# Talk:Cálice

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cálice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 04:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Barbalalaika (talk · contribs) 15:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me reviewing this one as well (we're currently working on Sobrevivendo no Inferno). I'm very fond of this song and like what I've read so far! Won't be as fast as last time but will aim for a review until the end of the month. Barbalalaika (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Comment: I copyedited minor things but notably moved the first sentence of the second paragraph under "Writing and Structure" up to be the first sentence of the first paragraph. I felt like it served better as the introductory sentence. I also incorporated the discussion on "Como beber dessa bebida amarga?" in the first paragraph, since the theme is still similar to wine and blood. As always feel free to contest.

Below are two cases in which I'd like your input:
The section on how the word play came to be can be worded more carefully. As it stands, it seems like Gil had the idea of criticising dictatorship even before Buarque recognised the homophony, because of the sentence "(...) which parallels the suffering experienced under authoritarian rule". According to the source, the idea of censorship came only after Buarque had his eureka. This information can be presented with more nuance.
Rephrased Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion about the contrast between the "filho da santa" and "filho da outra" is glossed over too quickly, and I don't understand how these words relate to patriarchal and authoritarian structures. Your source explains very well what institution the "santa" and the "outra" are, and what "outra" means. This information can be transfered here.
Done Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Comment:
The lead section could be expanded to represent more of each section. I'm missing some of the composition background and reception.
Done Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
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): 
Comment: The source from Library University is problematic for some reasons. Besides being a controversial institution due to their stance on LGBT rights (you can decide if you want to work with that) and being highly biased when it comes to religious themes, that particular citation comes from an undergraduate thesis. I wouldn't call the student a scholar, and while PhD and post-doc theses have some degree of accreditation to show for them, the quality of an undergrad thesis is less reliable. Please change the source or drop the sentence.
I cut the translated/undisguised part, and I replaced the source for the "de vinho tinto de sangue" verse. Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

C. It contains no original research:  Comment: In this sentence: "(...) a homophone of the imperative verb cale-se ('shut up'), a word with a clear connection to censorship imposing silence and victimization." - I couldn't get access to the source, does it also use a word similar to "clear"? Otherwise I'd remove it.
Yes. The source says: "The fulcrum is the word cálice (cup, chalice), which is pronounced exactly the same as cale-se (shut up!), an imperative with a clear connection to censorship, imposed silence, gag orders, and victimization." Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Comment: Great use of the audio file. I'm missing one or two images to ilustrate the article, which isn't a GA requirement, but always welcome. Definitely one of Chico Buarque - a current one, but this one also seems great for the background.
Done Cattos💭 21:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Comment: Will be happy to pass it once the comments are addressed. Barbalalaika (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: The article was already in a very good state and the editor adressed all further, minor concerns appropriately. I'm comfortable giving it GA status. Barbalalaika (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)