Talk:Carlos Scharff/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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking the time to do this!

==Prose==

I have fixed the surname issue I believe, and there has also been clarification added to the Spanish terms via notes.

==Points==

• Upper River capitalization has been fixed
• The border conflict between Brazil and Peru occurred near the end of the Acre War however they are not related events besides the fact that military resources were divided between the two conflicts.
• Information regarding the guerrilla war has been changed.
• The beginning paragraph for the 1904–1905: At Curanja section has been changed, I hope that reads a lot better.

==Refs==

These are mostly fixed by now,

==Images==

I meant to reply yesterday however I am not familiar with the process of changing the licensing to public domain! Arawoke (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all, there's no rush. I checked through some of the points, so I just need to finish looking over the prose and check the refs. I think after I go through and copyedit a little it should be "reasonably well written", but I'd reccomend booking the article in for a glowup at the WP:Guild of Copyeditors.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten through the rest of the article, and randomly checked through some of the refs - I'm happy that it's well referenced, so that's checked off. The article should definitely be put into the Guild of Copyeditors, but I think that it's passable.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey Arawoke! I did say that I'd give some feedback on the article, so I guess this kind of fulfils that?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  12:56, 19 November 2023 (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):

   See below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig comes up with ~15%, which looks to be quotations. See below

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.:

   Can't see any 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):

   All images are relevant, captions seem fine to me. For licensing, see below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Points

Prose

It'll take me a bit to work through all of this, so I'll do 1a below later. Regarding 1b - the article is almost entirely fine, but I think it could do with a run through to remove our words to watch - I noticed a fair few examples of words like "claim" or "reportedly" being used where they shouldn't be etc. I'm going to do a minor copy edit on the article to fix minor punctuation grammar &c, so I'll remove the entirely superfluous ones, and I'll point out any you've missed after you've gone over it.

Some general observations:

• When referring to figures for a second or further time, only use their surname (unless multiple figures are related and have the same surname).
• Close to all of the Spanish terminology in the article needs English definitions - I've added tags.

Points

• The "Aftermath" section should be renamed to "Legacy".
• The response towards the Piro inquiry regarding who had initially started the fighting on the Purus River, the answer is disputed between "Scharff or Cardoso da Rosa to 'the Peruvians' or 'the Brazilians,' - I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Can you rewrite it? Also, what's the Piro inquiry? Why the quotation marks?
• Be consistent in the capitalisation of "upper/Upper Purus"
• is " conflict between Peru and Brazil" referring to the Acre War? if so, wikilink
• I think that In response to perceived Peruvian aggression in the Purus and Yurua area, five hundred Brazilian soldiers were sent to the region. The Brazilian government also decided to restrict access to steamships heading towards Loreto and Iquitos. According to Hecht, Brazil had "closed the upper Amazon to trade, especially munitions destined for Peru," and two steamships that were filled with ammunition and weapons were seized by Brazilian authorities around that time. There was a guerrilla war waged throughout the region, which brought about the destruction of rubber stations, outposts that collect firewood, and domiciles in the area. The conflict also instigated crimes within the area such as rape, torture and murder against the inhabitants of the opposing side's rubber stations. is a bit tangential to the information specifically about Scharff, I would remove it and combine the next paragraph. Perhaps add a single phrase to sum up the conflict as guerilla warfare, but I think that that this paragraph for simple context is excessive.
• A 1904 census found that there was a population of 10,852 inhabitants distributed throughout 150 rubber barracas along the upper Purus. The year before, there was an estimate of around one thousand caucheros along the Curanja River. At the time of the census, there were four hundred Peruvians documented as working in the region.Most of these Peruvians were spread throughout the area in small outposts. feels a bit off, since the comparisons don't seem equal. Which area is "the area" - the upper Purus or the Curanja? Same applies to "the region". Can you rephrase it so that we're comparing Purus-Purus, or Curanja-Curanja, or something else that is consistent.

Refs

Refs are well formatted, I tend to do spotchecks last. One thing that stuck out to me is that several of the explanatory notes aren't referenced; they need to be.

Images

All the images are relevant to the article, but they don't all have the correct licensing tags. To me, it looks like they should all be public domain (too early to be CC haha) - can you add the tags, and perhaps the lifespans of the photographers for the non anonymous ones? Also, I saw that you've got a peer review open, so this isn't needed for GA, but if you're looking to get the article to FA, then you should add alt-text to all the images.

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.