Talk:Exile and death of Pedro II of Brazil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs) 05:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The introduction is not sufficient. Please summarize like Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil or Legacy of Pedro II of Brazil. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Exile section does not speak about Pedro in anyway. Looking at Pedro II of Brazil#Last years, the emperor was living in exile in France for two years. Even that part is lacking in details especially for a former monarch living in exile. This should be covered in more detail here than in the main article but it doesn't seem to be even mentioned at all. This is more like a death and funeral article on Pedro II. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no celebration of the anniversary of his birth on 2 December, with the exception of a simple mass said while he remained in bed, and his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren in attendance" --- Either name his daughter and son-in-law in this sentence or link it in the later paragraphs. Linking daughter and son-in-law seems odd. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please rewrite the Death's repercussions section. This is entirely quotes from the sources. Mainly paragraph 1 and 2 in this section are problematic since they seem to take the quotes directly from the sources. Paragraph 3 and 4 are okay since they mainly list quotations from foreign media.

There is a disequilibrium in this article. It covers a little too much on the funeral.KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
User:Векочел, do you plan on making any edits on this article? Looking at the edit history you don’t seem to be the creator of the article. Do you have the sources and knowledge to make the recommended expansion? If not I’m going to fail this.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to, it may be some time before I make some more edits to this article. Векочел (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]