A fact from 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 30, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's " Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Mexico may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Shouldn't the title be "May 1, 2015, Jalisco attacks"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 27 external links on May 1, 2015 Jalisco attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Catrìona ( talk · contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with Done,
Fixed,
Added, Not done,
Doing..., or
Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make.
Catrìona (
talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The government's urgency to confront the CJNG intensified the month before, when the CJNG ambushed and killed 15 policemen in Jaliscowhich is background.
Perhaps a better name would be "the case for Harvard referencing"
@ Catrìona: Forgive me for stealing some of your thunder here, but I feel the need to write this.
To begin, there are 206 citations as of time of writing. This is excellent - the article is cast iron in its referencing and verifiability. What is not excellent is then having to scroll through the forest that is the "References" section. An article once faced by the same problem was Ludwigsburg Palace, my finest work. Here I've used short-form citations for every single reference, and divided by type and even source (though I think my own bibliography looks kind of messy). Thanks to SFNREF, my (currently) 133-long citation list can still be big, but condensed and therefore easier on the eyes.
Catrìona has pointed out how reading the article in-edit is also difficult because of the massive amount of citation syntax. Looking myself, I totally reaffirm that observation and add that there is an ocean of unused parameters in all that syntax. I come with two solutions, in addition to Catrìona's suggestion of stack-listing citations.
Additionally, removing all those unused parameters in the citation syntax will bring the article size down by a few magnitudes, I guarantee.
three levels of government--either use a different wording or add a note explaining what these are for the uninformed reader.
through several dirt roadsvia several dirt roads?
The vehicles drove with their headlights off to avoid the attention of Mexican Air Force and the Federal Police (PF), who were doing an air surveillance of the area in four helicoptersRecommend: ...to avoid detection by the Mexican Air Force...
the CJNG units opened fire at them from the ground"the CJNG unites opened fire" is sufficient. It's obvious from context that they were on the ground and what they were shooting at.
One of the helicopters, a Cougar EC725 carrying eighteen passengers, was hit on its tailobvious from the context that it was shot down, and it sounds almost as if being shot down was not directly related to the hitand shot downwith a Russian-made RPG-27 rocket launcher
The helicopter was shot six times and was hit twiceSuggest that you be more specific here. Are they using weapons other than the grenade launchers mentioned? If not, "Insurgents fired six missiles at the helicopter and hit it twice" would be better.
but they were unable to strike it with their RPG launchersSuggest "but they missed"
The CJNG gunmen thenObvious from the next sentence that they did not succeedmade their way to where the helicopter crashed andattempted to execute any remaining living passengers.
The government confirmed that they were planning to carry out a homage to honor the servicemen killed in the attackFirst, do you mean organizing a ceremony or building a physical memorial? It also might go better in the "Government and civilian reactions" section.
Morales suffered 70 degree burns in his bodyAs far as I know, there are only first-degree burns through third-degree burns. The source says that he suffered burns on 70% of his body; is that what you meant?
@ Catrìona: Hello! Seems like GOCE has concluded the copyedits. Please let me know what your next steps are in this nomination. Just FYI, I'll have limited access to Wikipedia starting Friday afternoon. Should be back on Tuesday, though I can probably respond through my mobile if there is anything urgent (on the fence whether I should take my laptop for my short visit to northern Mexico ). Cheers, MX ( ✉ • ✎) 04:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Made the stupid mistake of changing the title's name incorrectly. I wanted to put 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks. I've posted this error at the admin's noticeboard, see here. My bad. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A fact from 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 December 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 30, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's " Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Mexico may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Shouldn't the title be "May 1, 2015, Jalisco attacks"? The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 27 external links on May 1, 2015 Jalisco attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Catrìona ( talk · contribs) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with Done,
Fixed,
Added, Not done,
Doing..., or
Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make.
Catrìona (
talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The government's urgency to confront the CJNG intensified the month before, when the CJNG ambushed and killed 15 policemen in Jaliscowhich is background.
Perhaps a better name would be "the case for Harvard referencing"
@ Catrìona: Forgive me for stealing some of your thunder here, but I feel the need to write this.
To begin, there are 206 citations as of time of writing. This is excellent - the article is cast iron in its referencing and verifiability. What is not excellent is then having to scroll through the forest that is the "References" section. An article once faced by the same problem was Ludwigsburg Palace, my finest work. Here I've used short-form citations for every single reference, and divided by type and even source (though I think my own bibliography looks kind of messy). Thanks to SFNREF, my (currently) 133-long citation list can still be big, but condensed and therefore easier on the eyes.
Catrìona has pointed out how reading the article in-edit is also difficult because of the massive amount of citation syntax. Looking myself, I totally reaffirm that observation and add that there is an ocean of unused parameters in all that syntax. I come with two solutions, in addition to Catrìona's suggestion of stack-listing citations.
Additionally, removing all those unused parameters in the citation syntax will bring the article size down by a few magnitudes, I guarantee.
three levels of government--either use a different wording or add a note explaining what these are for the uninformed reader.
through several dirt roadsvia several dirt roads?
The vehicles drove with their headlights off to avoid the attention of Mexican Air Force and the Federal Police (PF), who were doing an air surveillance of the area in four helicoptersRecommend: ...to avoid detection by the Mexican Air Force...
the CJNG units opened fire at them from the ground"the CJNG unites opened fire" is sufficient. It's obvious from context that they were on the ground and what they were shooting at.
One of the helicopters, a Cougar EC725 carrying eighteen passengers, was hit on its tailobvious from the context that it was shot down, and it sounds almost as if being shot down was not directly related to the hitand shot downwith a Russian-made RPG-27 rocket launcher
The helicopter was shot six times and was hit twiceSuggest that you be more specific here. Are they using weapons other than the grenade launchers mentioned? If not, "Insurgents fired six missiles at the helicopter and hit it twice" would be better.
but they were unable to strike it with their RPG launchersSuggest "but they missed"
The CJNG gunmen thenObvious from the next sentence that they did not succeedmade their way to where the helicopter crashed andattempted to execute any remaining living passengers.
The government confirmed that they were planning to carry out a homage to honor the servicemen killed in the attackFirst, do you mean organizing a ceremony or building a physical memorial? It also might go better in the "Government and civilian reactions" section.
Morales suffered 70 degree burns in his bodyAs far as I know, there are only first-degree burns through third-degree burns. The source says that he suffered burns on 70% of his body; is that what you meant?
@ Catrìona: Hello! Seems like GOCE has concluded the copyedits. Please let me know what your next steps are in this nomination. Just FYI, I'll have limited access to Wikipedia starting Friday afternoon. Should be back on Tuesday, though I can probably respond through my mobile if there is anything urgent (on the fence whether I should take my laptop for my short visit to northern Mexico ). Cheers, MX ( ✉ • ✎) 04:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Made the stupid mistake of changing the title's name incorrectly. I wanted to put 1 May 2015 Jalisco attacks. I've posted this error at the admin's noticeboard, see here. My bad. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 17:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)