# Talk:Patio 29

I have reviewed your page and found that is great except that it could use more sources. In good faith and in consideration of the new page tag I will hold off tagging and come check back in 48 hours. 
Sulfurboy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have reached this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here.
In general, initially I look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, and if so, if this can be resolved quickly by myself. If it looks like there may be significant and/or several minor issues, I'll open a GAR to see the extent of the problems. If it looks like there are sufficient concerns to put the GA listing in jeopardy, and that significant work is needed to resolve the concerns, I will notify the main contributors to the article, and put the GAR on hold. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned at the clarity of the prose. I started copy-editing, but I'm not clear in several places what is being said. ": six victims from Paine, Chile, into which a judge investigated" is not clear. What does "unmarked bodies" mean? Unidentified? Or unmarked graves? Or bodies with no injuries or marking? Or bodies with no identifying papers? "Stern suggests that new bodies discovered at Patio 29 in 1991 contributed to the reframing of the responsible soldiers on trial as criminals." "The examiners found multiple bodies stacked within coffins and some filled with bullets." The coffins were filled with bullets, or the bodies had been shot? "Skepticism about the matches' veracity emerged in 2003, and the institute's own DNA testing in 2005 revealed a project rife with mistakes and exaggerated certainty." the matches' veracity? exaggerated certainty? Rife is perhaps not a neutral word due to its use in tabloid journalism - frequent or regular might be more appropriate words. "at the prosecutor's behest" - which prosecutor? "...in 1991, an exhumation effort recovered 126 bodies and identified 96 through 2006" - does this mean that 126 bodies were dug up in 1991, and 96 of them had been identified by 2006?
It's not clear who was buried in the plot. I assume they were political prisoners. Is there more information on the identified bodies which might by used?
I suspect a period of copy-editing would help make the article clearer, and that may be enough; however, I'll do a full GAR, as the article is so hazy, just to see what work needs to be done.  SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit of a shady subject (clandestine burial, war crimes) so there hasn't been a lot of information published on what exactly happened. The "disappeared" assumes that they were taken for whatever reason (as a "political prisoner" if you prefer) and some of those put to death were buried here. If the sources don't specify, I don't think we should either. This said, I'll give it that stiff copyedit you requested this weekend and will clarify the vague parts based on the sources. I don't think the article is so hazy as to require a GAR, but that's your prerogative. czar ♔ 23:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I agree we shouldn't be making assumptions, I was wondering if among the sources there has been commentary or speculation regarding who the victims were. The GAR is not much effort, and if I get it done before the weekend, we can see just how much of a copy edit is needed, and where to best place the work so the weekend copy edit will have a clearer focus and target. I understand your concerns, and I'd like to reassure you that my aim is not to delist, but to keep the article listed, and that I am always willing to help out, and to keep a GAN or GAR open for as long as progress is being made. I regard a delisting as a failure on my part. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Patio 29/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Though this article has recently passed a GAN, I have concerns regarding the clarity of the prose. The article would benefit from a stiff copy-edit. I am conducting a full GAR to see if there are other issues which it would be useful to address at the same time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


### Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments on GA criteria
Pass
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Article is stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged and are relevant to article. There are three images, two of which are almost identical - one of the duplicates could be removed per advice at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. I suggest replacing the current lead image with the image of the plaque, and keeping the panorama. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Good inline citing to reliable sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Though it's not always clear what the prose is saying, I haven't detected any inappropriate interpretation. Statements appear to be based on the sources. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No section is overlong or overly detailed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Given the emotional and political sensitivity of the material, the article does well to maintain a neutral and factual tone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Query
Article complies with MoS - though the lead may need to be developed as the article is adjusted. We can return to the lead at the end. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Fail
Broad coverage. Looking at the sources I list below, I feel that there are aspects to this topic that are not fully covered. Some brief background information regarding the 1973 coup would be helpful - perhaps as the first section, including some details on the return of democracy in 1991, and the 1978 amnesty. The history section could have a paragraph on the public exposure of the burials, then the formal investigations, then the results of those investigations. The description of the site, along with the Memorial for the Disappeared, could be next. And then the response to the burials, the Rettig Report and the documentaries mentioned in the current Cultural influence section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Prose is not clear enough. A copy edit is taking place this weekend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


### General comments
Some reasonable English sources on this topic which may help with developing the article: Bioarchaeological and Forensic Perspectives on Violence, a clear and informative summary; Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects, useful information regarding the Rettig Report (which could be mentioned and linked in the article), and the 1978 amnesty law, which I assume is what is being referenced in the phrase "the reframing of the responsible soldiers on trial as criminals", as under the law, anything that happened prior to 1978 was forgiven so no soldiers could legally be held responsible; and Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public Space, useful information regarding how the Memorial for the Disappeared is used. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


### On hold
This is a fascinating and delicate topic which fully deserves a place on Wikipedia. Information has been collected from decent sources, and has been presented in a dignified and neutral manner. The article meets all aspects of the GA criteria excepting clarity of prose, and broad coverage. More details are needed to fully explore and explain what happened. The lead is OK, but tagged with a question mark as that is likely to need adjusting as the article is developed. Given that sources are available, and that the article is basically sound, I don't see that after a bit of work that the article's GA listing should be in jeopardy. Putting on hold for the standard initial even days, though that can be extended as need arises. I am willing to help out with copy editing, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe your concerns have been addressed. I think many of the topics mentioned for want of broadness are off-topic, but I added them anyway (though not more about the Memorial). The Forensic Medicine book got the date of the coup wrong and used "cemetary", so I'm not sure how much I trust it on the other details. And I'm not sure I trust the March 2014 Bioarchaeology book's "'No men Nescio' Latin 8". Anyway, I appreciate your detailed commentary on the article, but I can't help but feel that this time would be better spent on other articles. czar ♔ 23:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well done on being so prompt. I'll take a look. I'm not clear on your last sentence - do you feel this article is not worth my effort? I am a willing volunteer, so that's not a problem for me. If you feel it's not worth your effort, that's not a problem either - you are not obliged to do this. And if you'd rather work on something else, I'll be OK with finishing this off. Let me know, and I'll get on with it by myself. If I need any assistance, I can ask at one or other of the related WikiProjects. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be here. Let me know what you think czar ♔ 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Cool. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to reaffirm that I believe I've addressed all actionable concerns czar ♔ 06:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been paying attention to this one. I'll take a look today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember. This needs a bit of work to keep the GA listing. I know you want to keep the listing, so I intend to work on it rather than simply delist, but it looks a bit fiddly so it's one that I thought last time, and again this time, that it's one to come back to when I have a bit of extended time to work on it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
What are you looking for that hasn't been addressed? czar ♔ 17:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 The broad coverage, clarity of prose, and the image duplication, as indicated above. I saw that you changed images, but you swapped one image for a similar image, the issue therefore remains the same, in a very short article we have two images of the same thing. As I say, these are issues that can be resolved with a little editing. I gave some suggestions above, though I am OK with doing it myself. I think I may have some time tomorrow. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to do it but I need more specific examples of what you have in mind czar ♔ 16:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)