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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I signed up to review this article previously, but before I could complete the review another editor started the review process. So I am happy to get a second chance as I enjoyed reading the article when it was a nominee before. I shall start the review shortly. Meanwhile I am doing a little copy editing which I hope you don't mind. It helps me just to fix the little stuff as I go along, rather than present you with a long list of nitpicks. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Lecen. I see a few problems here; the user Belgrano is defending an unusual view that is not supported by reliable sources. Not getting into the discussion if it is right or wrong, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia therefore it should not contest or promote ideas that are not supported by well-known sources (be it primary, secondary or even tertiary). This has nothing to do with being neutral in a subject, even different points of view should be defended using reliable sources and the use of personal opinion is against the rules. In my opinion the discussion is just silly. I can see that the parties involved are passionate about the subject; nonetheless the reality is that the article has sources that are above the quality standard at Wikipedia.

Xtzou if you need help with the article or sources please let me know, I will be glad to help. Regards Paulista01 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Paulista, Historians cited by MBelgrano are absolutely representative of contemporary Argentine Historiography, José Luis Romero, Félix Luna and Tulio Halperín Donghi beign the mainstream; Pacho O'Donnell and Felipe Pigna well considered though discussed. You can find many others, but you won't find a best general representation of Argentine historiography than these. As for the views spoused by MBelgrano, there are not just one view, and they are not at all minoritary at least in Argentina. Quite the contrary. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comments 'I am beginning my review. In general, this is an excellent article and very well written. However, I do have come concerns.

Lead

• The lead is very clear and concise, However, per WP:LEAD, it does not adequately summarize the article. There should be summary statements for each major section.
• I tentatively added a couple of links, as (ashamed to say this) but I only have a very rough idea where countries are in South American and need all the help I can get to orient myself geographically. For example, I was reminded by info in a link that Uruguay is a landlocked country, something that becomes especially important when states are feuding.

Background section

• This is a very intense section for someone like me, and rather hard to follow. It is quite long and involved with many names, etc. I wonder it it could be summarized more. Perhaps info can be spun out into daughter articles. (This is just a suggestion.) It would be helpful to focus on the parts that are important, clear cut factors in the actual war.

The war begins

I had much less trouble following the remaining sections.

• However, I wonder about the TOC. Both The war beings and Allied invasion of Uruguay each have one immediate subsection. It would be better, in my eyes, if there were an overall heading, that encompassed the subsections (and sub subsections) for a clearer TOC, as the layout of the TOC determines importance. The outline should be clear. (I hope I am explaining myself here.) What is the point of a heading, if it is immediately followed by a subheading?
• A minor issue: in some places it says "seven ships", and in others it says "7 ships". I see why this is done (to maintain one kind of consistency), but I am pretty sure that the other kind of consistency is what is wanted.

Xtzou (Talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (I may add more later.)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review and for your constructive comments. I have rearranged the headings so that there is now no heading with only a single subsection. I've also changed the 2 lists to display numerals the same. I intend to look at the lead and to further summarizing the Background section tonight. There are other articles into which some of the material in this section might be offloaded, but the bulk of the information may need to remain until those are in better shape. Still, some simplification can likely be done. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make Astynax's words my own: thank you for making this review. You have mistaked Uruguay for Paraguay. The latter is a landlocked country while the former (as you can see on the maps at "allied invasion of Uruguay" is not. Nonetheless, I agree with you in every point that you've raised. I will make the background sections more simple and direct. I will also change the map that despicts the viceroyalty to one that show all the countries involved. Aside from that, there is anything left? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC

• Sorry for mixing up the countries. (I told you my lack of knowledge regarding South America was appalling!) I have one more suggestion:
• I wonder if you would consider putting a more informative picture/map in the infobox. The reason I ask is that when I hover over a wikilink I get an informative "snapshot" of the article. For example, when I hover over a country, I frequently can see a map or other informative picture without even having to click on the article. I think many use this method, as sometimes to click on an article means a long wait for the page to load. All the pictures in the infobox, while dramatic, are too small to see without clicking on them.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But all articles about wars have that kind of image on the infobox, that is, a grouping of several images. You believe we should change for another one? About the map, don't worry, I will add it to the article! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. If all articles about wars have that kind of image in the infobox, then certainly you should retain it. Xtzou (Talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the lead

I have rewritten the lead. There is material drawn from each major section of the article, and it is now presented in the order in which the info appears in the body of the article. Hopefully it is now a bit more clear. • Astynax ^talk 09:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other changes

I added another map that explains the border of the former viceroyalty as weel as the countries that were part of it and also presents Brazil. I also made changes to the text of La Guerra Grande and The Empire of Brazil reacts sections, by removing several not so important historical figures (at least to the background of the war), and making the text more direct and simple to follow. --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the changes. The article is much clearer to me now, though it still encompasses a great deal of information, none of which I knew before. Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Broad in scope

   B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]