Talk:Emos vs. Punks/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: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk · contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

¿Qué tal? This has been awaiting a review for a few months, so I think it's about time that a reviewer, especially a Spanish-speaker, gives it the time of day. I'll begin reviewing this shortly. — ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Images

Only one image in the article, an aerial photo of the Glorieta de los Insurgentes. Licensing appears to check out.

Sources

All sources are newspapers, magazines, or web sources, all appear reputable. I can access all sources except the Rolling Stone article, which is only used once and its claims are supported by two other sources, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Prose, grammar, etc.

Lead

• In the infobox, the date range is given as "2008–2009". Glancing through the rest of the article, I saw no mention of any clashes or anything else occurring in 2009.
• "Emos vs. Punks were multiple confrontations that occurred in 2008 in Mexico between emos and anti-emo groups (mainly punks)." Does the identification of punks need to be in parentheses? I think it would read better as "Emos vs. Punks were multiple confrontations that occurred in 2008 in Mexico between emos and anti-emo groups, mainly punks." Not a mandatory change, but a suggestion.
• "In Mexico City, emos first gathered at the Tianguis Cultural del Chopo..." Link Mexico City.
• "In March 2008, a group of emos was attacked in the capital city of Querétaro." Either link Querétaro (city) with the text as-is, or just say the city of Querétaro or Querétaro City or Santiago de Querétaro. Whichever you prefer, but the specific city should be linked.

No other issues here.

Emo subculture in Mexico

• "The emo subculture emerged in Mexico around 2001." The Guardian article used as a source says it emerged "around six years ago". Six years before 2008 would be 2002, no?

Anti-emo groups

• A quandary about the Raczyñski quote. The English translation includes the word "bullshit" a few times. And it makes mention of 15-year-olds "who have barely made it through puberty". I checked the Milenio article, and while the language seems quite inflammatory, some of the specific language used is not present. Unless the Milenio article censored the speech a bit? Or Spin editorialized? Is there footage of what Raczyñski said?

• The Spin link includes the full quote; I simplified it because of copyrights.

• "Anti-emos sentiment grew hostile..." Shouldn't that be "Anti-emo"? And should it be "sentiment" or "sentiments"?
• "Online anti-emo groups emerged, including Movimiento Anti Emosexual and Anti Emo Death Squad, the latter hosted on Last.fm." For the reader who is too lazy to check the source, you might want to explain what "emosexual" means.
• Not a necessary inclusion, but the article by Brand and O'Boyle mentions issues of class and globalization, which may be worth including. I only bring it up because this section talks about homophobia and machismo from the Guzmán and Wells articles.

  Added

No other comments here, aside from the fact that if the sources didn't support this, I'd assume it was made up. "Anti Emo Death Squad" is a name I never expected to be real.

Confrontations

• "In Tijuana, emos were warned not to attend the city's fair the following month." Unless I missed it, I didn't see Tijuana mentioned in the Exclaim! article. Also, who issued the warning? The government?

• Corrected the source.

Aftermath and legacy

• "In Mexico City, they attempted to return to the El Chopo market, but were blocked by anti-emos groups." Again, should this not be "anti-emo groups"?

• All fixed

• "The events were referenced in an episode of La rosa de Guadalupe." When?

Overall

• No edit wars.
• All information is sourced.
• Article is written from a neutral point of view.
• Accessible sources are reliable.
• Coverage is appropriately broad.
• Categories are suitable.

@Tbhotch: Overall, a very interesting and well put-together article. I shall put the review on hold to allow you to address my concerns. Afterwards, it should pass the criteria listed below.

@ThaddeusOrlando55: Thank you for the review. I have added/changed the concerns. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 21:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

@Tbhotch: My concerns have been addressed, and the article meets the criteria. I will be passing it accordingly. Felicidades. — ThaddeusOrlando55 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 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.