Talk:Luisa Capetillo/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And I've finished my review! A well-done article overall, with just two small details noted below to be sorted out. Just give me a ping when you've had a chance to address them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like my comments have been addressed so I’m happy to pass this review! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• Image licenses check out. I particularly like the photo of the reader, it adds great context to the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• The lead and the article are inconsistent about whether she started writing for the local paper in 1900 or 1904 -- which is it? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  1904, I believe. Fixing in the lead. Spookyaki (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• I have to confess, when I read a header titled "Gender and sexuality", I usually expect to read that someone was queer and/or gender-non-conforming/trans. It is a perfectly accurate title for that section, but what do you think of "Feminism and free love" instead? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, going with "women's rights and free love". Spookyaki (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• I finished a pass through the prose and only made a very few minor changes. Wonderful work, as always. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• For the source check I looked at cites 10abcd, 20, 21, 34abc, 42ab, 93, 96, as numbered in this diff. I have one note below about cite 20, but otherwise everything verifies nicely without copyvio/close paraphrase. The overall reference list also looks good, lots of appropriate high-quality RS and no red flags. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
• For 20, the source says that at the Arecibo strike police threatened workers with dissolving their rallies with bullets -- I'd read that as meaning they threatened to shoot the striking workers, not that they actually did so. So I think this needs revision or re-sourcing: The strike in Arecibo was met with violence, with police shooting at striking workers during rallies ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  Going with Police threatened to shoot into the crowds of striking workers. Spookyaki (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.