Talk:Treaty of the Triple Alliance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Magic♪piano 14:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article has grammatical errors and spelling errors. It should be copyedited by a third party after factual issues are addressed. Also, see below on structural issues.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Article lead is not a summary of the article contents.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Paragraphs under "Content" are almost completely uncited. Major source is in a foreign language; English sources (e.g. this one) exist and should be consulted; see WP:NONENG.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources are accepted as reliable; article appears to agree in large part with English language sources I was able to locate for comparison.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See below.

   B. Focused:

   See below.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is heavily dependent on a single source, making it difficult to assess balance. Some effort appears to have been given to represent the interests of each signatory country, but Paraguayan opinion is not. (When did the Paraguayan government learn of the treaty's terms, and when were they made public?)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   One image only. Article could use a few more, perhaps signers (if images are available of them) or Lopez.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Factual issues

I am not well-versed in South American history, so this and related articles could be quite informative. However, I find this article to be lacking in significant background and detail, which I would expect at least some more of to satisfy 3a and b. Some specific things that I would expect to be present in a broad article on a treaty that are missing here:

• reason for the treaty (in this case, Paraguayan aggression appears to be a major motivating factor -- is it the only one?)
• circumstances surrounding the negotiation, including the individuals involved (according to this source, the treaty was negotiated in a rather hurried way, for example)
• positions staked out by the participants (or their expectations prior to the negotiations)
• a description of all of the treaty's provisions (only some of the articles are described -- others should at least be described in summary form)
• given the secret nature of the treaty, when it was made public, and any notable consequences of doing so

Other issues of fact:

• the current text implies that the treaty was signed before hostilities broke out; given that it appears to have been signed after hostile acts by Paraguay against both Brazil and Argentina, this should probably be clarified.
• the paragraph on territorial disputes dating to independence of Argentina and Paraguay should specify their respective dates of declaration and acknowledgment of independence -- it is somewhat confusing as currently written.

Structural issues

The section headed "The Treaty" is unnecessary, since the treaty text is not in this article. I would recommend uploading the treaty text to Spanish Wikisource; if an English translation exists (that meets Wikisource guidelines) it should be uploaded to English Wikisource. Links to the treaty text should be in "Further reading", "References", or "External links".

The section "Fulfilment of the Treaty" is probably better called "Consequences", and should include a brief summary of the war before going into the later treaties.

I would identify the treaty by its Spanish name (as well as the English title) in the infobox.

Status

I think the above deficiencies represent a substantial amount of work, and I suspect other reviewers would fail this article. However, I'm a good guy -- as long as I see reasonable progress being made on addressing my concerns, I will leave it on hold. Magic♪piano 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no substantive editing since my review about two weeks ago, I am closing it as failed. If the article is renominated for GA and you would like me to perform a second review, please leave a message on my talk page. Magic♪piano 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)