Talk:Fortress of Humaitá/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I will take this review. I am sorry for how long you've had to wait. I've reviewed 60+ other articles, including some long and complex ones, and will review this article against the 6 good article criteria. I'll read over this article and have a think, then start the review in 2-3 days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing to review this, Tom. In case you'll have comments I am away in France on a flying course at the moment so I don't have access to my books, but I'll be back home at the weekend. Ttocserp 09:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Assessment
editRate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Very | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Some minor problems to be described | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Random samples of text checked - none found | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Checked | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Summary
editA fascinating article, you've clearly put a lot of work into this article and the layout and content reflects your enthusiasm for the topic. I will go through this article again briefly. There are a few areas that lack citations, impacting on verifiability, that will need citations. Other than that I see no other barriers to good article nomination. I am yet to: check for plagiarism, check some sources, and check images. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Doing... no copyright problems, no image problems. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Needing citations: --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- "and he understandably feared the machinations of his powerful neighbours."
- "Although Carlos López was astute enough to know when to back down, he resolved to make Paraguay immune to foreign attack in future."
- "chains twisted together, passed diagonally through a kind of brick tunnel. It was made fast to a windlass supported by a house about 100 yards from the bank. Nearer the battery stood a still larger capstan."
- "Lopez explained his seizure of the Brazilian ship by saying "with more candor than discretion" that only by a war could the attention and respect of the world be secured to Paraguay; that although Paraguay was a small power in comparison with Brazil, she had "advantages of position" that gave her an equality of strength; and that the Paraguayan troops would be already "fortified and intrenched" before the Brazilians could arrive in any considerable numbers."
- Thank you indeed Tom. I really appreciate it that you have taken all this trouble to check this.
- I have references for each of the four points you mention. (In fact two of them are covered by existing references, which goes to show I didn't put the footnotes in the right places.) I'll try to do these tonight. Ttocserp
- Hi Tom, I've finished these now. If you have any other points or queries, I'd be glad to address them, Thank you for the trouble you have taken already. Ttocserp 18:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your edits and responsiveness. This is a great article to read and I am passing it as a GA. I would guess this is probably the most thorough resource on this topic around, you should be proud of your work and I hope it is also a delight to read for interested readers. Well done, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Addit: I've added this to Wikipedia:Good_articles/History#South_American_history, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tom, I'm delighted.
- Any chance the coveted green cross symbol can appear at the top of the Arti le page? Ttocserp 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most definitely. From what I understand a bot will do it shortly.So maybe give it another 24 hours, and if not I'll add the coveted trophy myself.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Stil no coveted trophy! :=( Ttocserp 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Stil no coveted trophy! :=( Ttocserp 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)