Talk:Uruguay/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A generally well-written and comprehensive article, but there are serious copyright violations, dead links, malformed references and substantial usage of an unreliable source. (See below).

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No problems here. A well-written article, although personally I'm seriously concerned about the sometimes massive cut-pasting from US government public domain sources. I don't know if that's grounds for failing GA nomination (probably not), but it does not make this article seem very professional. It should not be too difficult to rewrite the material so that it's not a direct cut-paste.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Several uncited passages, unverifiable references (dead links), and heavy use of one unreliable source (see below).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Otherwise the article is very comprehensive, but lacks any general information about the education system.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems here.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problems here.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
A nice-looking article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Please see list of specific problems below. Please renominate after these problems have been fixed and every single copyright violation has been removed.

Specific problems:

References

ref 3 is a blog and therefore not reliable [1]
ref 8 (Background Note: Uruguay) does not link to where it should be. The correct URL is [2].
ref 66 is a dead link [3]
ref 57, 71, 95, etc. is a self-published website and therefore not reliable [4]
ref 101 is malformed
refs 15, 17, 18 are bare refs

Politics:

Paragaph beginning with "Uruguay adopted its current constitution in 1967..." - none of this information can be found in the given source. In fact, the source has next to no info about Uruguay.
Paragraph beginning with "For most of Uruguay's history the Partido Colorado has been..." - source is a dead link, so verification is not possible
"The legislative power is constituted by the General Assembly..." - the text is taken word-for-word from [5], which, as far as I can see, is not a public domain source. Therefore this is a copyright violation.

Administrative divisions:

The text is taken word-for-word from [6], which, as far as I can see, is not a public domain source. Therefore this is a copyright violation.

Climate:

"Frost is almost unknown along the coast. Both summer and winter weather may vary from day to day with the passing of storm fronts; a hot northerly wind may occasionally be followed by a cold wind (pampero) from the Argentine Pampas." - is taken word-for-word from Britannica
"Uruguay has neither a decidedly dry nor a rainy season." - same here

Agriculture:

"In 2010 Uruguay's export-oriented agricultural sector contributed to 9.3% of the GDP and employed a similar share of the workforce" - "similar share" is not exact enough. Agriculture's share of GDP is 9.3% and share of labor force is 13%.

Transport:

"The Administración de Ferrocarriles del Estado is the autonomous agency in charge of rail transport" - information is not found in the cited source last paragraph has no inline cite

Telecommunications:

This is an uncited chapter

Demographics:

I think the "health facts" list is misformed. It should be a normal list with no indentation. Also there should be more explanation (just "health facts:" seems too laconic)

Cuisine:

Three sentences starting from "Beef is fundamental to Uruguayan cuisine, and the country is one of the world’s top consumers of red meat per capita." - are taken word-for-word from britannica - a copyright violation.
Paragraph beginning with "Other Uruguayan dishes include..." has no reference

Sport:

"Football is the most popular Sport in Uruguay." - this is not found in the following ref. Although it may be common knowledge, a source should be easy to find.

Education:

the chapter does not have any information about Uruguay's education system. I think this is basic information every country article should have. It should be easy to insert a summary of Education in Uruguay here. Nanobear (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Uruguay[edit]

It seems that there is not an absolute rigor in the demographic description of Uruguay. Many Portuguese surnames are included erroneously in Spanish descent.

"Soza" from Sousa, "Magallanes" from Magalhães, Abreu, Pereira, Saraiva, among others, are only and original Portuguese surnames, despite the People who have them are (or not) of multiple descent, and most surnames similar to the two Iberian countries like Rodriguez (Rodrigues), Silva or Santos for example, were in past, and still we think they are, more numerous between the Portuguese or portuguese descent around the world that between the Spanish, if we compare the surnames of Portugal with those of Spain.

This fusion of multiple ancestries gives Uruguay a very interesting identity. And about this reference to the also Portuguese or lusitanic face of Uruguay, is just to remind that the accuracy is also important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this of course even if the majority of Uruguay are still of Spanish and of Italian descent, amongst many other Ethnicities. Only to put that the Portuguese blood and descent in the People of Uruguay can be much more numerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]