Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/May Revolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. It's already a good article, and I have referenced all (or almost all) sentences and check the MOS point by point. Prior nomination here Cambalachero (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Partial support at co-ord's discretion, on A1, A2 and A3. I agree that the article meets the criteria in those respects, with a good range and use of sources. Only ref #220 needs work, but this shouldn't take a second to fill out properly. As regards A5, usage is good, but I haven't done a thorough copyright check. The chioce of public domain declaration at File:Invitación al Cabildo Abierto.jpg seems a bit odd, though. Would PD-art not be more appropriate? Perhaps I'm wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. As for the image, a simple hand-written text with no pretensions of poetry or literature is unlikely to receive copyright protection, thus the "Ineligible" tag (I'm admin in Commons, I have some idea about this). But PD-Old works equally well, so I included it as well. Even if a handwritten invitation could get copyright protection, this one would be expired anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments: I have taken a very superficial look at this as I found it a little difficult to engage with the article fully (more due to my lack of knowledge, but also because I'm feeling a bit crook at the moment and can't think straight). Anyway, I hope some of these suggestions will be helpful to you. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with;
  • in the interests of achieving a result for this ACR, I suggest contacting the reviewers from the last ACR and seeing if they are willing to re-review/discuss whether their previous concerns have been addressed.
  • there are no disambig links, ext links all work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace caused by the long table of contents. You might consider placing a limit on the table of contents so that it only displays level 2 headers. This could be achieved by adding "{{TOC limit|2}}" just below the lead (suggestion only, has no bearing on the review);
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports potential overlinked articles: criollo people, British invasions of the Rio de la Plata, Juan Jose Castelli, University of Saint Francis Xavier, Manuel Belgrano, Martin Rodriguez (politician), mutiny of Alzaga, Juan Jose Paso, Antonio Beruti, Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires, Upper Peru, Francisco Javier de Elio, Bartolome Mitre, Juan Bautista Alberdi. Please check if they are all necessary;
  • between the lead and the infobox there is a slight inconsistency. The lead says "took place May 18 to 25, 1810", but the infobox says "Date=May 25, 1810";
  • I suggest splitting citations and explanatory footnotes/notes, for example see: German battleship Bismarck, which is also currently under A-class review;
  • in References 166 to 168, the capitalisation of "independencia" probably should be "Independencia", that is assuming that it is the same work as "Luna, Independencia";
  • I suggest collapsing the May Revolution template at the bottom of the article for consistency with the other templates;
  • in the International causes section, is there a citation for: "Until then, Spain had been a staunch ally of France against Britain, but at this point Spain allied itself with Britain against France instead. Sevilla was eventually invaded, and the Supreme Central Junta was disbanded and replaced by a Council of Regency based in Cadiz"?
  • in the Legacy section, is there a citation for: "An image of the Cabildo during the Revolution appeared on the back of the 5-peso banknote of the former peso moneda nacional."
  • "the British war schooner HMS Mistletoe". In my experience, the prefix HMS is generally not presented in italics. It should probably be HMS Mistletoe;
  • same as above for HMS John Paris; should be HMS John Paris;
  • I think the block quotes should be presented with quotation marks, for instance in the Tuesday, May 22 section; this makes it clear that the words are being quoted;
  • please check for English variation. I found some inconsistency, for example "favor" (US) and "favourable" (British);
  • the ISBN for the Scenna work titled "Mariano Moreno" reports as potentially incorrect (using the Advisor script), could you please check that this is correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done (except the contact and the 2 refs, which I'm leaving for tomorrow). I removed some extra links, but most entries reported had very few links anyway. Have in mind that links in image captions and navboxes should not be counted, which may be what causes the false positives. The seeming inconsistency can be understood by further reading the article: the series of events took a week, but the key event (when the viceroy resigns) was on May 25. I left the "May Revolution" navbox uncollapsed and the others collapsed because it's the topic navbox, while the others are just about related topics; but I can close it if you think it's better that way. The use of quotation marks is rejected at WP:MOSQUOTE, I would like to use cquote (and I did at an earlier stage), but I accept the current preferred style. Yes, the ISBN of Scenna's work is correct. Finally, all footnotes are references, I did not use any explanation notes (and I don't like them, they disrupt the natural reading if they contain important info, and if it's not important to be mentioned in the text, then it's probably not important, period). The footnotes with longer texts than the others are the quotes: I include both the source and the quote in the original language. Cambalachero (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, interesting point about MOSQUOTE. You are indeed right. To be honest, I think that that is a strange policy, but I certainly won't hold that against the article. Fair call with the footnotes. I've added my support as you've addressed all my concerns. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried using <span style="font-size:90%;"> with the blockquotes as a means of distinguishing them from the main text. I've used this method with a few of my FAs. Feel free to revert! 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - the piece feels well researched and covers the period well. Minor bits:

• International causes: you link criollos, but in "National Causes" later you both link and explain what they are - I'd advise explaining what they are the first time you use the term, in this section.
• "Liberal ideas expanded" - expanded (which could mean an increase in the number of ideas, or their geographical expansion) or "spread", which could only mean the later?
• "either in Europe or at the University of Chuquisaca" - implies that the University isn't in Europe, but might be worth adding "...in X." at the end to make the location clear.
• "The May Week is the period of time in Buenos Aires " - I'm not certain, but I'd have thought "was" rather than "is" might read more naturally here.
• " He based his speech on two main ideas:" - repetition of "main" - you could perhaps say "key ideas" as an alternative.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done The expansion of liberal ideas was both ways, but I clarified it even more. Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.