com/Chile/Pichilemu seems to be a mirror site and hence cannot be used as a source. I have marked it "failed verification". --Diannaa (Talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Copy edits are done. I will review it afresh in a few hours and look for things that got missed. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 23:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Diego Grez what's up? 15:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b "Cardenal Caro Province, Chile". Grupo Visiting. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
  2. ^ "Chile Destination Pichilemu". GoChile.com. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
  3. ^ "Cardenal Caro" (in Spanish). VI.cl. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference CMN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b "Surfistas esperan "la gran ola" en Pichilemu" (in Spanish). Chilevisión. Retrieved 2010-01-06. (Video)
  6. ^ "Punta de Lobos". WannaSurf. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Corrugated City was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Washington Saldías (2006-11-16). "Puerto en Pichilemu: Histórica Bitácora del Engaño" (in Spanish). Pichilemu News. Retrieved 2010-01-06.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Roberto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Roberto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pichilemu/Archive_1&oldid=1146655629"