Wikipedia:Featured article review/Same-sex marriage in Spain/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: User talk:Raystorm, User talk:KLO2015, User talk:Panda2018 0, User talk:Drachenfyre, User talk:Jedi Friend, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Law, talk page notice 2021-11-28
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page statement, I do not think that the article has been sufficiently updated to incorporate recent research and new information on the topic, as detailed on the talk page. For example, there is currently no explanation why Spain was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage (8 years earlier than neighboring France). Therefore I do not think it currently meets that FA criteria of "well-researched" or "comprehensive" (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no progress (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no edits since listed on FAR and the history section stops at 2005. The article needs an update. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As a queer Spaniard, I'm certainly glad to work on this if someone else is willing to track my progress/give me some guidance on where to start. My ADHD makes it somewhat hard to stay focused on unfamiliar endeavors, so I don't necessarily need another editor to work on the article as well, just some eyes :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A.C. after I put so much effort into checking and cleaning up the citations and expanding for comprehensiveness when this was at FAC, I can't muster the interest to do it all again considering the nominator let it fall into disrepair. (I may be one of the highest editors there simply because of the cleanup I did because I speak Spanish.) All I can offer is, be sure to add |trans-title when you translate titles, and see WP:NONENG (I usually add quotes to the citation, see the El Pais source here). And, remember to disambiguate common sources like El Nacional. And remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. The work here has to be fun, and doing this the second time around won't be for me; it's just disappointing after all the hard work I put into cleaning it up back in 2007. My other concern is that the significant amount of new scholarly material on this makes it a daunting task to incorporate all of it, especially with so few of us who speak Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate if you could expand on
remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism
. How should quotes and the like be handled in this case? I've seen a few articles have the original and a translation side-by-side. I doubt extensive translations will be very necessary for this article (legal terms seem like a short exception), but I think I asking for explanation on this point can only be for the better. Regarding the significant amount of new scholarly material, I can't promise I'll do a great job at it, but I'll do my best. Even if it's not enough to get it to maintain FA, at least it will be improved somewhat :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Some editors have the misconception that translation should be precise and exact, but then you get into plagiarism if you haven't rephrased in your own words. Any time you use the actual words from the source, even if you translate them from Spanish to English, you have to put them in quotes and attribute, unless you have rewritten the content in your own words. If you are translating a quote of someone else's words, you should put their exact words into the quote= field of the citation template, so others can check your translation. See the El Pais sample I gave you above. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have 3 quartile exams in a week and a half from now so I probably won't be able to get much work till then, with the recent ARBCOM thread being the focus of my wiki work until then. If that's too long a wait, that's understandable. I'll see what I can do afterwards. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking it up now :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have 3 quartile exams in a week and a half from now so I probably won't be able to get much work till then, with the recent ARBCOM thread being the focus of my wiki work until then. If that's too long a wait, that's understandable. I'll see what I can do afterwards. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some editors have the misconception that translation should be precise and exact, but then you get into plagiarism if you haven't rephrased in your own words. Any time you use the actual words from the source, even if you translate them from Spanish to English, you have to put them in quotes and attribute, unless you have rewritten the content in your own words. If you are translating a quote of someone else's words, you should put their exact words into the quote= field of the citation template, so others can check your translation. See the El Pais sample I gave you above. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate if you could expand on
- A.C. after I put so much effort into checking and cleaning up the citations and expanding for comprehensiveness when this was at FAC, I can't muster the interest to do it all again considering the nominator let it fall into disrepair. (I may be one of the highest editors there simply because of the cleanup I did because I speak Spanish.) All I can offer is, be sure to add |trans-title when you translate titles, and see WP:NONENG (I usually add quotes to the citation, see the El Pais source here). And, remember to disambiguate common sources like El Nacional. And remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. The work here has to be fun, and doing this the second time around won't be for me; it's just disappointing after all the hard work I put into cleaning it up back in 2007. My other concern is that the significant amount of new scholarly material on this makes it a daunting task to incorporate all of it, especially with so few of us who speak Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update on progress: so far there have been no major changes except a few edits inserting questionable sources such as cristianosgays.com, a blog. A. C. Santacruz, I totally understand if you can't get to this article, but if not we should probably move to FARC. (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, buidhe. I thought I'd mentioned I haven't had enough time lately to really work on articles (health and family issues plus studies mean I don't have the clarity of mind or long spans of free time to really dig through sources) aside from small things here and there. Apologies for not saying so before. This should move to FARC and I'll see if I can work later in the year and renom, as I don't expect to really have much time until summer. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, per A. C. Santacruz (and restoring this article to FA status will be a huge effort). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, per A. C. Santacruz (and restoring this article to FA status will be a huge effort). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, buidhe. I thought I'd mentioned I haven't had enough time lately to really work on articles (health and family issues plus studies mean I don't have the clarity of mind or long spans of free time to really dig through sources) aside from small things here and there. Apologies for not saying so before. This should move to FARC and I'll see if I can work later in the year and renom, as I don't expect to really have much time until summer. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, considerable issues raised above, unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 06:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - need significant work. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.