Talk:Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've done a quick read through a couple of times to get an overall "flavour" of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level. I'm, now working on the detailed review, and I'll be reporting mostly "problems", if and when I find them. This might take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, take your time. Also, thank you for reviewing it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
There are several instances of nouns not starting with a capital letter - Emperor - being one, when a specific Emperor is being discussed. I've corrected some, but possible not all.

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

While it is not a GA-requirement, but it tends to be a WikiProject requirement, this article would benefit from a Info box. There is one, {{Infobox royalty}}, for instance, in Pedro I of Brazil that could be copied across and the data amended.
I see from the See also section that this is one of a series on Pedro II of Brazil, I've now awarded GA-status to two of them, perhaps a navigation box could be used to indicate the series rather than the See also listing.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this longer article, as well as for doing a thorough job of reviewing and the list of suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you very much for taking your time to review the article. We are really grateful for what you've done. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]