Talk:May Revolution/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: •Felix• ^T 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• 1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Note: Vastly improved from previous review. Great job, nominator!

• 2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

Note: Overall the referencing is good. However, there were a few points for improvement that I noticed. For the 'In popular cultural section' there seem to be no references for the statements in the third paragraph or the list half of the fifth paragraph.

Also, notice this section: "The Assembly of Year XIII was intended to declare independence, but failed to do so because of other political conflicts between its members. However, it suppressed mention of Ferdinand VII in official documents. The supreme directors held an ambivalent attitude until the declaration of independence of 1816."

There is no citation for the opinion (ambivalent attitude) in the last sentence above.

Also, Under “Friday May, 25” There are some massive paragraphs with a lot of information and facts but only one or no citations.

Last but not least, since I do not have access to some of the printed resources I cannot check, but do all of the non-English sources have translations in the references of footnotes? It seems that some of the same sources have translations for some references but not for others. See WP:NOENG

• 3. 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). ::Honestly this article is very, very long. It comes in at well over 100kb and over 30 pages when printed. While an article of this significance needs to be thorough and complete, this article I feel is a little too long; see Wikipedia:Article size. There are several sentences and statements throughout the article that could be deleted as they are repetitive, unnecessary, or extraneous. Perhaps some information in this article can be moved to other pages? Normally, splits are appropriate for very long articles like this, but I think that in this case simply shortening the article will be much easier and more appropriate. I will try to get a second opinion on this.

Still might need to be trimmed down if you aspire to FA status, but acceptable for now. •Felix• ^T 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• 6 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.

Decisions

Putting article on hold for seven days or until all points are addressed. •Felix• ^T 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it MBelgrano (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have completed all missing references. I have replaced the "ambivalent attitude" thing by a more specific explanation. I have also moved some portions to other articles, but have in mind that the size you saw (147,852 bytes) includes the complex references. Check here, the bare text of the article, without references, wiki code, images, lists, etc. The size was nearly 73 KB, and with my recent moves it has been reduced to 65 KB, not very far away from the accepted values. Have in mind as well that Argentine readers may accept less than this, because most of this is basic knowledge from the school, but most non-Argentine readers are unlikely to know anything about any of the things explained here (save for the international context), and the article should still need to be understood on its own. MBelgrano (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I am awarding this article GA status. •Felix• ^T 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for pointing the issues that needed correction MBelgrano (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)