Jump to content

Talk:José de San Martín/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I've now completed a very quick read of this article. It appears to be well referenced (but I've not checked any), well illustrated, readable and comprehensive, so it appears to have a good change of making GA by the end of this review. Consequently, a "quick fail" is not appropriate here.

I'm now going to go through the article in a bit more depth, starting at the Early life section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This is likely to take at least a day or so. Note: at this stage I'm reviewing against WP:WIAGA and I will be mostly concentration on any "problems" that appear as I go through the sections. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Early life -
    • unnamed subsection -
  • Looks compliant.
    • Military career in Europe -
  • Looks compliant.
  • South America -
    • Argentina -
      • unnamed sub-subsection -
  • Looks compliant.
      • San Lorenzo, Army of the North, Governor of Cuyo & Crossing of the Andes -

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These four sub-subsections look to be compliant.
    • Chile -
      • Battle of Chacabuco, Patria Nueva, Battle of Cancha Rayada -
  • These three sub-subsections look to be compliant.
      • Battle of Maipú -
  • Looks compliant.
    • Peru & Guayaquil conference -
  • These two subsections look to be compliant.
  • Later life -

...stopping at this point. To be continued later. Pyrotec (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks compliant.
  • Remains, Legacy & Lead -
  • These three sections look to be compliant.

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive & well illustrated article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Yes, much of it is from Galasso (2000), but other references are also used.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    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:
    Well illustrated with relevant and captioned images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status.

It does not appear to have gone through WP:PR, so I would suggest that as the next step. I also think that this article could have potential at WP:FAC.

Congratulations on having produced a "fine" article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]